-
Unknown A
Sean did not attack me on Biden policies. I brought up, so I brought up the Infrastructure act, the Chips and Science act, the policy on Ukraine. AGW was not attacking me on Biden policies. To be said, we weren't talking about Biden. That's his fault. That is his fault in terms of failing to bring up those policies to attack them. If I say he did all these great things and it's unrebutted and he starts talking about other things that I'm addressing, that's on him to make it more about Biden's failings and to think that he's not doing that. That's why it looks like you're constantly on the back foot. Hey folks, please like comment and subscribe. If you want to read what's going on from a pro Republic, anti corruption and anti oligarch perspective, subscribe to the Weekly Patriot. The link is in the description across the debate.
-
Unknown A
I think that there's some, I think, obviously I think I won. That's just me, but I always think I win. But I think there are some good pointers that people have pointed out. I I don't want you to think that you just need to be glazing in the chat because there are always things that we can improve and I can talk a little bit about that event. What I thought went well, what I thought I need to work on. I think it was my first live, like setup debate in person, right? Like I was at the Election Stream and there was like some debating there. But I think it was like the first formal live debate in this side of my life right outside of like the context of Model UN or school. And I hope you enjoyed it. There were some really great moments.
-
Unknown A
I can talk to you about my favorite moments and what my game plan was going into it. I think it's helpful for you guys to understand that to get a view into my process. I was filling in for not so Erudite who I think had a conflict. And here's what I think oftentimes is lacking in a lot of these, like invite panels. And also I think it's one of my criticisms. So what was my number one desire for this conversation? And so you can get into my mentality going into it. My number one desire going into the conversation was to control the conversation, to control the terms of what we're doing, to press, to be on the attack, to be on offense. That was my goal. And I think in terms of being on offense, not to never be on defense. You'll notice I did deal with his arguments he put up, but to generally be in control of the pace, to have it be kind of a manic pace, and to make him uncomfortable and to push him and to, you know, essentially take the conversation by the reins and, yeah, thank you for
-
Unknown A
giving subs. That was my mentality going into it. I also wanted to make sure that there was key moments that I could point to and force him into a ridiculous position. The reason why I started with Richard Nixon was I was building up for a moment when it would become relevant to where he would say something like, you can't impeach or you can't call corrupt an official action. So I was waiting for him to say something like that. And so I was building into my. My plan how, you know, reference points that I could use later on in the conversation if he were to ever say something so absurd as, like, well, why would I call. Pardon? Why would I say that's impeachable? Why would I say that's corrupt? Why would I say there's a problem with it? Because it's an official power to bring up.
-
Unknown A
Again, okay, so Richard Nixon, like, the best, most cited example of a corrupt presidency where obviously he needed to go and he had to resign over and it was a scandal. You're willing to say that you wouldn't be in favor of impeaching Richard Nixon. Those are, you know, examples of things that I laid the groundwork for deliberately, because I know the kind of absurdist line that these take, where in order to defend the stuff, you have to make an impossible standard that no one will ever meet. So that's kind of what the Richard Nixon is. Okay? So if you can't beat the virtue, you can never call anything beautiful. Same thing with insurrection, right? When we have this insurrection conversation, okay? The only thing that's insurrection is civil war. That's the only thing that is an insurrection, is a civil war. Needs to be exactly like the Civil War.
-
Unknown A
So if your standard is far, far, far too high, beyond what, like, normal people think, you're gonna sound ridiculous and you're gonna bite some insane bullets. Like the attack on Fort Sumter initially was an insurrection until it broke out into a general war, or the Whiskey Rebellion was an insurrection that everyone can sort of call it an insurrection. Or, for example, that Trump is allowed to pause spending unilaterally for an indefinite period of time. So these are kind of areas where I know there are pressure points where you sound ridiculous if you don't give some ground on it. And so I think about what those might be in the context of the conversation and I prepare for them and I always want to be on the offense. Now that I think I did and I achieved an offensive and dominating and commandeering debate performance. Let me talk about where I think Sean failed and then where I failed, I feel that I failed and where it's a consistent problem now for me to do this.
