Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 3, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:31

Ep 235: THE LAST SUNDAY SHOW BEFORE THE ELECTION! Breaking Down What is on the Ballot! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, people.
	This is going to be a test.
	We're going to see if...
	I'll tell you...
	Okay, I'll tell you in a second.
	Right now, just watch the video.
	I need you guys to know that when you see celebrities, influencers, musicians, whoever, promoting Kamala Harris, it's because they're paid.
	And I know because they've approached me three times now.
	They always come in with the same offer.
	We want you to promote Kamala.
	We want you to say these talking points.
	And then I see a celebrity like Chrishell from Selling Sunset with a copy-paste of that exact email.
	And then she posts, looking like super hot in a picture.
	But nobody puts paid posts underneath these.
	Propaganda! I don't know how it's not considered illegal to do that when it's the election.
	When any other time, if we're not making it obvious that we're promoting something we're paid to promote, we could get in trouble.
	The last offer I got from Kamala Harris's team was $25,000, I believe, for just a couple stories on my Instagram.
	And I had some other really big offers and I decided to not take any of them.
	With a few days left to the election, I just couldn't think to myself, we are this close to having a healthy...
	To getting us out of this freaking pharmaceutical haze that we've been in, to get us healthy food again, to get the pesticides off of our food.
	These are things we could fix in my lifetime.
	I couldn't do it.
	I couldn't do it.
	I couldn't take the money.
	It felt like blood money.
	I fuck with RFK Jr.
	Everything that he's saying is correct.
	It's right.
	And as someone who went through the medical system and spent years of my life disabled when I probably didn't need to if I had proper care, I can't stand by.
	Other people suffer.
	I couldn't do it.
	I'm going to tell you one thing, people.
	This is what a pure soul I am.
	I didn't see her chest the first time I watched this.
	And then I'm like, I'm looking at the comments.
	I'm like, what's everyone talking about?
	And then I go, and then I see what everyone's talking about.
	We're going to see if this gets flagged by YouTube.
	And I'm not trying to make fun.
	She obviously wore that shirt on purpose.
	There's no problem with people dressing the way they want.
	I was actually, I'm in a mall, and I'm listening to what...
	Nicole Arbor is saying about this.
	And then I see what people were commenting about.
	I did not share this video for that particular reason.
	I shared this video because I actually reached out after this because she's confirming what we all knew.
	That these celebrity hacks, these paid influencers, are being paid to push Kamala propaganda.
	I mean, and we all know it.
	Kamala Harris is the most phony, insincere, manufactured, non-existent candidate in the history of politics, at least in my life.
	So I'm listening to that, and it was just hilarious.
	I figured, Nicole Arbor, set aside what everybody thinks of her.
	I know some people have their issues with her, and I don't really know enough of any history to know what anybody's talking about.
	She... She's confirming what we all know, that it's a manufactured Mockingbird candidate, a Manchurian candidate with a Mockingbird media, just manufacturing consent because, but for the media hype and these paid influencers to come out and say, ah, I'm on team, come out.
	Krasensteins, the Sissons, I mean, the finest examples of masculinity, if that's where we're going with this.
	Who else?
	I tagged some dude.
	I don't even know who the hell he is.
	Some white dude telling women who to vote for.
	Ironically enough, exactly what the Democrats are saying Republicans are doing.
	But Nicole Arbor is confirming what we all knew.
	That it's paid influencers being paid by this Kamala Harris campaign to like her.
	Because Kamala Harris has to pay people to like her.
	People pay to go see Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
	Kamala Harris has to pay people to like her and has to trick people into showing up to campaign events to show support.
	All right, people.
	Tonight, we're going to have an interesting show.
	First of all, I apologize for the confusion coming in.
	I didn't realize I set the stream up for 6.30.
	And then I see people saying, oh, what's up?
	It's starting at 6.30.
	And I thought they were talking daylight savings time because today's daylight savings time.
	My bad.
	And I realized I had to manually change the time in all three separate platforms, YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I probably should have made sure that before we get any further, we are live across all of the platforms.
	Viva Barnes Law Extravaganza, Sunday night show.
	Let me hear the audio here.
	Audio's beautiful.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Are we live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	We are.
	And we're live on Commitube, where we will not be staying forever.
	For those of you who are new to the channel, there might be a number of people who are new because trying to fight the YouTube censorship algorithm, I mean, I love a challenge.
	It's obvious that there is suppression, that there are favorites, there are people who get inorganically promoted.
	I say this not out of jealousy, it's just the rules of the game, and I know that I'm playing by these rules, and I can't complain.
	You just notice it.
	So there might be some new people here tonight because yesterday, deep breath, I put out a video talking about the murder of Peanut and Fred the Raccoon.
	Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon.
	And it does well when things get into the algorithm on YouTube until they realize, oh, that's Viva Fry and then we've got to now kill the traffic on that and whatever.
	So there might be some new people here.
	For all new people in the house, we start on Commitube.
	We start on Rumble.
	Twitter and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	After a little bit, we're going to end on Commitube and go over to Rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And then we have our vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty, where everyone is above average, a wonderful community.
	Tonight we're talking election stuff.
	Can you believe it, people?
	I'm having not shortness of breaths, probably drinking too much caffeinated beverages and the ensuing anxiety.
	We're 48 hours now from when they start closing election booths, I think.
	I don't know.
	I don't want to get arrested and convicted and sentenced.
	I don't know what time they close voting at the easternmost point.
	We are 48 hours from the evening where we find out what direction America is going to take.
	And I can't believe it.
	It's two more sleeps, people.
	We're talking about this in our local community.
	Two more sleeps.
	And then we find out the...
	Trajectory of the Future of these United States of America.
	So tonight, I'm going to talk about some interesting, you know, law stuff and the fun stuff.
	So I'm going to go through some fun videos in a second.
	But we're going to go through a lot of the amendments that are on the ballots in various states.
	Amendment 3 and 4 in Florida.
	There are abortion ballots on various, abortion amendments on various ballots, various states.
	We're going to go through all of that.
	What did I start with tonight?
	I started with Nicole Arbor.
	It was either we start with something...
	That will not upset many people's eyes, except for the prudish out there, and I say that without judgment.
	Or we start with something that's going to make you want to vomit.
	So I figured we'd start with the good stuff, and then we're going to get to the stuff that's going to make you want to vomit.
	Have you all heard the latest gaffe by Joe Biden?
	He just wants to smack people in the ass.
	Anybody who has had disciplinarian parents, you know that every now and again they say, When we grew up, my hand's getting nervous.
	You get a little spanking if you're a little too rude.
	And my hand's getting nervous.
	You do not get an old, demented fart like Joe Biden to say something like this unless it's something that you know he has said multiple times in his life.
	And I can envision Joe Biden as the...
	It's my personal opinion.
	I believe him to be a pervert.
	I believe his daughter's words when she says it.
	I can envision Joe Biden as an angry...
	An abusive father saying, you say that one more time, I'm going to smack you in the ass.
	And if you have any doubts, just apply this.
	Mutatus, mutatus.
	This is his latest gaffe.
	Talking about how he wants to smack Donald Trump in the ass, but look at his demented, satanic face as he says it.
	We're investing, my crown, investing $100 billion to build them.
	It's the kind of investment that won't just lift up labor.
	It's going to lift up everybody.
	It's going to grow the economy.
	They want to get rid of it.
	They want to get rid of it.
	We heard you the first two times.
	Look, why?
	Cheaper labor overseas, man.
	Cheaper labor.
	There's one more thing Trump and his Republican friends want to do.
	Listen to this.
	They want another giant tax cut for the wealthy.
	Now, I know some of you guys are tempted to think it's macho guys.
	I'll tell you what, man.
	When I was in Scranton, we used to have a little trouble going down the plot once in a while.
	When I was in Scranton, we used to have a little trouble going down the plot once in a while.
	I don't even know what that means, but I've also never been in a fight in my entire life.
	Look at this.
	These are the kind of guys you like to smack in the ass.
	It's horrific.
	It's actually scary.
	And then the buffoons in the audience cheering this on.
	This is like the idiots that cheered on Hillary Clinton when she referred to...
	They fit into what I call a basket of deplorables.
	You got your racist, bigots, misogynists, xenophobes, you name it.
	And then the crowd...
	Not really understanding what this woman is doing to her campaign.
	Cheers it on because it feels so good to say it and it feels so good to get the adulation of a, in this case, violence-supporting crowd of sycophants.
	Look at his ugly, ugly face.
	What is up with that?
	Anyhow, look at this.
	This is what you would see in Satan's lair.
	This is the face of...
	A demon before it eats your soul.
	And why is his face drooping so much more on the right than on the left?
	A scowl.
	I try not to get consumed by...
	It's not hatred anymore.
	Now it's just disappointment in the world.
	Disappointment with the political elite.
	But listen to...
	And you know that he has said this to his children multiple times in his life.
	And he's probably done it.
	If we listen to the words of Ashley Biden in her diary.
	But I'm serious.
	This is the kind of guy you like to smack in the ass.
	I mean, I think he meant smack in the face and kick in the ass unless he's into smacking the asses of other dudes.
	Nothing wrong with that if that's what you're into.
	But this is like...
	Do that again.
	I'm going to smack your ass.
	This is an abusive, demented old man who's letting his colors shine right now.
	Much to the joy of the joyous Kamala Harris campaign.
	This dog, man.
	But don't worry.
	We're not done yet.
	But latest gaffe.
	I mean, they are going to retire this man from the campaign.
	Well, I mean, the campaign's over in two days anyhow, but I've predicted that this guy's...
	He's resigning.
	He's not finishing his term because this is just a liability for America.
	Can you imagine Putin looking at this ugly, demented face, this senile buffoon, and understanding that, admittedly, there's some sort of deeper administration that's allowing America to...
	Continue to exist.
	It's a captainless ship that is obviously being steered by a military-industrial complex, a deep state, uniparty, whatever you want to call it.
	Laughingstock of the world.
	America has become the laughingstock of the world under this regime.
	Disgusting, disgusting, terrible.
	Terrible, terrible, terrible.
	But don't worry, we got more also, by the way.
	Speaking of, people don't think about what they're saying.
	They don't hear the words in their own mind before they say them.
	Sometimes I flub and sometimes I say things that don't come up properly and then I catch them and I correct them.
	It's either a blessing or a curse.
	I hear the words in my head before they come out of my mouth.
	It's not a blessing or a curse that the likes of Nanny Bang or Doug Emhoff suffer from.
	Kamala did what Kamala always does.
	She just put her head down and she went to work.
	Kamala did what Kamala always does.
	She just put her head down and she went to work.
	Kamala did what Kamala always does.
	She just put her head down and she went to work.
	That is so gloriously bad.
	That is courtesy of Libs of TikTok.
	It's fantastic.
	But look, it's not all fun and games, people.
	We're going to get to some other more irritating stuff in a second.
	Remember we once talked about Monica Lewinsky on the channel?
	I don't remember when it was, and I don't actually remember the exact context.
	But there were people floating around the idea that Monica Lewinsky was never actually sexually exploited by Bill Clinton.
	Because I was inclined to believe, and I do believe that...
	I believed her story.
	I believe that any...
	President of these United States of America that is engaging in sexual activity as a married man in the Oval Office with an intern who is in her 20s, if that, is engaging in some sort of abuse of power, and it's immoral, and I suspect it might be illegal in certain jurisdictions.
	Then some people in the chat were saying, Viva!
	Monica Lewinsky is a Mossad plot, blackmail type thing, and she was sent in to get blackmail material on Bill Clinton.
	And I never really, you know, I don't laugh it off as a possibility.
	Just never put much stock into that theory.
	That stock just went up quite a bit, for those of you who don't know.
	Monica Lewinsky tweeted this out.
	You've got the power.
	I voted.
	Let me see something here.
	Can we see it?
	You vote?
	No, yo vote.
	Yo, vote.
	Whatever, she voted.
	Okay, good for her.
	Who'd she vote for?
	Close this.
	Please vote.
	Red, white, and blue heart emojis.
	So cute.
	Preferably like I did for Harris Walls.
	I made a joke.
	I was like, hey, Monica, in my replies, congratulations on your big decision.
	We should crack out a cigar to celebrate your insanely idiotic decision.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Too soon?
	Too soon, Monica?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You might have forgotten.
	Now I'm inclined to think that she was, in fact, not telling the entire truth about having been sexually abused by Bill Clinton and then having been destroyed by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party.
	I'm starting to think that she actually might have been a willing player in this, potentially for blackmail purposes, for foreign intelligence to, I don't know, extort foreign policy from current sitting or, in Bill's case, laying back presidents.
	Can you imagine?
	Monica Lewinsky, who came out during the hashtag MeToo, because I guess she wanted some of that sympathy action.
	It says, MeToo.
	I was sexually abused and I was exploited by Bill Clinton.
	Then I was brushed under the rug and had my life destroyed by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party.
	But I'm going to go ahead and vote for them now.
	Monica Lewinsky is going to vote for, or has announced that she's voting for, the tyrant that is Tim Walz.
	The nanny banger, Doug Emhoff.
	She's technically not an infidel.
	She's not the adulterer.
	She is the paramour.
	Kamala Harris, a paramour who had a relationship with a married man 40 years her senior to further her career, who is now being endorsed by the other nanny banger, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	This woman is now supporting that party that is basically the party of immorality and degeneracy, who tried to ruin her life, but I guess she forgot.
	Unless it never actually happened the way she said it did, and she wasn't a hashtag MeToo, and it was part of some intelligence operation.
	But there you have your irony of the day.
	Alleged MeToo victim, Monica Lewinsky, voting for the party of degeneracy that abused her, exploited her, and allegedly, you know, tried to destroy her life.
	We'll get to some more in a bit here.
	So let me get to some chats here.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	It's unnerving to know that the fate of the planet will be determined in a couple of days to potentially a few weeks.
	Shenanigans are underway, and I genuinely worry the worst may happen, but I'll pray good wins.
	Do not be black-pilled.
	I'm convinced there's two theories to what's going on in the markets.
	And I shared it on our VivaBarneslaw.locals.com community.
	The markets have swayed wildly for no good reason.
	Except that every election, you can have whomever, quite clearly.
	You could have John Fetterman as the candidate for the Democrats, and it would still be 50-50.
	I made the joke.
	You could run a non-existent candidate.
	You could run an animal.
	And just so long as you never show the picture of the animal so that Democrats don't know they're voting for an animal, Peanut.
	Vote for Peanut.
	Trust me, he's a great guy, Peanut.
	He's smart, good-looking, just he doesn't like cameras very much, so you're never going to see a picture of him.
	He's only going to participate in audio calls on Twitter spaces.
	He won't do any debates.
	Peanut. Vote for Peanut.
	They'd vote for Peanut if they didn't know that Peanut was an animal, and I still think that a great many Democrats would vote for Peanut even if they knew he was an animal.
	You could put John Fetterman in that candidacy, in that position for the Democrats, it would still be 50-50.
	So what might be happening now, everybody knows it's 50-50, and those who made their money by buying in on Trump when he was at 43 cents sold him at 60, and now the markets are stabilizing.
	Flip side, this might be some sort of, what do they call it?
	Astro-turfing, so that if and when there's the big steal, whatever, which I do not believe is going to happen, but flood the swamp as Ashley, oh, who said it on the, Cripe.
	Ashley St. Clair.
	Flood the swamps so that it can't be.
	But they're going to astroturf now.
	Kamala won.
	How could this have happened?
	Well, two days before the election, she was actually the favorite in the betting market.
	She made a surprising comeback after her Saturday Night Live appearance.
	So nothing to complain about.
	And then the flip side is it might be a good thing.
	Let the Democrats think this is in the bag and show up and vote on the 30th.
	We're going to get to Fetterman right now.
	Speaking of Fetterman being an absolute...
	The thing is this.
	Dude, I'm starting to think Fetterman was always a little off even before his stroke, but you understand why Kamala Harris could never have gone on Joe Rogan.
	This is not an adversarial confrontation right here whatsoever, but it is revelatory because these are concerns that Joe Rogan has had for a very long time.
	Let in a bunch of illegal immigrants, ship them to swing states, swing counties and swing states, expedite them through the citizenship process, grant them TPS and then grant them amnesty and then make them voting citizens, and you've turned swing states into blue states and you've turned America into a one-party country for the rest of the future until it turns into a Venezuela.
	So he's asking John Fetterman a very simple question about the immigration policy and the illegal immigration policy.
	Is it by design or is it by accident?
	And listen to this exchange.
	But didn't that deal also involve amnesty?
	And didn't that deal also involve a significant number of illegal aliens being allowed into the country every year?
	I think it was 2 million people.
	So it was still the same sort of situation.
	And their fear is exactly what I talked about.
	That these people will be moved to swing states.
	And that that will be used to essentially rig those states and turn them blue forever.
	Well, I'm not really sure if that's what's in play.
	I think it's really important that we have an honest conversation.
	But doesn't that seem logical, though?
	If you have a significant number of people that are being moved into swing states that have come across the border illegally, and then you've provided them with all these services, you've provided them with food stamps, EBT, you've provided them with housing.
	You could, if you gave those people amnesty and allowed those people to vote, and it was very organized, you're talking about 75,000 votes over a few counties that switched everything over to the Republicans?
	Pause it right here.
	Joe's face right now, this is a man who, he's a very polite man and a great interviewer.
	He knows that he's talking to a man who's full of shit.
	And these are the eyes of someone who has gone from a lefty-leaning blue Democrat to I'm too old for this shit and I see it for what it is.
	Listen to this.
	You could see how you import 10 million people over the course of four years.
	At least.
	Illegally. And then move a significant number of them to swing states.
	Confirmed. And then provide them with all these services and then give them a path to citizenship.
	You could essentially rig those states.
	Undeniably, immigration is changing our nation.
	I mean, I haven't spent a lot of time in Texas, but it's very clear that immigration has remade Texas.
	Damn a path to citizenship.
	You could essentially rig those states.
	Undeniably, immigration is changing our nation.
	Undeniably, immigration is changing our nation.
	Yeah, the answer to that is yes.
	And John Fetterman?
	I make the life insurance joke, or John Fetterman is not suicidal.
	You know why Kamala Harris could never have gone on Joe Rogan, and that her counter was actually just a refusal in disguise.
	All right, while Barnes gets in here, because I see him in the backdrop.
	Oh, we're still pinned there.
	Sweaty Zeus, thank you very much for the donation.
	We got Charles Greiner, who says, if I can see this, down here in Georgia there's a notice in the polls that only selected names can be written in, otherwise the vote will not be counted.
	Is that constitutional?
	I'll pick Barnes' big brain on that one.
	And Barnes, while you do that, hold on one second.
	Let me just see if I don't miss any on Commitube because they don't come up all the time here.
	Oh, there's a red one.
	There's a red super chat.
	It's $100 from Beavis Wallace.
	Beavis Wallace in the house.
	Another election watching Viva from my election news.
	We're live, by the way, Tuesday night, so stay tuned.
	Thank you, my Canadian buddy.
	I've been watching you and Barnes from the beginning.
	Hope you remember me from your earliest.
	Beavis, I absolutely remember your name.
	And 1,000%.
	It's $100 Super Chat.
	Thank you very much.
	But the most efficient way to support us is at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Robert, are you pooping your pants because of what you see happening in the markets?
	Oh, no, no.
	But I was sick all day Saturday, so I was out.
	I got one of those 24-hour sicknesses that just dunked me out.
	Couldn't move, really.
	Oh, boy.
	I won't ask for details.
	Let me just ask the locals, Chad, if the audio is...
	I think you might be low.
	Is audio good?
	I don't know if I...
	Let me just see what Chad says about audio.
	Is audio good?
	Got someone with a picture of...
	Oh, I see.
	Okay, we got someone with...
	Barnes is low.
	Robert, are you able to up your volume a little bit?
	I don't know.
	What about now?
	No, no, no.
	Bring it as close as you can.
	It's substantially lower than prior episodes.
	That's odd.
	I don't know why, because it's closer to me than normal.
	Let me see if I can't...
	What I'll do is maybe I'll lower my...
	See, this is why studio needs to be able to tinker with these things.
	I'll talk lower and maybe talk louder, Brian.
	Okay, we'll get into it.
	Oh, he's out.
	I scared him away.
	He's back.
	I was double-checking that it was the right...
	Yeah, everything's on the right system.
	Okay, well, it's a little low.
	See you now.
	I have no way.
	And on your modulator thing, there's no volume on your cloud lifter?
	Is that what they're called?
	Not that I know of.
	Okay, forget.
	Let me see here.
	Hold on a second.
	Okay, whatever.
	We'll deal with it.
	I'll just move my mic away and then everyone's going to jack up their audio.
	Robert, so what do you think is happening with the markets?
	Oh, you mean the political betting markets?
	Yeah. Yeah, so I was on with Bill Krakenberger, one of the great class acts of sports gambling.
	One of the famous sports betters, he was featured in a Showtime series years ago.
	They had this guy that likes to sell his picks, who's kind of known as a questionable tout, as they're called in the business.
	Another friend of mine, Kelly in Vegas, was a young and up-and-coming sports pick handicapper at the time.
	We had her on a couple of years ago now.
	And I'll see if Bill will hop on to do a show at some point.
	Maybe before the Super Bowl will be a cool time period to do one.
	But yeah, I grew up a blue-collar kid from Jersey.
	You know, doing sports betting at the time he was a kid.
	One of the most successful sports gamblers in the world.
	He has an app that he gives out his picks at, Crack Wins app.
	It's one of the few subscription services I've ever used because of how good he is.
	He moves markets the moment he drops a pick, especially on college basketball totals.
	So I was on his show this weekend.
	He does a nice little show.
	It's mostly meant for public benefit, give people insights and information into the gambling world, into the casino world, into the sports betting world.
	So it's more of an informational service than a promotional service.
	I don't think he ever even talks about his incredibly successful app at all.
	But I was on there to talk about the political betting, you know, now that it's legal in large parts of the United States through the big win that we talked about of Calci beating the Biden administration.
	Once that happened, interactive brokers opened up markets and the FTC, very belatedly.
	But ultimately, didn't want Kalshi, I think, dominating the market.
	So they allowed Robinhood to open up election markets.
	So you can easily, legally, cleanly bet without any risk in Kalshi, in interactive brokers, and at Robinhood in the U.S. Now, a lot of U.S. customers, there's still a lot of U.S. customers through crypto on Polymarket.
	You still have Predict It, which is freely available, also legal in the U.S. It just has caps on how much you can bet and a little bit higher fees that it can use.
	And then you have all the offshore books that take a lot of U.S. money and that are pretty safe.
	It's just they're not as easily accessible as these other U.S. markets are.
	So once that happened, you were going to have a lot of U.S. money flood in.
	The people most eager to bet out of the gate were Trump bettors, who had been sort of held back by all of the accessibility issues with getting into polymarket, getting into these other markets.
	And the reason why polymarket had moved heavily towards Trump is there's some big, big bettors betting huge sums that are completely apolitical on Trump.
	There's this one guy they're obsessed with, this famous French trade.
	$30 million.
	$30 million.
	So markets like that, the big bettors can really move it if they want to move it.
	And he wasn't trying to move it.
	He was just like, Trump's undervalued.
	And his analysis, by the way, is very simple.
	I'm pretty sure by his quotes, he took from some things that I had said over the years.
	But hey, that makes him a smart political gambler.
	Look for somebody who's made a lot of money in political betting.
	See what they say.
	See if I can use it for this election.
	See if I can make money on it.
	It's like knowing what Warren Buffett or Drunken Miller is going to do before they do it in the stock market.
	It's probably a pretty safe strategy over time.
	Or if you're in on the same inside information that maybe a servant like Mr. Cohen, the owner of the Mets, was back in the day.
	That's another story for another day.
	So early money was what I predicted on crack, did the episode on Friday, and I said what to look for over the weekend is for Harris money to come in.
	That there's probably going to be some media-shaped narratives that are pro-Harris, particularly in the polling world.
	And a lot of your novice gamblers are going to like the polls, are going to rely on the polls.
	I've been betting politics around the world for a decade, betting politics in the U.S. for the better part of two decades.
	And what I usually do is bet against the polls, to be honest.
	It's to know when the polls are right or wrong or when they overstate something.
	And in the U.S., they're particularly bad.
	The exit polls are the worst.
	Most money I ever made in an election before 2016 was 2004 on election night.
	Election night, the exit polls said John Kerry had easily won.
	John Kerry on election night was an over 70% chance he would win the election in the live election markets.
	So I was hammering Bush.
	Just boom, boom, boom.
	I was like, nah, the exit polls have always been wrong.
	They're wrong again.
	They're useless.
	And of course, you know, Bush cashed.
	But on election night, better than 2-1.
	Brexit, on election night, because of wrong exit polls, was 10-1.
	10-1 on election night in London.
	And of course it won.
	10-1.
	Imagine that payout.
	Not a lot of one-day 10-1 payouts you get in the world of investing.
	So what I predicted on Krakenberger was, I was like, if you want to bet Harris, better now.
	Because she's likely going to go up over the weekend.
	If you want to bet Trump, wait.
	Wait until probably early, maybe even late Tuesday.
	Because the exit polls are going to say Harris is winning.
	And Harris is going to go up again in the markets on Tuesday.
	And you could probably get your best value on Trump midday on Tuesday.
	If you're trying to time it.
	There's always risk.
	I want to correct this person right here, Trump.
	This is not gambling.
	This is investing in knowledge.
	Exactly. It's no different than the stock market.
	If you think predictions are gambling, then you don't understand investment.
	You don't understand economics.
	You don't understand human life.
	So there's a difference between gambling, true gambling, is gambling on random events of chance.
	Dice. By the way, to that person.
	Find me the quote in the Bible that says gambling is a sin.
	Hint, ain't in there.
	You're wrong.
	Just a little FYI.
	There's reasons to be wary of true random games of chance where the house has the odds because you're paying for entertainment is what you're paying for because you're going to pay some percentage for it.
	But for some people, that's fun and enjoyment.
	And it's been a myth, particularly the Protestant tradition.
	That gambling is a sin.
	You don't hear much of the Catholic tradition because that's what we call bingos on Friday and Saturday night.
	Bingo is actually gambling.
	And yet all kinds of churches do it.
	But that's a common myth and it's completely false.
	I'll debate anybody on that anywhere.
	But when I'm talking about sports gambling, what's called sports gambling, it's not in fact gambling because it's not a random game of chance under the law.
	It is based on a skill.
	Bill Krakenberger isn't good at it because he's randomly lucky for 25 years running.
	He's good at it because it's a game of skill.
	Poker is a game of skill.
	Political betting is a game of skill.
	It's about figuring out what you think the most likely set of events are.
	And there's no certainties.
	To paraphrase the great George Gammon, in any aspect of investing, there are no certainties.
	There are only probabilities.
	People always tend to forget that, but...
	That's always a point.
	So you're just trying to assess where the probability you think of something happening is greater than what the markets say is going to happen.
	And that's the sort of true nature of certain kinds of predictive investing that's profitable over time.
	And so the...
	You know, I don't know.
	You're going to have to tell me what the squirrel story is.
	I have no idea.
	Well, if you were out of commission yesterday, Robert, that was one hell of a day.
	But hold on, Robert.
	I mean, I'm looking at it, and I understand predicted might be more easy to manipulate, but I can understand your argument.
	I just see this.
	It doesn't seem organic, but I can understand where you're getting at in terms of...
	Well, it was partially not organic in just the sense that Trump money was going to be the first money in these markets.
	Because they're sitting there looking at polymarket Trump at 65%.
	So they could get Trump below that on Kalshi, so they were hammering Kalshi.
	So you even had people doing sort of arbitrage opportunities.