-
Unknown A
And I think that I need to start really being serious about doing it better. But let's first talk about what Sean failed at and where it was a really, I think, if you think about it, stupid line to take. Sean did not attack me on Biden policies that I brought up, right? So I brought up the Infrastructure act, the Chips and Science act, those legislations, the, you know, the policy on Ukraine, the policy on Gaza, even to some extent. Well, I criticize on that. But to the extent that I was, you know, putting forth Biden policies, I was insulating myself from attacks either conceding that they were bad in the case of like A pardons, for example. But AJW was not attacking me on Biden policies. He was conceding, for example, yeah, Biden probably didn't have this outsized effect on inflation. And so to the extent we weren't talking about Biden, that's his fault.
-
Unknown A
That is his fault in terms of failing to bring up those policies to attack them. If my, if I say he did all these great things and it's unrebutted and he starts talking about other things that I'm addressing, that's on him to make it more about Biden's failings. And to the extent that he's not doing that, that's why it looks like you're constantly on the back foot. He should be attacking me like, what about when Biden did this and making me feel uncomfortable now there's only so much you can do. I think I probably should have emphasize some of the more affirmative, affirmative case there, which I'm obviously happy to do. And you saw me both at the start and in the Q and A. I'm perfectly willing to defend it. The problem is, like, when I bring those unambiguous wins up, what's the rebuttal?
-
Unknown A
It's usually like, nitpicking. Oh, it has. They haven't actually put in the broadband centers just yet. So it's. I think I could have emphasized it a little bit more to make a more affirmative case, but I wanted to focus on the negative. I wanted to focus on corruption, I wanted to focus on the bad shit he was doing. And that's what people are left with. I think oftentimes we're like, we're seeing this defense of the indefensible, for example, the imperialist ambition. How many people were kind of disgusted with the notion that he's kind of flippant in humorous ways, in acquisitions of your neighbors, that's the ultimate form of love? I don't think those are good looks for him. I don't think that. The Afghanistan situation, I think is one of the better moments too where those nuances matter. And if you're coming to debate about the Afghanistan withdrawal was badly run, you have to be ready to play the game.
-
Unknown A
And it's not enough for you to say, I don't really know about that. Oh, isis, you know, Taliban, who knows? Same kind of thing with all the cases he was bringing up. If he wants to stake a claim for unitary executive theory and say that that's the only way to look at these things, you better come to play. If you haven't, if you don't even know what Humphrey's executor is, or if you don't even know what tail is, or if you don't even know the kind of arguments you say, I don't know about it, but you're trying to lecture us, you just look like a fool. And he doesn't know that stuff. But he doesn't, people don't scratch him on it. So when I, when I see a penal witness, I'm going to test you on it. So when you bring up the unitary executive, you try and you're like, that's the way it is.
-
Unknown A
You know, you have to find, I'm going to test you on that. And then when you don't bring the goods, you're going to look weak and bad. Which I think he did. That's also true of the Biden versus Nebraska case. And you're coming here and you're saying obviously Biden violated the affirmative action case and he violated Biden Nebraska with respect to student loans because of the, you know, how they did these other things, but you don't know that. You know, one policy, these policies are allowed under the then existing Supreme Court orders. And if you say, okay, I didn't read it, and you try to say, well, he violated the opinion, how do you know he violated the opinion if you didn't read it or if you don't have a good grasp of what was said in it? I mean, he could have said you don't need to read a full opinion in order to know what it's about.
-
Unknown A
And there are ways he could have done that, but he kind of just said, no, I didn't read it. And it left implicit the hanging. And I'm ignorant about it. You guys see that if you're not constantly guarding yourself and saying, no, I read it, but I know about it generally. Or I probably don't know specifically holding, but I generally know this and that. And you don't protect yourself and your credibility, soon you're going to sound like an amateur and like you don't really know what you're talking about. Which I think is what happened. And the best, I think the most, the crystalizing moment of that is the Afghanistan situation because it's just such an obvious black and white thing where you're just supposing that the Taliban broke. Where did you hear that from? And it's of a. It's just the kind of sloppiness that you come to expect from Sean, unfortunately.
-
Unknown A
He was like a nice guy beyond scenes. I want to be clear, you know, I shook his hand, everything's good. But you know, confusing district attorney for U.S. attorney. Like one of the states. A state's attorney. Right. Like, no, but it's those things as well. It's in the Bragg situation, just missing. I can talk. Messing things up, mixing things up, not being like incredibly sharp on stuff. In the immigration discussion, we have one like view into that problem, which is there's a policy that Sean believes is being used for fraudulent ends. That is people are not attempting to do asylum in safe countries along the way to Mexico. And there are, you know, perfectly valid reasons why we should be skeptical of asylum claims from people who don't follow all the rules of asylum claims, especially like a third, third country rule. But he knows that.
-
Unknown A
He doesn't know enough to say, okay, well then what next? Okay, just because you can't grant them asylum under the third country laws, or let's say they're ineligible for asylum, doesn't mean that there are no other forms of either relief or forms of protection that the government might be required to offer you. Thank you for the super chat. Clearly worked out for you. Were you worried about AJW sister lying Coffee wouldn't happen. I don't know that I can say. I'm not prepared to say that everything he says is a liable instances there have been a couple of times where I think they probably are lies. But yeah, no, if I don't know something. For example, there was one of the parting cases I didn't know about. I just don't Talk about it if you were depressed. Me, I'm like, yeah, I don't know about that.
-
Unknown A
You know, I'm not gonna take your representation for it. If what you're saying is true, that's probably bad. But what I learned from what I think people are telling me is that his representation, one of those pardon cases was just completely off. And so to the extent that he's bringing stuff up that I don't know about, I'll either admit my ignorance. So another example of this is the Ukraine line. And we said Biden actually reduced lethal aid right before the invasion. And I kind of understand the tenor nature of how those little cherry pick data situations kind of come from where they'll focus in on some super specific item where you can say, okay, why did he decrease it in this moment? It's kind of what Rob doesn't get into, where you can go into the weeds and be like, okay, this prosecutorial move, they didn't do it here, they do it here.
-
Unknown A
And so I kind of ear for that stuff. And especially when it comes to funding, say, you know, I don't really know what you're referencing, the data you point referencing. You know, it could be true that there was lovely delayed in the monthly. I don't know the reasons for it, but overall we know that Biden is more pro Ukraine. That's well established. You know, Trump's talking about cutting Ukraine funding. And so there are ways to get around those details where you think there might be lies or mistruths or false information don't represent that you know more than you do. Use your ignorance in your favor. There's another time when he said something like, well, they stopped, they froze this Tesla deal. Now, I don't know that to be true. I actually haven't looked it up even now. But I can just say I don't know that to be true.
-
Unknown A
I'm taking representation. If that's true, you'd admit it's after it was brought to their attention there. So that kind of. You cannot let yourself be tripped up by those situations. And the quicker you can say, oh, I don't know about that, but it doesn't matter, and this is why it doesn't matter. Or I'm gonna assume that we're saying is true. If what you're saying is true, that would be bad. But just say it doesn't make it true. Or you say, if we're saying it's true, it doesn't matter because even if it's true, da da da da. So being Kind of quick on your feet to deal with those pitfalls that might trip up more inexperienced people. I think it's helpful. So. But he's kind of in trouble because if you don't know the broad strokes, the big important stuff, if you don't know about the Impoundment act, you can't talk about the Impoundment Act.
-
Unknown A
If you don't know about withholding of removal under, you know, asylum withholding as opposed to the granting of asylum, or if you don't know about the Convention against Torture, or if you don't know about the need for bilateral treaties to enact the kind of deportation machines that you would need to have for these situations, then you're stuck. If you don't know, you can't talk about that. You need to be prepared for the facts. Same thing with Biden in Nebraska. You, if you don't know what's in the ruling of the student loan case, you can't really talk about it and you can't represent that it violates it because you're going to be asked, well, what did you read it? And if your answer is no, then how do you say violated the opinion? So fighting on ground that you're familiar with is super duper important. And disclaiming knowledge on ground that you are actively fighting in is always, always, always a bad look.
-
Unknown A
One thing that I think is super helpful for me is that I, I'm kind of, you guys know the phrase jack of all trades, master of none. I have a lot of varied interests and I don't talk about international politics a lot on my stream, but I follow it. So people oftentimes, they will go into these conversations thinking I know less than I do on international relations. I wouldn't say that I'm an expert in international relations, but, you know, I've done. Luan, I understand the big strokes of what's going on foreign policy wise. And I also understand a lot of the common because I watch a lot of the other side. I understand, okay, what did I do bad? I think in general it was too aggressive and that's something that I should have done better about because I literally went into the conversation like, breathe, take a minute.