	So the early money was going to be Trump.
	And then there was going to be Harris money to come in because they would, just like you look at Steve Fezzik, big famous sports bettor here in Vegas, known as the Blue Horseshoe.
	He's liked Harris because he just looks at it from the perspective of a traditional sports bettor, which is, okay, the polls are saying it's even and she's an underdog in the markets.
	That must mean there's value in the markets on the underdog.
	And there's limits to extending sports logic to political logic.
	The biggest one is he's relying on polls.
	That's the issue there.
	But otherwise, it makes sense what his logic is.
	So you knew that money was going to come back in.
	And then you knew, especially a lot of these sports bettors, political bettors, are going to be novices.
	It always strikes me.
	I never thought I would see...
	A betting environment for an election as good as 2016 was.
	And that's why I took every penny, nickel, diamond dollar I had to my name, went over to London and placed the bets.
	And little sportsbooks all around London, all around Dublin, became world famous for it because it got leaked out to some local bookies were calling the local press saying, this crazy guy's coming here and betting all his money on Trump.
	I mean, Patty Power, famous Irish bookie, had already paid out Hillary bets.
	And of course, Trump won.
	2024 is shaping up even better from a betting election environment than 2016 in many respects.
	Not in all respects, because Trump said even money rather than a 2-1, 3-1 underdog like he was in 2016.
	In 2016, he was an 8-to-1 underdog in Wisconsin.
	The odds I could get over there were just crazy.
	But these odds are striking because of the people believing that the polls, and I'll be on tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern time with what are the odds with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, most accurate pollster going for a decade now.
	He already has his final national poll ready.
	It might show something different than some of what the media wants to say.
	But there's actually a range of data that all points in the exact same direction.
	And you could start with just Gallup's data.
	And you say, if Gallup is right, then I should see this in the national polling.
	I should see this in the battleground polling.
	I should see this in the voter registration data.
	I should see this in the early voting results.
	And guess what?
	It all aligns literally perfectly.
	And as you see, this point movement is what you would expect, and you get exactly that between polls to polls, the same polls cycle to cycle, same in the states, same on the red voter registration, same on the early voting day.
	So unless all the fundamentals are wrong, Gallup's wrong for the first time in forever, in terms of this level of disparity, unless all these underlying metrics, voter registration, early data...
	Early voting date is wrong.
	The election is not going to go the way a lot of the Harris bettors are coming in.
	The memes are so damn good.
	I'll tell you what happened with the squirrel in a second.
	Okay, well, that's good enough.
	I mean, look, I don't care.
	I got Trump at 43 cents on predicted, and you could sell and try to inter-trade, but I'm just...
	That's it.
	Sports picks.
	I gave him out when he was at 40. Said that, you know, the...
	It would be unlikely he would dip below 50 before Election Day.
	I think that's probably still the case.
	There's a possibility dips below 50 on Election Day because of the exit polls.
	We'll probably show Harris plus 3, Harris plus 5, something like that.
	People think exit polls are right.
	What they don't realize is the exit polls go back and change the exit polls to match the election results.
	They don't realize the exit polls actually never match the election results while they're being done.
	Well, actually, on predicted today, Trump was below 50. He was at 47, I think, for a brief time.
	Yeah, predicted it would be where you can get him the cheapest.
	Highly unlikely in poly market because there's some big money behind Trump there.
	On Koushi, maybe you get below 50, not likely.
	Robinhood, maybe a little more likely.
	Interactive brokers, unlikely.
	Here's the other thing to know.
	The most sophisticated...
	Wall Street traders who only look at predicting elections for the purposes of investment traditions, even a lot of whom, by the way, personally hate Trump, are pretty much universally predicting an easy Trump win.
	So that's what people who really look at data, that's what they're saying.
	But the betting markets, you're going to get some real opportunities over this weekend.
	But if you want Harris better now, she might go up more.
	She's more likely to go up in the markets than down in the markets between now and Tuesday afternoon.
	And if you want Trump, you could probably wait until Tuesday afternoon and get the best value.
	Florida Dad over on Commitube says...
	I just lost it.
	Hold on a second.
	These are not going to be up forever.
	I bought 3,000 shares of DJT when Kamala was predicted to win exact same principal.
	I just don't know how to do Barnes markets via 401k, LOL.
	Florida Dad, good to see you again.
	We're going to get into the election stuff because some people are saying, jokingly, does this factor in cheating?
	I was trying to figure out if Mark should come on tonight or tomorrow, but Mark Robert is going to come on tomorrow to talk about what we talked about last night, his theory about what they should do in Philadelphia as far as reporting results coming into the election night.
	But before we get into the election stuff, which we'll do exclusively on Rumble...
	You didn't hear about the squirrel yet?
	Or you don't know the full details?
	No, nothing about the squirrel.
	How many people watching don't yet know the details?
	Because I put out two videos now, today and yesterday.
	Robert, it'll make you want to vomit.
	This is how John Wick is born, but I don't want to make certain jokes and have people think I'm promoting violence.
	This is the type of thing that can make people snap, and this is how people become the Kill Desert guy.
	It's a couple.
	A guy named Mark Longo and Danny Longo, husband and wife, living in New York.
	And they saw a squirrel get run over by a car, something along those lines, like seven years ago.
	The orphaned baby they took in and decided they couldn't release the orphaned baby because it's past the point of being able to live on its own.
	And so they kept it.
	Called it Peanut.
	P-N-U-T.
	They also had a raccoon that was a rescue for whatever the reason.
	And then they eventually, they made an Instagram page for this cute squirrel, a big fat black eastern squirrel.
	Instagram page had over a million followers.
	Apparently, they were being accused of exploitation of an animal, exploitation for profit.
	I don't know how it works.
	They had haters online.
	And apparently, the haters called the New York Department of Environmental Conservationism, who then allegedly, they were told of a vector of rabies in their house.
	They go to a judge.
	I haven't seen the court filing the documents yet, but I'm going to.
	And they go to see a judge who issues a warrant to, I guess, seize the vectors for rabies.
	And they go to this guy's house.
	Raid his house.
	Have him outside.
	He's got rescue horses.
	He turned it into something of a not-for-profit rescue organization as well.
	They keep him outside of the house for five hours while they ransack every nook and cranny of his house.
	They get the squirrel, I guess.
	And the squirrel...
	People were saying, like, how are they not wearing leather gloves or whatever?
	The squirrel bites the hand of one of the agents who are there to seize it.
	And so they euthanize the squirrel and the raccoon to test for rabies.
	Within 24 hours, they seize the squirrels.
	Longo goes onto Instagram, starts a fundraiser to get money so that he can fight to get his animals back, and they murdered his animals before he could get them back.
	And I appreciate murder only applies to the unlawful killing of a human.
	I'm going to expand the definition of murder.
	They murdered his pets.
	Well, they call it that when they don't like it when someone has done it.
	When a farmer has done it and they don't think it's approved in Pennsylvania, they criminally prosecute them for felony murder.
	And so the guy goes on TMZ.
	He's given interviews.
	I reached out to him and I hope to be able to have him on.
	He explains what happens.
	They go in.
	They keep him outside.
	They seize his...
	Let me take a wild guess.
	The rabies test probably came back negative.
	First of all, like I said from experience, squirrels don't get rabies.
	The raccoons, every now and again, but they've been in this possession for years.
	The raccoon might have been vaccinated.
	I don't know.
	Squirrels, I don't know how you vaccinate for rabies, but they don't carry rabies.
	And certainly when you get bit out of an act of aggression when you're, you know, seizing an animal, it's not a rabid animal bite.
	And there's never been a case of a squirrel giving a human rabies, ever.
	So they killed his animals.
	And Trump got on it.
	He's apparently meeting with Trump.
	And I say, like, you know, this isn't really a...
	It's wild.
	For the cats.
	For the dogs.
	The squirrels and the raccoons.
	Justice for Peanut and justice for Fred.
	That's great.
	That's the massive news.
	I can't go with the raccoons.
	Those are sneaky little animals.
	If you've ever seen them, I know my vet in Montreal had a couple as pets.
	They're really, really cute.
	They're smart animals.
	Have you seen them pretending to be dead?
	They'll see a video camera and they think someone's there.
	They'll freeze and they'll pretend to be dead on my front steps.
	That's the story of what went on with the raccoon and the squirrel.
	And everybody out there, the guy, I'm not saying anything private.
	I read this in an article.
	He had an OnlyFans page.
	It was for something totally different.
	Peanut lives matter.
	His OnlyFans was...
	Squirrel Daddy.
	And I was like, when I found that out, it was in an article, I'm like, please, if we find out he was using the squirrel for something dirty, but he wasn't.
	It's a totally separate thing, and to each their own.
	But they murdered this guy's beloved animals.
	And I said as a joke, you know, like, rescue animals, the cliche is that sometimes they rescue the owners.
	The guy's obviously got things in his life that this squirrel meant exponentially more than anybody could possibly imagine, and you get an awful communist hocal state to come in and murder your animals.
	And tell you what, Environmental Conservation Department.
	And the school.
	And they love using as their excuse disease.
	Disease is their favorite pretext for control.
	Whether it's prohibiting you from getting the food that you want, requiring you to take medicine you don't want, controlling your body at every level, controlling what you can do with your own property.
	It's all done in the name of disease and environment.
	It's discredited the environmental movement.
	Completely. I mean, this environmental movement that went from making sure your creeks don't have a bunch of crap in it, making sure your land isn't being polluted by the local big chemical company, things that were common sense, Robert Kennedy-style environmentalism became Bill Gates' excuses to run your life.
	Things that had nothing to do with actual environmentalism.
	Environmental apocalyptic logic.
	And it shows you why we can't give the state this power.
	And it's another...
	Sad example.
	That judge is going to, for once, regret signing a search warrant.
	These judges constantly just are rubber stamps for search warrants.
	You get a search warrant to grab a squirrel?
	You should be like, hold on a second.
	But it's a squirrel that's on Instagram.
	The world knows the squirrel.
	It's not like he's harboring disgusting, rancid animals.
	And even then, but he was also, Robert, in the process of registering the squirrel as an educational animal.
	You see the videos.
	He comes into his house.
	The squirrel jumps off the drapes onto his shoulder.
	It's tragic.
	It's offensive.
	And Elon's on it.
	Trump is on it.
	The world is on it.
	What a moment because I think it's going to wake some people up.
	Okay, but I'm going to do a couple things.
	Let me bring a few of these up before we go over to crumble.
	The Jay Westcott says, well, I don't know about the rest of the...
	East Coast.
	But Bucks County wants us to believe that the polls closed at noon last Wednesday or Thursday.
	LOL. We're going to get to that.
	We're going to get to that in a second.
	And then CSIR referee says the drooping on the right side is an affect from the aneurysm he had years ago.
	Interesting. I didn't know that.
	I thought it was just Satan creeping into his body and making him evil.
	The most disturbing part that I've...
	Experience recently is talking to some of these people on the left and hearing how they are open to, quote, mass human removal so they can stop these extremists.
	Robert, it was not something that I don't know if you knew about it that we're going to talk about, if I may.
	Did you read Trump's lawsuit against CBS?
	Because it's going to tie in a little bit to maybe a FCC violation from Sound Alive.
	I have not as yet.
	Okay, so the bottom line, Trump is suing CBS.
	For $10 billion.
	I love it.
	Suing them for $10 billion, but it's under the Textus Business and Commerce Code.
	And he's alleging that as a consumer, CBS violated false advertising or deceptive business practice.
	Oh, right, right.
	And so the only question I had, and I don't know if you've had any immediate or direct experience, is on the one hand, standing.
	Standing and jurisdiction.
	Here, liberal judges have allowed all kinds of crazy things against conservatives in Austin on all kinds of legal theories that before were utterly unprecedented and had been rejected.
	So, I've been encouraging conservatives, okay, go ahead, you know, force the higher courts to undo all of these cases, or if it's going to be greenlit, it has to be greenlit for both sides.
	And then liberals are going to pay a higher price than conservatives over time because they can sue in a range of different courts.
	They can sue in federal court.
	They can sue in other courts, smaller county courts that are 80-90% Republican juries.
	So there has to be a payback to this weaponized lawfare by the left in places like Austin, Texas.
	And in terms of FCC jurisdiction, because what I can imagine they will say is, this is FCC exclusive jurisdiction.
	It's not like a false advertisement on...
	A commercial.
	That wouldn't be federal preemption, no.
	Okay, and then the last question I had was $10 billion.
	I don't know how they got to the quantum.
	Did you hear about the Saturday Night Live skit issue controversy last night?
	Yeah, I mean, they basically just did a promo ad for Kamala Harris, which, right on the eve of the election, which they know from prior issues with Saturday Night Live, they cannot do.
	They've been caught before just extending an invite to one candidate over the other on the eve of an election, and they were scolded and told, no, they can't do that legally in BC.
	So they didn't care, and they repeated it.
	Which, by the way, tells you they don't believe a lot of the polling and other data.
	They think Harris is in trouble.
	They're willing to do a repeat violation on the eve of an election.
	And what all these networks are proving is there has to be consequences for the networks.
	These networks have become overt, open propagandists to a ridiculous degree.
	There had always been bias, but now the bias is 90-10.
	I mean, it's just absurd.
	You'll hear a thousand stories about a comedian telling a joke about Puerto Rico that is actually a popular joke within Puerto Rico due to its landfill issues.
	And you'll hear zero stories about the president of the United States calling half the country garbage.
	I'm sorry, they don't deserve free airwaves anymore.
	That should be taken away from them entirely.
	And they are engaged in systematic, systemic election interference.
	And the Democrats have set the platform for this.
	They've called a lot of certain kinds of media advocacy election interference.
	They called it for that when they were going after foreign governments for it.
	Now CBS, ABC, NBC need to all be put on the dot.
	These networks that have become open, overt.
	Propagandists for one particular party who are engaged in billions and billions of dollars of free political advertising for one political party need to either be shut down, need to have their licenses taken away, need to have to pay for the airwaves they've been getting freely all these years, all these decades.
	There needs to be consequence.
	Otherwise, you can't sustain a country.
	Or a constitutional republic with three mainstream media networks overtly propagandizing on behalf of one party over the other and violating known rules and known precedents on the eve of an election just to try to shape its outcome.
	I mean, enough is enough at some point.
	Just as with Google, you know, shaping with its algorithm a billion dollars worth of media marketing as Robert Epstein has documented repeatedly.
	There has to be consequences for this.
	Otherwise, there'll be no fixing it.
	We have a media network worse than the Soviet propaganda network.
	Because at least in the Soviet Union, they knew it was propaganda.
	Many Americans don't know still that it's propaganda.
	More than ever do, but not most.
	And that's a problem.
	Now, everybody...
	Election night.
	We will be live.
	You'll be bumping in and out, but we're going to set something up for our community.
	It's going to be live all night, and I'll try to man it in as much as humanly possible.
	We're going to pop in with Mark Robert and Eric Hundley down the street.
	We're going to pop in with Dave Rubin, I think, at 1130.
	Rebel News at some point.
	We will have our evening, and it will be on all platforms.
	For right now, we're going over to Rumble.
	So there are 5,900 people watching on YouTube.
	Come over to Rumble.
	I know some of you don't like the format, whatever, and you can come over to Locals 2. Tuesday will be live on all platforms, but tonight we're going to go discuss the election stuff on Rumble, and not because we're not allowed discussing it here, but because we need to vote with our feet, our eyeballs, and build up the platforms that are letting us have this discussion.
	So come on over to Rumble as I look at the number to make sure it goes down.
	We're talking about...
	Okay, Pennsylvania, there's been some updates, obviously a lot of lawsuits this week.
	Georgia, there's some chicanery.
	Virginia, there's been some chicanery.
	And we're going to go over the amendments that are on various ballots.
	Yeah, we got abortion.
	We got elections.
	We got criminal justice reform.
	We got minimum wage.
	We got energy.
	We got environment.
	Sometimes we got the energy against the environment, depending on how you perceive the issue.
	So we have marijuana.
	So we have a lot of hot-button issues across the country on ballots and initiatives.
	There's over 60, but about 50, most of them, are in those topics.
	So we'll give you some analysis.
	Some of it's different than what you may expect because people have been asking commonly, legally, what's the impact of this?
	In particular, they're asking this about the abortion one.
	I know people that are here in Nevada that are strongly pro-choice that voted no on the pro-choice amendment.
	And it applies to the same reasoning, applies across the country to pretty much every abortion.
	We'll get into what the pro-choice community took a gamble doing.
	They're trying to sneak one in over on the electorate.
	Something that looks to represent the majority viewpoint.
	In fact, represents the minority viewpoint by just one little verbiage change in the law.
	So we'll be covering some of those and more as we go on tonight.
	And now everyone who's leaving YouTube, before you go, make sure that you have subscribed and turned on notifications because I know that a lot of people say, I've been auto-subscribed and my notifications turned off.
	So leaving YouTube and Twitter as well, going over to the free speech platform, Rumble, and you can come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Making the transfer now, and I noticed the number is now under 5,000 and we're doing good.
	Leave. Come over.
	Rumble. Boom.
	Robert. Okay.
	Let's start with the stuff that I am more intimately familiar with.
	There were a bunch of issues.
	And in fact, I should have read the super chat over on YouTube.
	It was from JFM or J-A-E-U-F-M.
	What shenanigans should we look for on the 5th?
	Before we get into that, the shenanigans that we saw throughout last week.
	I mean, it's an amazing thing that I talked about it last week, that when you have a free Twitter and you have a free Rumble and the top three podcasts, live streams on Rumble.
	Sorry, are on Rumble.
	Top three podcasts in the world on Wednesday.
	Steve Bannon.
	Oh, geez.
	Steven Crowder and Dan Bongino.
	We're not dealing with the same tools that we were dealing with in terms of limitations in 2020.
	In real time, people are recording chicanery in Pennsylvania.
	Early voting, you have a cop shutting down the line three hours early saying, it's long and tedious and go home.
	Early voting's over.
	They take that video.
	It goes viral on Twitter.
	People talk about it on Rumble.
	Jack Poso and others, lawyer up.
	They go to court and a court says, no, you violated election laws and you have to extend early voting until Friday.
	How familiar are you with the proceedings?
	What law, like what election law is it exactly that's violated when they cut early voting short?
	Well, when you establish the rules that say, here's when you can come and vote, and as long as you're in line, you should be able to vote, then you can't just change those rules when they get there.
	So it's basically a deprivation of the right to vote because you told them they could vote in this way and then you took it away from them after the fact.
	So once you've announced that, that's when you're locked in.
	And they couldn't just unilaterally change it.
	And then you had these fake Democratic voting judges running around trying to do other shenanigans.
	I heard people were impersonating election officials.
	That's effectively what they were doing.
	They were acting like they were election officials.
	They didn't technically impersonate them, but they presented them in such a way that if you were an ordinary person, you would think they were one.
	So there was that kind of scam.
	Then the other scam was a major Arizona Democratic vote harvester is active in Pennsylvania, is doing what I said happened throughout 2020, and that all the media and other types said, no, nothing like that happened.
	And what it is, is I said that if you dug into the...
	Polls and it dug into the results.
	And what you would find is unusual turnout patterns because mail-in voting made it so easy to do, mass mail-in voting especially, at nursing homes, at apartment complexes, at people who had changed residences, things like this.
	Well, it turned out in Pennsylvania, in two separate counties, someone had tried to register a bunch of voters that weren't in those counties and were trying to get absentee mail-in votes in those counties.
	They just got caught doing it.
	Now, people might ask, why would Democratic Governor Shapiro allow those people to get caught?
	Maybe it's because future Democratic presidential candidate Shapiro doesn't really want Kamala Harris to win, but wants to look like he fought so hard for the Democratic Party he was willing to even cheat for it.
	But by golly, they just somehow caught it, kind of thing.
	So Pennsylvania Supreme Court also pulled back on several of its rulings and lower court rulings that are so there's not going to be as liberalized set of rules about mail-in voting.
	But if you don't properly date it, if you don't properly put it in, a whole bunch of things like that, that also discourage and deter mail-in voting fraud and the.
	The other thing is you have a lot of people who just voted in 2020 who are not voting in 2024.
	Two theories for that.
	One, it was such a mass mail-in voting environment that a lot of people voted who were really engaged.
	Maybe some young people and some others.
	There's another thesis for that.
	That they didn't exist in the first place.
	Exactly. Or if they voted, they weren't aware that they voted.
	And so whichever it is, you're seeing evidence for it in both cases.
	But pretty much the way the election law cases have gone to date.
	There have been some Democratic wins, but there have been more Democratic losses.
	And in pretty much every state, the election environment is stricter in enforcing rules than it was in 2020.
	Sometimes substantially so.
	And at least in the mail-in voting in every single state, Democratic mail-in voting is down.
	Substantially in most places.
	Down by as much as 80-85% in places that no longer have crazy rules like Georgia did.
	But in other states, down by 20, 25%.
	And this includes like Oregon, Washington, Maine, New York.
	I mean, it doesn't matter what you point to any state on the map.
	Democratic mail-in voting is down and usually way down.
	So whatever the reason for that mass mail-in voting in 2020, it's not being replicated in 2024.
	And maybe the tighter election rules might be part of the reason why.
	Okay, that's fair.
	So Pennsylvania, early voting, they changed that.
	So the ballot harvesting, or what was going on in Arizona, what is the mechanism through which it's being carried out?
	Somebody's going around looking to register people, and he has to get people's names?
	Yeah, well, sometimes, here's the way you do it.
	Sometimes you get names of people you claim that they're a resident someplace, and you just file it.
	It's a person that you know.
	It doesn't actually live there or it won't contradict your information.
	Another thing you do is you track change of voting.
	Change of residence, I mean.
	So somebody that's moved but they might not have been noted as moved on the voter rolls.
	So you request a ballot in their old name or in their old residence at their current name knowing they haven't requested one because they moved.
	That's one of the most common things to do.
	And then other is to try to register voters in names of people that just don't exist.
	And what it is is they were so confident they could get away with it that they got caught with ease.
	With just basic metrics being put in.
	What does that tell you?
	It tells you that in 2020 they didn't get caught.
	And that's why they thought they could get away with it again.
	And so we're seeing it in the real mail-in voting numbers.
	They're just way down.
	But it's almost all on the Democratic side.
	There's been almost no drop-off in Republican mail-in votes.
	The only drop-off is in Democratic mail-in votes.
	Okay, interesting.
	We'll get into the answering of the question as to what chicanery people should be looking for on the 5th.
	We're looking for it to be really, really tight or perceived as tight once certain votes are counted.
	And they suddenly say when it's late.
	And then around midnight, they say they can't finish, and they've got to finish tomorrow.
	And if you get a combination of that, you're at high risk of sneaky ballots coming in and suddenly the election shifting.
	That's always been the modus operandi of election fortification, as Time magazine called it.
	Some of us call it election fornication.
	I don't want to sell Mark's idea.
	Mark and I were talking last night, Mark Robert, America's Untold Stories with Eric Hundley, where he was saying the way that they can know how many ballots they need to make up is when these Republican precincts start reporting their numbers and his theory, which we're going to flesh out.
	That's one of the oldest scams of the book.
	He's doing Florida all the time.
	Broward County would hold out their votes until DeSantis cracked down and stopped him from...
	And so the thought process is some of the suburban counties in Philadelphia and Allegheny will hold back their vote count until they know what the vote count is elsewhere and then just sort of pad the ballots.
	The way they do it these days is mail-in voting allows them to not have to be county dependent.
	So they just have the mail-in vote be sitting back and waiting to be counted.
	Count the election day vote.
	And then they know what they need to pad with mail-in votes.
	So that's what's kind of changed that dynamic.
	It's no longer as county-dependent as it used to be, but it's a similar style shenanigan.
	But if the counties then say, like Mark's theory is that don't report your numbers so they don't know how many they need in order to pad and then wait for, say, the big cities to come in so that their maneuverability to find the ballots or find the votes is mitigated by the...
	Counties holding out so they don't know the exact number they need to pat.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, I mean, there's some states that basically require quicker, more efficient, and more consistent county-to-county vote reporting than others.
	And that would solve that problem as well.
	In the current environment, it's the hold back of mail-and-vote counting.
	That creates potentially the issue.
	And that's not county-specific in the same way.
	But yes, he's right.
	That's how historically it was done.
	The big city, Democratic counties would hold back their vote counting until the Republican counties were done.
	What percentage is going to be mail-in, give or take, this year?
	Well, it was substantially down.
	I think the last count I saw was that mail-in vote nationwide will be down 50%.
	Down 50 from what?
	2020. 2020 was the only mail-in vote mass election we ever had.
	Very, very rare.
	20% of votes?
	15%?
	5%?
	I'd have to go back and look in terms of percentage of the vote, but it's going to be half of what it was in 2020.
	Okay. It was in Georgia.
	Georgia! That apparently they were not extending, but they were accepting early votes beyond the deadline and they got that.
	Restrained by a court as well.
	Have you heard about that?
	Yeah, well, Fulton County was playing some games because they're getting very low turnout from urban black men, young urban black men that lean Democratic are not voting at the levels that they need them to for the Harris campaign and for other Democrats.
	And so Fulton County's tried to fix that problem, if you will, by extending the voting period.
	and that got rejected by the court.
	The in everywhere pretty much, while there've been some democratic wins, it's still compared to 2020, a much stricter election environment than 2020, in terms of what the liberalization and loosening of rules that facilitate, or at least open the door to fraud, whether you think it happened or not.
	Though those opportunities are much smaller than they were in 2020.
	And now someone had asked in a previous, I'll see if I can find it.
	Lawsuits in 2020 that went to the merits that Trump was actually a plaintiff in.
	There's a highlight out there.
	We put together the highlight in one of the Sunday streams, so I don't remember where it is, but it's out there.
	iHall86 says, Kamala's only up in the betting markets after the FTC allowed Robinhood to do contracts on the election.
	That's interesting.
	I didn't know the timing on that.
	Monica Lewinsky, America's humidor, which is very funny.
	And now let's just hear that Barnes with...
	Which two states, three cases...
	Oh, this was it.
	Sorry. Has Trump been named a plaintiff in 2020 election irregularities?
	It was Philadelphia he was a plaintiff?
	So there's really only one case where he was contesting the election.
	So there were some pre-election cases that carried over post-election about certain rules and procedures that ultimately also determined he didn't have certain standing to bring cases.
	So one was Pennsylvania.
	There might have been another one somewhere else.
	But the only election contest he ever brought was Georgia.
	That was the only one he brought as an election contest, which the courts managed to never hear, despite rules requiring they hear it weeks before the inauguration day.
	And they just refused.
	And the courts just violated their own rules and violated state law and never paid any price for it.
	Okay, good.
	So Georgia has covered Pennsylvania.
	There was something out of Virginia, but I forget what it is now.
	Well, I mean, out of Virginia, the big surprising Supreme Court actually stepped in positively.
	Oh, that's right.
	That was the purging of the voter roll.
	Again, we discussed it last week, and it's not a number that's significant enough, but it was a political debacle for the Democrats and, I guess, a legal victory for the Republicans that people who self-identified as non-citizens can be purged from the role, even if it's less than 90 days of the election.
	I was glad it was promising that the Supreme Court was not willing to go AWOL on every election case as they have in recent cycles.
	But this was the question.
	Is that Supreme Court decision for Virginia precedent in other states?
	Because from what I've seen, it will be.
	I think it will be interpreted as such.
	So in Alabama, I think they reached a resolution.
	I don't know if there's any other litigation in any of the other states concerning it.
	I think it was obviously a mistake by the Justice Department to bring the cases because it just highlighted the issue in a politically embarrassing way for Harris.
	Democrats are already conspiring to keep Trump out of office as he wins, constitutionally or by other means.