-
Unknown A
And I didn't really do it. I kind of treated it almost similarly to what I did with the lactoid. Even though I had that specific note and it was the most important note, I think I was still too aggressive and I should have slowed it down one, because I'm, I'm not letting some of them land. I think the Most effective moment was that Afghanistan moment, arguably, because I let it sit, you know, I said, you don't know. Right. And there was this kind of hushed silence. And I think that we should have. I shouldn't have tried to go through all of the fast the Bear Adams. It was too quick. I should have slowed it down and I think probably notched down the. The anger meter probably 30%. I talked a little O fucks about the affirmative case. I think that's on Sean. You know, I put up the policy that I agree with you and attack me on them.
-
Unknown A
Now, I think for my own benefit, I probably should have spent more time on the affirmative policies outside of the Q and A, where I think I lingered and did actually talk about them more than I did in the actual debate. So I hear you there, but he was not on the attack on me. And so he should have. I think if he were smart about it, he should have tagged me on Biden because he could say, why have you talked about the good things about it? I could just easily say, why aren't you talking about the bad things about Biden? So there is a symmetry there, but the audience is kind of expecting you to bolster your side, so I see that. But I do think that. I think Eric Adams is the best thing to start with. Yeah. Yes, it is, because my goal is to dominate, take control, and put him in the defense immediately.
-
Unknown A
And so I don't want to put myself in the fence by opening myself up with affirmative policy at the beginning. But I think in my introduction, I should have included a longer exposition, probably less time on the Mayor Adams saying in the introduction. More time than the first thing in the introduction. But I did, and I think I was successful. Insane in offense and staying in control of the conversation. So in terms of my notes, I think being a little bit more smiling, maybe a bit more at the beginning, I think I calmed down a little bit and was more relaxed going into it or sort of in the middle of it. But, yeah, I think that that would have been helpful dialing back the anger meter and probably being a little bit more appealing to the common man type situation, because I think there are moments where if you're not read in to these specific issues.
-
Unknown A
Right. It can be like, what is he talking about? Right. So I say the acting. So, like, I can almost break down just to make sure the audience understands. The Acting U.S. attorney is the head of the Southern District of New York in this place. This is someone who has a lot of conservative bona fides, and I think that she is someone that you have no reason to doubt. And she said on the record. So when you've given that background more human, more base facts that say, this is why you should rely on that, as opposed to saying, I think that can be more effective. And so I think all of that has helped by slowing down. And that's what I was told to do by a lot of people. That's what I was bringing a note to do in my head, which I totally failed on.
-
Unknown A
And I think that I shouldn't prove. I shouldn't just rest on my Laura. Now, ultimately, I think it was a blowout because he just can't engage on the substance or the facts. And he just wasn't able to. And he wasn't able to. He sounded ridiculous at points, talking about how. And the standards. Just completely bizarre. Just to give you a point of contact on that, the notion that who knows if it's corrupt. Yeah. This corrupt mayor, who I agree is corrupt mayor, who I agree it was not a corrupt investigation. We've already given those two things. Oof. A legitimate investigation into an actually corrupt person and stopping it. When you acknowledge that you're not looking into the facts or law of the situation. And the only reason that you are saying that it might be legitimate, you're not even saying that it isn't corrupt. You're saying it might still be corrupt, but the reason you're giving for hedging your bets is because a website makes it weird when you have no evidence of interference from the U.S.
-
Unknown A
attorney at the time. It just sounds ridiculous when you're trying to argue that the Afghanistan withdrawal is horrible, but you can't identify any tangible thing other than let's leave contractors in there to keep fighting the war, but just have them be contractors and not regulars. Why, you just sound ridiculous when you admit you don't know the basic cases on unitary executive theory. So it's just also. It's just also just like, not helpful for him to be speaking out of his ass. But that's something he's gonna have to learn in the years to come. So, yeah, that's my kind of take on it. I think that it was not even close. I think he sounded insane saying that Nixon shouldn't have been impeached. Okay, so no one should be impeached. But you're so angry about the 100 binder. So that's what I mean. Saying, for example, that it's more corrupt to pardon your son than it is to pardon dozens of people who were literally convicted of trying to overturn the country and to take over the government.