	Is anyone on Team Trump planning for this?
	Oh, there's people, you know, but the probabilities of that are extremely remote.
	Okay, so now we're going to move on to the other good stuff.
	I'll get to some of the Viva Barnes tips throughout the whole thing, but we'll definitely get to all of them afterwards.
	All of them over, what is it, $3 or $5, just so I don't get in trouble if I don't read the $1.
	Some people go $1, $1, $1.
	Okay. On the ballot this year are amendments for abortion.
	I'm familiar with the ones in Florida, so I guess we can start with those.
	And it's useful, because the Florida one is pretty much identical, other than a single pro-life one, to the rest of the country.
	And two unique ones at the county level, in San Francisco and Amarillo.
	The rest are identical to Florida because the pro-choice movement has taken a big gamble.
	Okay, let me see.
	This is the one.
	Let me see here.
	This is my Florida.
	Okay, this is it.
	I hope that this is the right amendment.
	This is amendment three is marijuana.
	Four is abortion.
	Ballot title, an amendment to limit government interference with abortion.
	ballot summary, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health as determined by the patient's health care provider.
	This amendment does not change the legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.
	Now, let me just take this out and come back to the way it's being described over on ballot Atobia.
	This is amendment four.
	Okay.
	Amendment 4, if you can get past all of the cookies.
	A yes vote supports adding the following language to the Florida Constitution's Declaration of Rights.
	No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health as determined by the health care provider.
	Okay. What is that?
	I read that, and the first question I ask is, okay, fine, so you cannot prevent it before viability.
	I don't know when that is exactly.
	I don't know if that's specified anywhere.
	And to protect the patient's health.
	Having seen that woman come out and say, well, that health includes also mental health.
	I then question whether or not this has any limitations.
	So you can't restrict it before viability or after viability when necessary to protect the patient's health as determined by their doctor.
	So you want to break it down.
	Do you know if that includes mental health?
	Is that basically you get a doctor to say, I can do it at any point, and it's going to be allowed if you vote yes on that amendment?
	That's exactly what it is.
	So they originally sold this as overturning the heartbeat ban passed in Florida.
	And it's been a lie from day one.
	The pro-choice community has decided to push the envelope.
	What they could have done...
	Is said when the patient's life is in danger as determined by a doctor.
	So that it's up to viability and post-viability only when it fits a self-defense rationale.
	Which you could argue for rape and incest as well.
	The problem is when you have abortion available before viability, the rape and incest defense argument doesn't...
	It really doesn't sound like a self-defense argument anymore.
	But at a minimum, there is a logic, legal logic, behind late-term abortions, which is self-defense.
	But the self-defense, well, so let's look at what the self-defense law says.
	That's when the person is in danger of severe bodily injury or death.
	That's when you can execute lethal violence or probable lethal violence in self-defense.
	That's where many American voters...
	I don't necessarily share their opinions.
	I'm just pointing out what the law is and where many American voters are.
	So, if they wanted to get easy passage, and by the way, this is identical in almost every single state referendum, every state that it's at.
	They have Patience Health, Patience Health, Patience Health, Patience Health.
	It's meant to trick people, voters, into thinking...
	It means patient's life.
	Your life is in danger.
	That this is a self-defense situation.
	And legally, you are allowed to execute your self-defense.
	You're allowed to choose your own survival over someone else, even if that someone else is entirely innocent at putting your life at risk.
	People kind of forget that about self-defense.
	Your self-defense does not depend at all upon the other person's intent.
	The other person cannot be intending to cause you any harm at all.
	And you're allowed to execute lethal self-defense.
	And just a ridiculous analogy to explain it.
	You're tied to a tree and a car is driving and the person's having a seizure and can't control the car and it's barreling towards you and the only way that you can do it is by shooting the driver.
	Someone who's having a medical emergency that's going to threaten your life.
	They're innocent, you know, mens rea wise.
	You would be entitled to exercise lethal force to protect your survival.
	And those close to you in many places.
	The great bodily harm can be caused by someone else.
	So to protect your kid's life, you have to take somebody else's life.
	Even if that other person is innocent, you're legally entitled to do so.
	May I ask, who drafted the amendment?
	Oh, it's pro-choice communities all across the board.
	Because the amendments are identical.
	And they clearly made a tactical decision that they could get away with getting conservative states.
	To approve late-term abortions for purely selective reasons that they know that voters in all of these states, even liberal states, oppose.
	So the public opinion is pretty clear on late-term abortions, post-viability abortions, which is these are eight-month abortions, that these are abortions that should only happen when the mother's life is an imminent risk of severe bodily harm or death.
	It's basically the exact same standard as self-defense.
	That's where that community concept comes from, reflected in the public opinion.
	They know that, and yet they didn't choose to use that language.
	They use language that sounds like it, but isn't really it at all.
	This health is so broad, so generic, it's whatever a doctor says health is.
	And since the medical community is filled with a bunch of lefties, that can be literally, I'm gonna feel bad.
	If I continue to have this baby at eight and a half months.
	That's health.
	Every one of these so-called pro-choice referendums is allowing them to kill a baby one day up to birth if they just feel like it because a doctor says it concerns their mental health.
	That's how pro-abortion these amendments are.
	Even Trump, when he first, because Trump was like, I'm not sure about the heartbeat bill.
	He's like, no, no, hold on a second.
	I didn't realize this part about the health part.
	What does that mean?
	Trump himself didn't know what it actually meant, was misled as to what it actually meant.
	So, like I said, people I know here in Nevada, strong pro-choice, Harris voters, all the rest, when they figured this out, they're like, no way, I'm voting no on that.
	And these are strong pro-choice voters.
	They're like, ah.
	We don't need to have abortions at eight and a half months.
	I mean, even your average pro-choice voter opposes late-term selective abortions.
	Always has, like everybody else does.
	So they're trying to sneak one in over on the electorate.
	And I hope enough of the electorate rejects their effort to do so.
	Well, let me help.
	By the way, it's the same, for those wondering, it's the same in Colorado.
	Sorry. Go ahead and play that.
	I forget her name now.
	Playing picture in picture.
	What is picture in picture?
	Get out of there.
	Okay, I won't play the whole thing.
	I'm just going to try to find the points.
	It would repeal Virginia's informed consent, mandatory ultrasound, and 24-hour delay.
	It would repeal the requirement that second trimester abortions be performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health.
	Continuation of the pregnancy would impair the mental health of the woman.
	How late are we talking about?
	So the way the suggestion that we've made in the bill is to say it's in the third trimester and with the certification of the physician.
	So how late in the third trimester would you be able to do that?
	You know, it's very unfortunate that our physicians, our witnesses, were not able to attend today to speak specifically.
	No, I'm talking about your bill.
	How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
	Or physical health.
	Okay. I'm talking about the mental health.
	And then we'll get to the end here.
	Result to protect either her life or mother's health.
	I'm really sure.
	I think it's here.
	Life is actually in danger.
	You know, Mr. Chairman, I am aware that there are certain medical conditions where that might be an option for the mother, and I would actually turn over to Galena from Mayroll to see if she has those specific medical examples.
	Okay. Well, there was the part where she says...
	She's kept dodging and dodging and dodging and dodging.
	She admitted one point...
	Well, the whole third trimester.
	Up until the baby is born, you can kill it as long as a doctor says that the health, the mother's mental will be emotionally distressed if she goes forward with it.
	This is a classic selective abort, late-term abortions that 80% of Americans completely oppose.
	And the pro-choice community is trying to trick, and the media is trying to trick America's voters.
	And this includes Amendment 4 in Florida, Amendment 79 in Colorado, Amendment 139 in Arizona, Question 1 in Maryland, Amendment 3 in Missouri, CI 128 in Montana,
	Initiative 439 in Nebraska, Question 6 in Nevada, Proposal 1 in New York, Wants to extend discrimination laws.
	It's analogous there, too.
	And to a degree, South Dakota's constitutional M&G.
	So just vote no on every pro-choice abortion amendment.
	Even if you're pro-choice, just vote no because they're trying to get you to legalize and constitutionalize late-term selective abortions.
	And the pro-choice community should pay a price for this, for this shenanigans, for these tricks, for this deception on the American vote.
	American voter in the media for not highlighting this and lying about this to the American voter, like they did in the debate, where they said late-term abortions can never happen.
	Well, it's on the ballot in eight states.
	Because I'm going to find the port where she says, where the judge asks her, she says, she's dilating.
	Under your bill, would they be allowed to terminate the baby?
	And she says, flipping through her pages.
	Yeah. I mean, I put that video in a while ago.
	I just shared it in the link.
	The bottom line, when I'm reading through this and I picked up on health, it doesn't say life and it doesn't have any temporal limitations even afterwards.
	So they say viability, which is already to be determined.
	What is the scientific consensus now, if there is one or the legal one, for viability?
	There isn't.
	So, I mean, that's its own problem.
	I mean, these are inviting vagueness in its terms.
	What they're doing is they're relying upon certain common conceptions and perceptions created by If
	you're for abortion, no matter what...
	All the way up to nine months, then obviously you can vote for all of these because they support your position.
	If you're not, if you oppose abortion being a selective abortion all the way up to nine months, then your only vote is no on these in terms of the law.
	And then they'll have to come back.
	And if they vote no in Florida, then they're stuck with the heartbeat bill until they can...
	How often do you get to propose these types of amendments?
	Every two years, basically.
	So they can keep coming back at it again and again.
	But I hope they've damaged their credibility in ways that hurts them for a long time.
	Because this was such a sneaky, sleazy thing to do.
	And it shows what...
	Down deep, the pro-choice community is a baby-killing eugenics movement.
	Always has been.
	So I don't respect them.
	Never will.
	That I understand some of the legal, philosophical, and moral arguments for certain aspects of bodily autonomy topping life in certain contexts at certain time periods within the pregnancy.
	But all that being said, if you know anything about this movement, you know never to trust them.
	That even if you lean pro-choice, you cannot trust the leaders of that movement.
	They hate life, fundamentally.
	They hate life.
	They always have.
	They always will.
	If you had any doubts, people, I found the clip.
	The section, listen to this.
	This is it, Robert.
	Look at her face, squirming.
	Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth.
	She has physical signs that she is about to give birth.
	Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?
	She's dilating.
	Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that...
	The doctor, the physician, and the woman.
	I understand that.
	I'm asking if your bill allows that.
	My bill would allow that, yes.
	There you go.
	And so that seems to be the case as to what, as drafted, what this would allow.
	I'm in mental distress if this baby comes out.
	Okay, that's good to know.
	I guess the other one in Florida is number three there, the marijuana one, which I see.
	So Dave Rubin, I believe, has come out against Amendment 3. Says you can get it for medicinal purposes, but we don't need to legalize marijuana and have Florida turn into Colorado.
	A yes vote supports legalizing marijuana for adults 21 years old and older and allowing individuals to possess up to three ounces.
	That's a lot of marijuana.
	A vote no opposes legalizing marijuana for adult use in Florida, and then you'll be stuck with medicinal use in Florida.
	I don't know what the requirements are for medicinal use in Florida, but I'll look that up while you field this.
	That one's an easier one to understand.
	Yeah, I mean, that's straightforward.
	So I give the pot people credit.
	They don't try to play a bunch of shenanigans.
	They don't try to trick you with the lingo and the lingo.
	Like, okay, I want to make it legal for this group.
	You for it or you against it.
	You know, just legal for this group, that's it.
	It's three ounces, 21 or older, boom, you can do it.
	For any reason, for any purpose.
	You know, no nonsense.
	Thank goodness.
	So how you feel about it is your own political preferences.
	There's different interpretations of how pot legalization has worked in different jurisdictions.
	So some people are down on how it's happened in California and Colorado.
	Others look at it from a global perspective, including in Europe, and seeing how it's mostly had a net positive effect, at least on...
	The over-criminalization aspect.
	You don't have a bunch of people in jail over two ounces of pot.
	And then you have the political history of it.
	Joe Rogan talked about it briefly with J.D. Vance in that interview this past week on Wednesday.
	Also, he talked about the abortion issue.
	There are two little tangential abortion issues referendums we'll get to in a second.
	Because one of them relates to what J.D. hadn't heard of it.
	But Rogan referenced it, and the pro-life community, I think, has taken something too far.
	But there in Amarillo, just as the San Francisco community is probably, of course, doing the same on the other side.
	So it's just whether you're for it or against it.
	The legal consequences are simple.
	You can now possess up to three ounces.
	So you could be the casual user.
	You can't be a major dealer.
	You probably can't be a complete pothead with a couple pounds in the cabinet.
	But basically, pot, they're not going to treat as criminal.
	And they're not going to consider against the law any further.
	And they're not trying to establish a constitutional right to pot.
	It's just pot's no longer illegal in the state of Florida.
	By the way, President Trump has come out in favor of the amendment.
	Well, that's not when you're going to lose any friends over.
	I think I'd be in favor.
	I mean, I would vote yes just because I think it's a stupid rule that we ever made at Cremon.
	Yeah, I would vote yes so long as they're the caveat that you can't drive under the influence of marijuana.
	Like, I don't even understand.
	Well, that's still the case.
	You can't drive under the influence of any legal drug, alcohol or otherwise.
	Good. I think, what was it?
	JD was like, he was okay with it as long as they could keep it out of the parks, the zoos, and the...
	In the malls.
	He's like, I hate smelling it.
	I love the smell of secondhand marijuana.
	I just don't like the feeling of losing it.
	You're the only person I've ever heard say that.
	It smells like a wonderful spice.
	Like nutmeg.
	Oregano on a leaf.
	Or if you smell a tomato plant in the vine, it smells like marijuana.
	I've always loved the smell, but the idea that people think they can drive on weed blows my mind.
	Yeah, the only thing is, like, I remember when some people were complaining about this some years ago, right after it passed in Colorado, and I was like, what are you worried about?
	They're like, man, we'll wait until the people are driving.
	I was like, are you worried they're going to be going 20 in a 55?
	Have you ever seen potheads drive?
	They don't drive too fast.
	They don't drive rapidly.
	I forget who told me the story.
	This is going back to the childhood.
	I think it was someone's friend.
	They get pulled over when they're high on weed.
	The cop's like, do you know how fast you're going?
	Was I going too fast?
	You're going 30. It was 30 kilometers an hour in a zone where you're not supposed to be.
	I know too many people who it's worked a lot better than other pharmaceutical drugs for anxiety, depression, and pain.
	That I've just seen it over and over and over again.
	So it's like, I'm not going to be one of these...
	What are the great benefits to criminalizing this and locking people up over it?
	I'm yet to see it.
	Okay, let's get to the...
	Oh, do a little abortion ones before we get to the big, most top voted one, the election ones.
	So San Francisco wants to create a sanctuary city for abortion so that the city...
	And the county can never prosecute anybody or even investigate anybody for anything related to abortion ever.
	So it's basically meant to be a sanctuary city or county.
	And then Amarillo, Texas has decided they want to be a pro-life sanctuary.
	So they want to make it a crime for anybody to get an abortion who's merely a resident of Amarillo, even if they get it someplace that's illegal.
	Mm-hmm.
	You got two extremes on both sides.
	If you don't want either extreme, vote no if you're in those places.
	There are legal issues with both.
	Can San Francisco ignore California Let's say someone gets an abortion for a clearly illegal reason, even under California state law, and you're going to start to selectively ignore entirely.
	There's no longer jury nullification.
	There's political nullification by just whole cities and counties.
	That's what they're seeking here.
	Yeah, I think that's questionable.
	So that is one set of constitutional questions.
	Now, who could ever enforce it?
	That's its own question.
	And then in the case of Amarillo, constitutional right to travel implications because they're trying to restrict.
	It's one thing to try to restrict what your residents do within your own city or county.
	Quite another to try to restrict what your residents do outside of your own city or county.
	I've never been a fan of a city or county using residency to govern what you do outside of it, just like I'm against the U.S. government using citizenship to control what somebody does outside the United States.
	Let me bring a couple up here that I don't want to lose here.
	What's your take on...
	I can't get all of the rumble rants back up.
	What's your take on Patrick Byrne's claim that Alex Jones talked about yesterday about the Obama people smirking?
	Is there any credibility to it?
	I don't know what he's talking about, but I think it might be...
	That they fear that the election has already been stolen.
	Patrick Byrne, from what I understand, is a good, well-meaning individual who might be a little too doom-pilled on election matters.
	And I understand where people...
	And there's no question that if Trump loses, there's going to be a large portion of the country that believes our elections are incurably rigged because of where the fundamentals are and so much of where the data points are.
	So I understand that.
	Now, I'm a little skeptical that Zoomers seem to sometimes want to induce their own reality by discouraging and dissuading people from engaging in the electoral process.
	Now, the one way you can guarantee Trump not winning, if you're on that side of the equation, is to not vote, believing that your vote can't matter.
	That's how your vote doesn't matter.
	And the only way your vote can't matter is not to vote.
	So I'm skeptical of when it tends to drift over in that direction.
	But some people, I think, are kind of locked into that perspective.
	And I don't share that perspective.
	So there were things to look for.
	If mass mail-in voting had reoccurred at the same rate it occurred in 2020, then the risk of election fraud was just as high as it was in 2020.
	It's half of what it was.
	And the early vote has massively shifted.
	And it's not because Republicans surged.
	It's because Democrats dropped off a cliff.
	And you look underneath the hood, it's everywhere.
	It doesn't matter where it is.
	It doesn't matter whether it's a Democratic-governed state, Republican-governed state.
	It doesn't matter.
	Massive, massive decline and drop-off in that vote.
	And if you want to...
	Don't you have people looking at smirking and all the rest?
	Look at where they're going.
	SNL for a free advertising campaign.
	It's not...
	Right. That's a desperate move.
	Paris in Michigan?
	That's a desperate move.
	Where they're spending their money?
	All to defend states, not to win new states.
	Trump is going to states he lost by 10 points.
	New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
	Lost by 10-2, lost by 7 in the other one.
	They're going to states like Michigan, which was their safest blue wall state in 2020.
	That tells you what they think.
	They think they're behind everywhere.
	You might get some bogus Iowa poll showing her up by a pollster who has lost all credibility in just the last...
	Well, does any Democrat believe it?
	Why is no Democrat going to Iowa?
	Why is no Democrat spending any money in Iowa?
	No, they know it's complete garbage.
	It was something to boost the narrative into Election Day.
	Because they're hoping to gin up turnout that everything they do hasn't worked yet.
	$2 billion turnout machine.
	Somebody grifted a lot of that cash here in Nevada.
	Republicans have never had an early voting league.
	Never. They've been down in the first week of early voting has been the entire Democratic presidential margin and back-to-back presidential elections.
	Now they're down by almost 50,000.
	I mean, that's literally never happened in this state.
	So, yeah, can everything crazy happen?
	I assign it a 10-15% chance.
	That's why I say, yeah, is there a chance Trump loses?
	Yes. But it's 10-15% chance it's one of those something wild, random, crazy to happen that's never happened before.
	Something totally crooked and corrupt really comes into the...
	But I don't think it's likely to happen.
	Well, that'll get us to the white pill question here that I had up.
	It's U2UK who says, Hey, Robert and Viva.
	Sorry, I've been away for a long...
	Robert, what's your view that Trump election may surpass the record for the biggest popular electoral landslide in U.S. history?
	What say you?
	I'll feel two of these things.
	No chance of that.
	No chance for this Mondale-Reagan.
	It was an 18 million on a lesser electorate.
	In 49 to 1 states.
	The thing is, the politics is too hardened now.
	It's so hardened that you're not going to get either side when the most you could get is Obama had the media in his pocket.
	Celebrated as a hagiographic, first black American presidential figure, running against an incumbent presidency that was under 30% in approval, that had a disastrous war and a disastrous economy.
	And he was running against a weak Republican who was disliked by blue-collar voters.
	And he still only won by eight points.
	So big blowouts ain't happening anymore.
	Not in the modern age of American college.
	If Trump gets the popular vote...
	It could be an electoral college blowout.
	Yeah, he could win by 100 electoral votes or more.
	But it's not going to be anything like the old ones of the 70s, 80s, even the 90s.
	You're not going to see 200-plus electoral votes one side or the other.
	Plus, it was an 18 million differential on under 100,000 votes.
	Now, what does stand out is what did the polls show on the eve of the 1980 election?
	I don't know.
	What does it show?
	Carter up by two.
	Question. Will the Pavlovian dogs start biting when they are tired of the bell ringing without food?
	That's from Omar Gonzalez.
	And then another one.
	Question. A real January 6th story by the Democrats this time.
	I don't know what that means, but I'll tell you one thing.
	I think highly unlikely because they locked themselves in.
	You can't spend four years calling in a treasonous, seditious crime to question an election and then turn around and question the very next election.
	You just can't.
	You locked yourself in in ways that...
	Are you going to get every single Democrat in the House to go along with that?
	Not a chance.
	Nope. You'll be lucky to get one out of ten.
	Let me bring up biltongs in the house here.
	Add some biltong to your diet as a high-protein snack alternative packed with B12, zinc, iron, creatine, and more.
	Get yourself some...
	Everyone should actually go order the biltong.
	It's delicious.
	It's not the cheapest thing on earth, but it's actually among the most delicious beef jerkies.
	It is biltong, which is like prosciutto made out of beef.
	It's flipping delicious.
	Get it, and you're undoubtedly going to love it.
	Viva 10 for 10% off.
	This was not an ad.
	This is just...
	Bill Tong does the superchats and I eat this, the rumble rants, and I eat it all the time.
	And then preambulist says, American elections are designed to be rigged.
	Never seen anything like it.
	We have 100% mail-in and no problems.
	All paper, same day results.
	Greetings from Switzerland.
	Well, Switzerland, man, you're lucky.
	You've got a very good functioning...
	You can use...
	Florida and Arizona have used mail-in voting for a long time.
	Mail-in voting by itself isn't necessarily election fraud.
	It just invites it.
	And they put in a lot of rules in Florida and Arizona over time to limit the scope of it, but it's just too easy to effectuate fraud in those jurisdictions.
	The big difference with 2020 was not only all these new states doing it, but secondly, no guardrails.
	So in Arizona, they're supposed to signature match.
	They quit doing it.
	In Florida, they did signature match.
	But in Arizona, they quit.
	All of a sudden, you remove that guardrail, boom, whole different ballgame.
	And then the other thing they did, people forget this, they sent them to everybody.
	They sent ballots to everybody.
	You didn't have to request them in 2020.
	It's so irritating to remember what went down in 2020.
	Everyone was indefinitely confined.
	At least in Wisconsin.
	Everybody got ballots.
	There were ballots.
	It's like you're just throwing currency around.
	Like, they don't mean anything.
	But you get a ballot, and it was the most fortified election, and Biden got 81 million.
	Except Nevada, where the Nevada Supreme Court ruled our state law that says that if you have a postmark on your ballot, on your absentee ballot, your mail-in ballot, that you can't read.
	That as long as the election official receives it within three days, assume that the postmark was by election day.
	They said, oh, that means you don't even need a postmark at all.
	That doesn't matter.
	That if when it was postmarked, as long as it gets there within three days.
	An absurd, asinine ruling by our Nevada Supreme Court trying to fix the election for Democrats.
	It's not going to work, is my prediction.
	But Nevada's the only place where you still have masks.
	Uh, mail, mail-in votes.
	And even they hear they can't get them to vote.
	Democratic voting is way down.
	You want to know why?
	It's because working class voters in Las Vegas that lean Democratic don't like this administration.
	And to the degree they can't get themselves to vote Trump, they're just like, screw it.
	Gonna do something better this year.
	Not vote.
	That's what they're doing.
	Um, okay, amazing.
	So now what are the other ones that are, uh, what else is on the ballots in certain places?
	Ah, so elections was the most popular topic on our board today.
	So we've got non-citizen voting.
	That's on eight different ballots.
	We've got ranked choice voting.
	That appears to be on, let's see, one, two, yeah, almost eight ballots in one way, shape, or form.
	And then redistricting is on one ballot.
	Ugh, redistricting.
	Whenever you say redistricting, I immediately tune out.
	Sorry, gerrymandering.
	Jerry, non-citizens voting in what context, Robert?
	So what is it?
	It's a bunch of states saying they don't want non-citizens voting.
	So because you've had some of these liberal cities, like San Francisco and a few other places, say that...
	People who are not even citizens of the United States can vote in local elections as long as they're property owners, holders in that, or residents of that local city.
	States have been like, whoa, we want to make sure this never becomes a thing at the local and state level.
	They can't do it for federal elections because that's prohibited.
	But they're only doing it for local or state elections.
	In many cases, they've only done it for local elections because there'd be an issue with trying to do it for state elections without it being statewide approved.
	But basically, which is it?
	I think it's in a bunch of states.
	Ohio? So it's in Iowa, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
	No non-citizens voting.
	This is only...
	This is only state level.
	This is state municipal level.
	This is not federal.
	Because you can't change it at the federal level.
	This is making sure local governments don't try to make it legal at the local or county level.
	What I love is, first of all, I'm inclined to believe that Mother Jones is lying.
	So I have to go down to the bottom of this article and see.
	Mother Jones used to be a useful, progressive publication with a populist bent that was reformist like Rolling Stone.
	And now it's the biggest...
	It's like vote.
	The biggest lefty rag, propaganda rag that's out there.
	Neoliberal rag.
	They're trying to stop what's not happening, so then what would be the big deal about codifying stopping what's not already happening?
	Alright, field it.
	I'm going to read that article and just see if I want to get the punchline of Mother Jones.
	It's not true that it's not happening.
	Am I not wrong about that?
	I was under the impression there are certain states that we're talking about allowing non-citizens to vote at the municipal level.
	Well, there's a bunch of cities that have made it legal.
	So to the degree they're saying it's not yet legal in these particular states at any level, that's true.
	They're just trying to get ahead of the curve to make sure it's not legal so nobody gets the idea to try to make it legal.
	They want to make it clear no non-citizens voting.
	That that shouldn't even be a question or doubt in somebody's mind.
	And so it's just to clarify that once and for all.
	And you're going to see this passed by massive margins, even in places like Wisconsin, that are seen as more toss-up states.
	The other reason they're putting it on this ballot, they want big margins to remind Democrats people are not wanting this or wanting to see anything like this ever occur as a consequence of certain Democratic policies.
	I'm trying to pull up some states where non-citizens are allowed to vote.
	Okay, interesting.
	I think San Francisco has made it legal.
	I think Boston.
	I think there's five or six cities in the country that have made it legal.
	Anything on the ballot about prohibiting non-citizens from becoming members of armed forces or police forces?
	No, nothing like that.
	Not yet.
	Give it four years.
	Exactly. I think that would probably have more mixed response because I think people will think, well, they're willing to volunteer for the army.
	I mean, you know, that they might not mind.
	Whose army, though, if it's Ratskin's army?
	They're going to have their personal militia.
	If they're all speaking Spanish, yeah.
	Maybe it'll be the Santa Ana's Revenge.
	I just picture the guys like Jamie Ratskin.
	I'll get my own militia and I'll promise them citizenship if they fight for me.
	Or tell those Trump supporters that we've disqualified them and now go enforce the law.
	The other bit, redistricting just one place, Ohio.
	These redistricting efforts to create these non-partisan commissions, in my experience, they're always a disaster.
	You're better off with the partisan ones than the nonpartisan ones.
	The nonpartisan ones tend to have an elitist bias, and they don't tend to be any better at prohibiting partisan influence.
	So that's my own view, but for those that want a legal clarity on what it is, it's just shifting who makes the redistricting decision from a more partisan-oriented commission to a more nonpartisan commission.
	It will probably pass because most people prefer that on paper.
	In my experience, it doesn't tend to create the result that many people think it will in voting for it.