-
Unknown A
And by the way, such a conspiracy is you're planning to use force to do so. That's part of the law. That is a part of what they had to prove in Arabic about is the use of force, the planning of using a force, meaning of the mines, to use force to overthrow the government or to resist by force the government. Right. That's a seditious conspiracy. And so there were so many bullets that he was biting that I was glad to get those bites and move on. And I think that the results speak for themselves. I can always tell when there's a bunch of copers. The other one was also predator. I can always tell when there's a bunch of copers when they're adding me so vigorously in my Twitter replies saying, you got crushed. So when there are people, when there's disagreements between them about what the good points were or the bad points were, when some are being like, yeah, I'm conservative, I'm a little embarrassed about this performance, or he only won because of the pay tax, or, you know, he has.
-
Unknown A
I don't know. They said, you know, making fun of your personal appearance, making fun of how you talk as opposed to what you say. That makes me really good about where I'm at. Those are the signals to me when it's how I'm saying things or who I am or that I look soy or sound soy or anything like that. Then I'm like, yeah, okay, I killed it. And that's what I ultimately. Just for me, not even close. And this is a very conservative, in my opinion audience, their audience that was in front of me, super, super conservative. And I was meeting their gaze the entire time. So I'm shaking their heads like, no, why are you shaking your head? So I think that I displayed a confidence there and a command of the facts that no one can deny. And they're not. And they're coping about it.
-
Unknown A
And the person putting you. I posted the video because I'm proud of it, and I think that it's a good showcase of my skills. I can definitely improve. There's room for significant improvement. But I'm not scared to take these people on. And I want to do so again less aggressively, but aggressive and unapologetic. I don't want to be this Colm sticker, you know, Hannity and Coles Cole sticker, where I'm kind of always. Liberals are always in the back foot. No, I want to take the fight to you. That's part of my entire mantra in terms of charting a course for me and what I stand for in the future is to be a little bit of a brick, as my rugby coach used to say. To be manic, aggressive in a way, and to be pushing constantly. Push, push, push, push, push offense. So that is something that I don't want to get rid of.
-
Unknown A
I do want to be on offense, but I think that there's a way to do it. There's a way to be more personable. And I think that that's something that I, I can work on. I know I'm capable of it. There's sometimes I get really, really bad that I need control. And to be clear with you guys, this is not the case with every discussion I have, this is not everything. But on these specific issues I get very passionate about because I feel, I feel like they're over my country, in my home. And so I take that personally. Especially when they're talking about other assimilation I know about. And I spend a lot of time like worrying about like unitary executive theory, where I've thought about that a lot. It's insulting the intelligence of the audience and everyone to come to this debate unprepared to discuss or to make representations that are not backed up by like Biden Supreme Court president and where you're not even engaged enough nation on your own side where you like.
-
Unknown A
One of the main goals of these project 25 goons is to overturn Humphrey's executor. The fact you don't know that on your own side what they're doing indicates me that you're just a propagandist and kind of a low rate propagandist. You need to know these things. Like it sounds like he looks at the Twitter arguments and waits for them to come up and doesn't interrogate them. Another example of this, I think was the Tesla Fleet issue. Right? So he thought that the Tesla fleet issue was, oh, we've proved by the way that's made on the chat, I do tomato. He thought that that was an issue where, oh, this was a fake news conflict because the purchase happened under Biden disprove that this is any kind of conflict. But he hasn't interrogated that at all because it strikes me as someone who has not engaged with the arguments on the other side, only like the caricatures of those arguments as presented by the right wing.
-
Unknown A
I think you should use less emotionally charged words. I think that's right as well. Yeah. And I said that in the comments. I said I was gonna do that. And I did not do that. So that's a big. That's a big knock against me. I think. I think it's fair to say that's a. That's a big knock. So I hear you guys. I'm gonna try to do better, but sorry, let me say something. So if you don't interrogate. Beside, from. What would they say if we say that this is all above board? The swearing is sometimes all about. It's just like anything else. Right? You guys know, you know those shows that only have like one swear per season? Oh, wait, is that boack horseman? Yes, BoJack Horseman. Have you guys seen BoJack Horseman? Yeah. So BoJack Horseman, they use like one swear per, per, like season.