	The big one that's on a lot of ballots is ranked choice voting.
	Okay, actually, we'll get there in one second.
	Let me read a bunch of local tips here.
	Didn't Florida paper ballots have problems in 2000, says Stu P. Dassel.
	That was the hanging Chad gear.
	I'm going to get to the question afterwards, but the question was, do you think...
	That was the structure of the ballot.
	That had nothing to do with the ballot being a paper ballot.
	I don't remember.
	What was it?
	The same problem would have happened with a digital ballot because it was where it was located on the form.
	Well, or most of the same problem.
	There was one problem.
	That was the hanging Chad.
	But a lot of the other problem would have been the same.
	By the way, when they did a deep study, if they'd done a full recount, Bush would have won.
	Bush did win, right?
	Yeah, he did win.
	But he would have won by more.
	Full recount had never been done.
	Gore would have won.
	He actually wouldn't have.
	Washington Post, who had no incentive to help Bush, came to that exact conclusion afterwards.
	That answers the question earlier that I will get to anyhow.
	RyanPD911 says, I am typically all for the state rights and the Constitution, but with all this fornification, we need rock-solid black-and-white voter requirements for all elections.
	Voter ID and proof of citizenship.
	Early in-person voting with the end date of Election Day.
	All... EIP, Election Integrity Project, counted.
	The day they brought it in, or EIP, I don't know what that is.
	Brought it in totals by midnight for every state.
	The bottom line, for the trillions of dollars the government blows everywhere, you can give a free federal ID for voting.
	Period. Homeless people get one.
	That's what Robert Kennedy's suggestion is.
	Okay. Good.
	I like it.
	If he says it, then it's got to be good.
	We got X, Nicole Shanahan.
	I'm going to pull that up from that's GFSSI.
	I'll see what that tweet is in a second.
	Yeah, she has some great...
	She keeps putting out really good ads.
	She put out a squirrel one earlier, I think.
	I'm going to see if that's it.
	Oh, that's great.
	No, they're all over it.
	Let me see this here.
	That's the other thing.
	It's like another one of those cues.
	Tell me the big, influential millionaire billionaire that has switched from Biden...
	I'm sorry, switched from Trump to Harris.
	Can you name a big influencer that has power, money, and that industry that has switched from Trump to Harris?
	None. Now think about all the ones that have switched from either being neutral or Biden to Trump.
	Some of the most influential ones in the country.
	Elon Musk, Robert Kennedy, Nicole Shanahan.
	These are people with substantial resources.
	Dedicating those resources to helping Trump.
	It's another indicator that tells you that whatever the media wants you to believe, probably ain't so.
	Let me see something here.
	I had one on the top there.
	My ex-girlfriend aborted our child and I can't begin to describe the horrible emotional impact on the fathers of aborted children.
	If it's a child and I don't...
	If it's a child, I don't want.
	I'm forced to support it as I should be.
	But if it's a child I do want and the mother doesn't want, I have no say in that issue.
	Yeah, the other thing is, I can tell you, overwhelmingly, women who've had abortions, two-thirds regret it.
	They don't want to track this data.
	They don't want to report this data.
	But groups that do, that regret is much higher than feeling confident about it.
	You know, like the crazy lefties you get saying, I've had seven abortions, how wonderful it is, and I'm going to have a party after my abortion.
	That's a rarity.
	Most of the women that have an abortion more often than not regret it.
	It's usually because they're in a very difficult economic situation.
	That's why the best way to reduce abortions is to improve support for young, vulnerable women.
	Young, vulnerable pregnant women especially.
	There's a lot of ways to do that.
	That's Robert Kennedy's point.
	That's other people's point.
	If you want to support life, support actual life.
	It's J.D. Vance's point.
	J.D. Vance says, I've known people who do this.
	We've got to support them so they know it's a viable option.
	That's the best way to make it happen.
	Let me bring it up here because I love it that they have their ear to the...
	To the voice of the people.
	This is Nicole Shanahan who tweeted out, My grandma had a pet squirrel she adored.
	He brought her so much joy.
	It doesn't reconcile that taxpayer dollars are going to harass people like this.
	Peanut was loved not just by his family, but by millions who got to see him online.
	Let's remember what's at stake here.
	Vote. And she's retweeting.
	And here's the thing.
	Ask yourself, what does it tell you about the nature of government bureaucrats in these states that they go after people the likes of Amish farmer Amos Miller?
	You know what a lot of the Amish are doing right now?
	They went all the way down to North Carolina, their little caravans, to help build, for free, rebuild a whole bunch of people's homes because of some of the best construction carpenters at speed, at pace, in the world.
	That's who they are.
	That's who the Amish are.
	Well, the government, Pennsylvania, is still trying to shut them down so they can't sell to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
	And then the state of New York goes and kills one of the most popular squirrels in the world.
	I mean, it tells you the mindset of these people.
	They're so egotistical.
	They're so power-driven.
	They're so used to never being checked that they need to be crushed in order to get the lesson through.
	I'm going to put this one up.
	What are the odds that if Trump wins, there will be riots and burn the cities?
	I don't think they will.
	I don't think as many because the problem is all the young left is busy protesting Israel.
	So a lot of the young left also doesn't really care.
	It's the professional class.
	What you're going to have is a tenfold increase.
	If you're a shrink, go ahead and start advertising now.
	Suffering from the election consequences?
	Here to help you.
	Because that's where there'll be huge mental health demand.
	It's going to be your older liberal woman Democrat.
	That's who will be in cognitive dissonance mode.
	And your men, who might as well be women.
	Those will be your two groups.
	But your younger...
	I've seen a lot of your younger left.
	They don't care.
	Follow you on social media.
	They're like, whatever.
	They either don't care.
	Look at the Young Turks.
	Young Turks is like, whatever.
	So you just don't have the zeitgeist for street action.
	You have zeitgeist for mental health issues with the professional class.
	You don't for street action.
	My prediction, you don't see a lot of riots after the election.
	I agree with you on that a thousand percent.
	And what I've noticed is that a lot of the younger population, they either have checked out and don't care, or they've become much more conservative than they ever were.
	And Anna Kasparian, I think she's voting Trump.
	I don't care what she says.
	I think she's voting Trump.
	Chank Uyghur, he might not vote.
	I saw someone on Twitter.
	They were like a pro-Palestinian accountant.
	They say that without judgment.
	They believe what they believe.
	And they said, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils.
	I'm sitting this one out.
	And I was going to needle them, but I don't want to egg them on to vote for Kamala because they were never voting for Trump.
	A bunch of Somali Muslims out of Minneapolis came out and endorsed Trump.
	Dearborn Muslim leaders came out and endorsed Trump.
	They're making a pragmatic choice.
	If you care about the Middle East...
	Even if you're on the Palestinian side of that equation.
	You wanted peace over war, period.
	Peace is the solution.
	Who's going to get to that?
	The only guy who has in the last, what, five terms, six terms?
	You know, you'd have to go back to Reagan.
	I mean, Poppy Bush, wars in the Middle East.
	Bill Clinton, yeah, you could kind of say peace in the Middle East, but you'd have to put some asterisks by that.
	He bombed the hell of a bunch of, I mean, maybe not in the Middle East.
	Yeah, mostly in Europe.
	He did focus there.
	But his peace deal didn't come through.
	But George W. Bush, war in the Middle East.
	Barack Obama, war in the Middle East.
	Joe Biden, war in the Middle East.
	Who's the one guy to give you peace?
	Period. In all the Muslim world.
	Donald J. Trump.
	So you're looking at your Muslim voter, you're like, look, I may not agree with his pro-Israel policies, but he gets peace.
	However he does it, the dude gets peace.
	He gets results.
	And that's why...
	That's why she's in trouble in Michigan.
	It's one of many reasons she's in trouble in Michigan.
	But you lose the Muslim vote out of Michigan, which is usually plus 70 Democrats.
	And that was the only reason, allegedly, why she picked Tim Walz in the first place.
	I know, it was to keep the Muslims happy.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	And Denise, thank you for asking the question, because it comes from our locals community.
	I'm obliged to read it.
	I didn't want to talk about Laura Loomer.
	I don't know what the...
	I've never liked Laura Loomer.
	She's a weirdo and a freak.
	Is Laura Loomer a plant?
	She's been...
	She's not a plant.
	She's just a hustler.
	She grips from one thing to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next.
	You saw the accusations against RFK, right?
	She makes all kinds of crazy claims.
	Often she makes false claims, verifiably false claims.
	She's been caught doing it again and again and again and again.
	Three times.
	She often makes Trump world look bad by some of her ridiculous statements and claims and patently false claims.
	That, you know, she's, I mean...
	She goes through different lawyers for different lawsuits because no smart lawyer will stick with her for more than one suit.
	Everything about her screams untrustworthy, untrustworthy, untrustworthy.
	Let me bring up the tweet.
	She's claiming that it's a fun...
	I'll read the tip.
	It's Laura Loomer issued a plan.
	She's been making some very questionable posts on X lately.
	Now she's going after RFK Jr. saying he's sending campaign money to Democrats.
	Let me bring it up because it's not worth...
	It's worth looking at.
	And it's over here, Laura Loomer.
	Okay. I think she's just wrong in her interpretation of what she's reading.
	It's RFK.
	It's the same thing that they said kind of about excess donations.
	None of the money that RFK Jr. is raising is going towards Donald Trump's campaign like RFK Jr. claimed.
	He said it's going towards MAHA, not MAGA.
	The fine print on the donation page says money raised will go to RFK's primary platform.
	And here it says contributions of Team Kennedy are not tax deductible, yada, yada, yada.
	Any amount over $3,300 to the general election will go to the primary election fund.
	Team Kennedy will continue to take contributions for the primary election until all net debts outstanding for the primary election cycle are paid.
	First of all, I don't think people care that he's going to pay off his primary election debt because he's right now campaigning with Trump.
	And I think that might be a worthwhile investment.
	He's gone way out of his way for Trump.
	He not only dropped out, which helped Trump.
	Then endorsed Trump, which very much helped Trump, but then has aggressively and assertively campaigned for Trump all across the country, has been one of his most effective surrogates across the country.
	And Shanahan has spent millions and millions of dollars advertising for Trump.
	But it just tells you who she is.
	She's got a problem with all kinds of people.
	She's untrustworthy, unreliable.
	I've never trusted her.
	I never will.
	The problem is, she's her own worst enemy.
	These kind of hustlers that are borderline grifters, you just can't get into bed with, period.
	Metaphorically speaking, people with you dirty minds out there.
	Alright, what do we have next?
	What's the last?
	Or I guess we're getting close to the last.
	Ranked choice voting was the next part of our election.
	Okay, what was it?
	Ranked choice voting, which means what exactly?
	They're going to aggregate your 1, 2, and 3, and then whoever gets the most points would win?
	Yeah, so what happened, in theory, ranked choice voting maximizes voter choice.
	So in theory, you get to go into the voter polls, go into the polls, and you'd say, okay, here's my number one favorite, here's my second favorite candidate, third favorite, however it goes, however many candidates are on the ballot.
	And then what happens is if your first place candidate is not in the top two, That then your vote for the second favorite candidate counts as a vote for that candidate.
	And if they're not in the top two, so on and so forth.
	Theoretically, it increases voter power and it expands the number of candidates who can run credibly.
	In other words, you can be a third-party independent candidate and say, look, you can still vote for one of the two-party candidates, but you can vote for me first and then vote for them second.
	And without wasting your vote, without worrying about wasting your vote.
	And that way you get to send a message better as to what your core policies and ideas are.
	That's how it would work in theory.
	In practice, it confuses the living heck out of voters.
	So I came out as one, I'm always for voter empowerment.
	People's, you know, giving more power to people.
	I'm for more choices rather than fewer choices on the ballot.
	So I was inclined to support ranked choice voting.
	However, in practice...
	It has become something that older voters get really confused.
	Other voters are like, what the heck is this?
	So it's something that, and even with time, voters have not become accustomed to figuring this out.
	And so more professional class and Democratic voters have overwhelmingly benefited from it.
	You get some voters who don't do the rank choice.
	And then all of a sudden it becomes an issue.
	And so a candidate wins who really wasn't the number one choice of anybody.
	And so that's, I think, why Republicans and conservatives increasingly don't like ranked-choice voting.
	Democrats increasingly love ranked-choice voting.
	It might not always work that way if people ever kind of got truly accustomed to it, because I think it instinctually would actually increase populism on both sides, but not in practice as it currently works.
	It favors the professional and managerial class more.
	The more sophisticated voter than your ordinary voter who doesn't pay attention to this day in, day out.
	Who has more normal lives to lead.
	So the places where it's up, in Alaska they're looking at potentially repealing it because they're already unhappy about it.
	In Arizona, they're looking to add it.
	That's Proposition 133.
	Yes, in Colorado, Proposition 131.
	In D.C., Initiative 83. In Idaho, Proposition 1. In Montana, CI 126 and 127.
	The Question 3 in Nevada, Measure 117 in Oregon and Constitutional Limit H in South Dakota.
	The other thing some of these are trying to do is create open primaries so that you don't vote within a Republican primary or a Democratic primary.
	Vote for any candidate you want.
	You can be independent.
	You can be Republican, Democrat.
	Doesn't matter.
	You can vote for whomever.
	And the top candidates are in the runoff, so to speak, in a general election.
	That is like in California.
	That sometimes produces two Democrats on Election Day.
	That has not been inspired.
	In theory, that created the two really most popular candidates would definitely be there rather than...
	One candidate getting stuck in their primary base and kind of getting lost and not there.
	I'm skeptical of it.
	But what's interesting is all these ranked choice voting issues, like here at least in Nevada, they're disguising as we want independents to be able to vote in primaries too, which is not really what the amendment is.
	The amendment's a radical restructuring of all elections.
	That isn't just, let's include independents being allowed to choose which primary they want to vote in, like some states allow, like New Hampshire and some other places.
	So again, the marketing behind this is incredibly deceptive, once again.