-
Unknown A
Right. I get the. Out of my house. And the tactical use of the swears, I think gives its impact. And so I think that the swearing for me is in some ways important because I think that the dialogue needs to be authentically where we are at as a society. But I think I did it too much. So good point. Anyway, back to this sleep. If you haven't interrogated it on the other side, then you would have never thought like, okay, well, just because it was made under the buy and purchase order, isn't it still the case that Elon Musk is in charge of whether or not this gets frozen or not, since he's doing a whole of government freeze? And isn't it the case that regardless of whether the purchase was made at a different time, the release of funds is also a significant event over which there can be a huge conflict of interest?
-
Unknown A
And so it sounds absurd for you to say there's no conflict. I don't really care because the purchase happened before then, but nothing else matters. You know what else was quote unquote, purchased before Trump's term, like the expenditure of US Aid in that sense. Right. Purchased by Congress. But obviously those are right for all sorts of issues regarding conflicts of interest. That's another point where he seems super weak. But the whole effective control, that's a red herring. And it looks weak, in my opinion, to be like, Elon Musk's not actually in control of stuff. That's what the administration is trying to say. By the way, a lot of these filings that, you know, he doesn't really have power. We know he has influence. And obviously what's being meant by that is he's making decisions that are having the impact of law. You could argue that if the President supersedes every agency, then no one has effective Control, except for the President.
-
Unknown A
But of course, that's not true in your day to day. Right. You might have a manager who's a figurehead. The person who's really in control is like the, the shift lieutenant or whatever. I don't know, you might have in the house. Technically, the head of the family is the father, but the mom is the one who actually makes all the decisions. You guys know what I'm talking about here. And so getting caught up on those little semantics, I don't know, those are good hills to die on for him. He's not getting to the substance of things. And at most he's saying you're being shifted. Obviously isn't being shifted to anyone. I'm talking about he's having a huge effect on policies and he's having the effect of controlling the direction of the government. And it's something that Trump is embracing, saying, yeah, you know, he's part of the administration and he's making, he has good ideas.
-
Unknown A
So you're not really taking the opportunity you have to make the most of, of the attacks against me. You're just, you're just saying basically, like, oh, fine, he has, he has influence, but not effective control. And at that point, okay, so what would it take for you to say he shouldn't be ahead of Doge? He's like, tons of things. I just haven't thought of them. So, yeah, I think that, I think that there's really just not a lot of engagement with the other side's beliefs and arguments, except they're caricaturized. Is that the right word by the right itself in the form of people like Rachel Maddow who. They're like debunking accounts on the right wing who purported to debunk Rachel Maddow and all this shit. And so he reads those and he doesn't really think about it that much. I think that's what occurred here.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, I think the joke thing doesn't work either. I think there's a need to match energy from him. If I was saying things that were truly demented and unhinged, I, I think his approach could have done well. But it sounds like, you know, no one can deny that I'm making coherent points. Like, I'm making arguments, I'm saying words. I'm not saying just insane things that he can just be smug about it. It would be different, I think, approach if I was saying completely unhinged things. You can argue the way I was saying things was kind of over the top sometimes. But what I was saying was substantive at all times. And so when you're kind of like, yeah, Canada, you know, Canada won't have a problem if we. Or the energy from Canada problems if they become the 51st state or territory one. He doesn't have the riz to pull that off that choke.
-
Unknown A
And because if, like, if you had the rizz, you might get more laughs. But even then, it's. If I'm taking it from a super sincere approach, which is how I was doing it, super sincere. You're opening yourself up to me being like, he's a mockery. He doesn't give a shit about these issues. So you're really making a rough for your own back. I think, in my opinion, when you take what are essentially very serious issues that people are talking about seriously and kind of be tongue in cheek with them, the same thing, I think, with you. Are you married? Do you have a partner? Well, sometimes they have to say no and you have to keep going. It didn't land. It's cringe and it shows, I think that, you know, okay, so we have to treat international relations like how you would treat your wife or girlfriend when they say no the first time.
-
Unknown A
Especially with the kind of, in my opinion, pretentious attitude he has oftentimes. Again, he was. He was very chill behind the scenes. I don't want to pretend that he was not chill behind the scenes. I'm not saying I know him, but I just think he was cordial behind the scenes. I was cordial behind the scenes all down that front. But I think that there's a sincerity to how I say things that you have to guard yourself against sincere people sometimes.