	What it really is, is restructuring elections in ways that favor elites, is my view of what the actual practical consequence will be in what we've witnessed over the last decade.
	I don't know if it's on our list.
	This is answering a rumble rant from Joel Dowling.
	Have you seen Proposition 1 coming out of New York?
	I don't think so.
	Which one is it?
	Look at this.
	This is the one.
	Text of Proposition 1, an amendment.
	Current resolution, yada, yada, yada, section 1. Oh yeah, we discussed that just briefly on the abortion one because it implicitly involves abortion as well.
	Your gender expression is now a protected class in New York if this passes.
	And you can't roll back laws that protect basically treatment.
	They're trying to pigeonhole in more dramatic radicalized abortion laws and a lot of other stuff there in New York.
	I'm just looking at the other stuff here.
	It will protect LGBTQ plus New Yorkers by preventing future state laws from rolling back Current LGBTQ plus rights to equal treatment.
	I don't know if that means equal medical treatment.
	It's interpreted as it does.
	That's why it's listed as an abortion-related amendment.
	It's unrelated.
	It's not unrelated.
	It's unbelievable the manufactured alleged discrimination, not benefiting from every right that every other American benefits from.
	It's totally, totally amazing how they managed to do that.
	Okay, cool.
	What else?
	So, yeah, that's a wrap on the election ones.
	Then we've got criminal justice reform, minimum wage, energy versus the environment.
	A few other that are popular.
	We could start with the criminal justice reform initiatives that are on the ballot.
	Okay, go for it.
	So we've got, in Arizona, require that anyone convicted of child sex trafficking receive at least a sentence of life imprisonment and provide for being able to arrest illegals.
	The issue there is...
	Prior Supreme Court decisions that made that difficult.
	But I think both will pass overwhelmingly.
	And they are pretty much straightforwardly what they're presented as legally.
	In California, a proposal that involves reversing the...
	It's Proposition 36. Reversing a prior...
	They do their propositions.
	They renumber them each year.
	Which I actually kind of...
	I like the states that just number them sequentially.
	So you never get like...
	Seven different Prop 1s, right?
	But you do in California.
	You get Prop 36, which is an effort to overturn Prop 47. Sounds weird.
	Harris, by the way, was a huge fan of Prop 47. So this was the prop that made it basically legal to steal under $1,000 in California.
	The old one did.
	And it turns out people aren't happy with that, even in California.
	So they're looking to reverse that.
	And they're looking to impose kind of a more modern Dutch version of drug laws.
	And actually, there's a long discussion that Robert Kennedy had with one of the leaders who has followed the Dutch experiment.
	And noted that one part of the Dutch experiment is highlighted by parts of the left in America, but not the other part.
	And what that is, is it's a hard quid pro quo.
	So if you are a drug possession defendant in a criminal case, Which means a serious or hard drug in California.
	Then they're recommending under this proposition you're given a choice.
	And the choice is you go to rehab and you finish rehab.
	And if you do, you don't get criminally punished.
	If you don't, you do get criminally punished.
	What they found in the Netherlands was that a combination of that was required to deal with certain aspects of drug defendants.
	And so even though it's known as the legalized drug world, it actually is more caveat than people understand it to be.
	That there needed to be a stick with the carrot available, but there definitely needed to be a carrot to begin with.
	And now this is disliked by Gavin Newsom.
	Gavin Newsom was a fan of the law that liberalized the ability to go in and steal and do these smash and grabs that everybody's seen all over the country, that a scene has happened in California.
	Like, places like San Francisco, where you have drugstore after drugstore having to close down, because they just go in as gangs, as five groups, take a little bit, each one take a little under $1,000 and walk out, and then do it every other week, and there's no consequence.
	So I think it's probably going to pass, but legally, so it's being portrayed in some places as a return to the war on drugs.
	That's a mischaracterization by the left in California.
	It's, I think it's...
	It fits public policy-wise with where a lot of more moderate-oriented jurisdictions have gone, including in Europe, of how to...
	You can't just decriminalize low-level theft without incentivizing it.
	And you can't just legalize drugs.
	You need the low-risk drugs.
	With the high-risk drugs, you need some combination of carrot and stick, rehab and prison, to really work.
	And so that...
	I think that kind of makes sense there.
	Then in Colorado, it's on the Amendment 1, remove the right to bail in first-degree murder cases when the proof is evident or the presumption is great.
	Now, I'm a huge right-to-bail individual.
	I would note that constitutionally, at the time of our Constitution and its early years of application, First-degree murder was never considered a bailable offense.
	So it's consistent with the federal constitutional right to bail.
	But it's the accusation.
	I mean, obviously, they're not convicted.
	But the accusation, if it's first-degree murder, no bail.
	Here, in the attic condition, there has to be strong proof.
	So it can't just be any kind of allegation.
	But I think, well, as a...
	Big defender of the right to bail.
	This is one that would be consistent with the federal constitution's right to bail because first-degree murder was traditionally not considered a bailable offense.
	Also in Colorado, required that persons convicted of certain violent crimes serve more of their sentences before being eligible for parole.
	I get where that's coming from.
	How well that works as a criminal justice system is up...
	Is up for debate.
	I'll put it that way.
	Interesting that it's on the ballot in Colorado, a lefty jurisdiction.
	Well, that was one thing.
	They're locking up Tina Peters for nine years and they want to let violent criminals out early.
	As it currently stands, I guess it's state by state in terms of when you're eligible for parole.
	Yeah, it varies entirely state by state.
	On average, it's half.
	About half your prison time you do in an average state prison.
	But some, it's low as a third.
	Sumitize it two-thirds.
	In the federal system, you do 85% of your time.
	And then also Colorado allocates state revenue to a new fund called the Peace Officer Training and Support Fund to improve various things for law enforcement.
	What does the Colorado ballot look like?
	Is it four pages long?
	Let me see if I can find a picture.
	A lot of them are.
	A lot of them are pages after page after page.
	Because sometimes they include the description.
	The amendment, and then they include the description, and then they include both sides interpretation.
	I hate to ask this stupid question.
	How are you supposed to vote on these things if you're doing it on a digital machine?
	Oh, it goes through the whole thing.
	Scroll through.
	Okay. Because I did that in Nevada, it's a digital machine.
	And it prints out a copy of your ballot, so you can see it there confirmed, but it's all digital.
	Did you see this, by the way?
	This is from S. S. Wren in our locals community.
	Speaking of corruption, or corrupt government, Daniel Penny body cam was finally released.
	Apparently, according to the...
	I want to see if I can find this.
	They found a pulse, and the sergeant testified that they never did mouth-to-mouth.
	Quote, he was a dirty drug user, and I was worried about hepatitis.
	It turned out he wasn't dead after the chokehold, like was originally told.
	And they decided to prosecute him anyway.
	Again, the arrogance of these administrative officials.
	And then we've got energy versus the environment and minimum wage also up.
	Okay, are these on amendments or are these lawsuits?
	Yeah, so the amendments are for on minimum wage.
	Alaska increased the government's minimum wage to $15 per hour and required all employers...
	I'm sorry, increase the minimum wage for everybody to $15 per hour and require earned paid sick leave.
	In Arizona, allow for tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage, provided that their total compensation is at least $2 plus the minimum wage when tips are included.
	In California, minimum wage increase proposed to $18 per hour.
	In Massachusetts, increase the minimum wage for tipped employees to be the same as the state standard.
	Because in most places, your tipped employees have a lower minimum wage than do the...
	Because of the assumption of what they're going to make on tips, which is why you should tip people.
	Yes. Increase the state's minimum wage in Missouri to $15 per hour and also require paid leave.
	And in Nebraska, require paid leave.
	You can tell, by the way, when these all show up on the same ballot in multiple states, somebody was organizing behind it.
	Either a big money donor or big organizations.
	My guess is probably unions in this case were behind these proposals.
	At a state level, what are we dealing with in terms of average minimum wage?
	Is it like $8 or is it like $13?
	That's a good question.
	Maybe look that up and see if average minimum wage required by state.
	Okay, fine.
	Hold on.
	When I was the wee lad, it was $3.35 an hour.
	When I was a kid, it was 865.
	I was a tipped employee.
	I was like 225 an hour.
	I learned to be careful about reporting those tips.
	I was naive.
	I was a 12-year-old kid working my grandparents' diner as a waiter.
	I was just reporting, honestly, all my tips.
	Slowly but surely, I was like, why do all the other waitresses hate me?
	They were getting more and more bitter.
	Finally, it was one of these nice dishwashers.
	He's like, Bobby, you got to be careful about that tip reporting.
	I'm like, what do you mean?
	He's like, everybody else here reports a lot less.
	I'm like, yeah, I guess I'm just doing really good.
	No, no, that isn't why.
	Looking at it, it's not...
	So California is $16, it looks like.
	Alaska is $11.73.
	Arizona is $14.
	All right, so it's not like they're not doubling it.
	It's going up a little bit.
	All right.
	Yeah, minimum wage increases are usually very popular.
	The question is in recent cycles that there's been such drastic increases in certain places that the impact has been to the public being concerned that the minimum wage increase is so great that what will happen is a loss of jobs.
	People will always prefer a job at a lower wage than no job.
	At a higher wage.
	I love this.
	I mean, the difference between California and Iowa.
	I mean, I appreciate cost of living.
	It's always that magical point.
	Where's that point where the minimum wage?
	Like, you might wonder why unions care because unions have their own contract.
	It's because off to the minimum wage, some unions actually have this contract.
	It's a certain percentage above the minimum wage that actually is the union wage.
	But also, generally speaking, an increase in the minimum wage increases everybody else's wages.
	So it leads to a wage increase across the board for working class communities.
	And if you're on that side of wanting those working class people paid the best, you also want to make sure they have jobs.
	So you're always trying to figure out where's that number?
	Where's that number that is going to net benefit them versus be a net detriment?
	And I think there's been a shift towards a net detriment perspective amongst more people as the minimum wage increase has got a little high.
	So we'll see where...
	I think most of these will pass because most of them don't seem that out of whack.
	California's $18 an hour would be the highest.
	And so we'll see how that translates.
	But you also have a unique economy in parts of California where a lot of the minimum wage workers are really working for a service economy, servicing very affluent people.
	So you might have a bit of a different dynamic there in terms of the polling results.
	Okay. And then on the...
	Where is it?
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, no.
	It's further up.
	The last one was energy versus the environment.
	And there's a couple of ones.
	And a big one is a couple of ones in Washington.
	And what's interesting is what they're doing in Washington...
	Washington passed their own state cap-and-trade.
	We're going to lead the effort in environmental enforcement of the Paris Climate Accords.
	And the state is deeply divided.
	You have Seattle and the western part of the state, particularly the northwestern part of the state.
	And then you have all of eastern Washington.
	And they kind of hate each other politically.
	They're totally different.
	Culturally, everything.
	And that divide has been deepening.
	And that rift has been expanding.
	There are people in eastern Washington who have talked about, is there some way to get out of Washington and join Idaho?
	So what's happened is they put two initiatives on there.
	So they put these cap-and-trade positions in there that made natural gas difficult in Washington, made energy very expensive at a household level, a business level, create all these nightmare sort of fallout.
	And it's always been, at what point does environmentalism lose public support?
	When it starts imposing real cost on real people, right?
	It's one thing to have big corporations have to pay more.
	Okay, whatever.
	What is it when your utility bill doubles?
	What happens when you can't afford basic things?
	Then you'd be like, hold on a second.
	I'm not sure I'm willing to pay that on the gamble that this environmentalist stuff is correct in predicting doom and gloom.
	And so we're going to see an interesting test of it on Election Day.
	Because in Washington, they put energy proposals on that make energy more affordable and accessible in Washington and decrease the power of the environmental lobby and the legislation that they've got passed over the prior years.
	So it'll be an interesting little watch in a state that's a very liberal democratic state by nature.
	Okay. And how many other things?
	There's a lot of...
	All the biggest topics and ones to watch are the ballots and initiatives for Election Day 2024.
	We are going to go to Locals for our after party.
	Robert, what do you have on for tomorrow?
	I'll be on with Richard Barris, People's Pundit.
	What are the odds?
	At 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
	And then on Tuesday, I'll be active throughout the day in the live chat at sportspicks.locals.com.
	With any intel, insights, information about the election, looking at it from an election markets perspective, that, you know, for example, our first VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com site opened up on Election Day 2020, and those active in the live chat got the free pick that after Trump had doubled and tripled his value in the election markets to sell him at midnight.
	Because you could see there were some danger signs flashing as to what was going to happen.
	So a lot of people who were active in those live chats made a lot of money.
	They paid for their subscriptions for their lifetimes, their friends' lifetimes, their family's lifetimes, with just that one little bit of insight.
	So I'll be active there.
	The only place I'll be active all day on Election Day will be there, giving little insights, intel, information, responding to questions.
	It will be sportspicks.locals.com on Election Day.
	All right, and I will have Douglas Mackey on at 5 o'clock tomorrow, and I'll be live at 12.30.
	So I'm going to have two live streams tomorrow.
	I'll stop at 2 o'clock.
	I've got to go to a doctor anyhow.
	But live at 12.30 for the regular stream, and then 5 o'clock, Douglas Mackey, Ricky Vaughn, the guy who got convicted for the meme, who's currently under appeal.
	And U2UK1492 says, just a couple of years ago here in California, the minimum wage was $11 an hour.
	Now the leftists want to almost double that.
	Everybody, if you're not coming over to Locals, make sure that you are subscribed in Rumble.
	Here's the link to Locals.
	We're going to have our after party there.
	Before you leave, drop a thumbs up.
	Make sure that you subscribe.
	Make sure you turn notifications on.
	We will be live Tuesday in the evening, 7 o'clock, whatever, 6 o'clock.
	We'll see when we start.
	Tomorrow, 12.30 and 5 o'clock.
	Barnes, 2 o'clock on People's Pundit.
	Thank you all for being here.
	And it's going to be 30 seconds while I do this.
	Because it ends on rumble.

▲