The Charlie Kirk Debate, Ro Khanna vs Mark Cuban, 2020 Voter Fraud Has Been Found | Weekly Recap

What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: Want my help starting a business? Join me here inside Zero To Founder https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show Sign up for my AI Masterclass: AI Masterclass https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=Live%20Masterclass&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=evergreen FOLLOW TOM: Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok:https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter:https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order. Quo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impact Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Pique: 20% off at https://piquelife.com/impact Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Surfshark: Go to https://surfshark.com/TOMBor use code TOMB at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark! ATT Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.com http://business.att.com Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription order Netsuite: For the first time ever you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to https://NetSuite.ai/Theory https://netsuite.ai/Theory. The team breaks down the viral $300,000 debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson—and argues it was a case study in everything wrong with online debating. The host's core point: the two were trying to litigate a criminal case whose facts haven't been established in court, arguing "internal frame versus internal frame," which inevitably devolves into madness when those frames don't intersect. He's pointed that this isn't about who's likable—he argues Wilson walked in as a "frame of reference" debater whose bully-the-room tactics collapsed against someone prepared, and that Wilson couldn't name the actual charges in the case while Candace could, making him look like he wasn't arguing from real command of the facts. On Candace, the host makes a deliberately careful epistemics argument: whatever you think of her conclusions, treating "she's obviously wrong" as self-evident is itself a frame-of-reference trap—because the facts of the trial (Tyler Robinson has not yet entered a plea, and the case hasn't been argued) simply aren't out yet, so neither side can claim proof. He predicts how the trial may play out and why the defense's choices about which evidence to use will be the real tell, while stressing repeatedly that he's speculating and that the honest position right now is "we don't know." Ryan and the team push on where the line sits between healthy skepticism and conspiratorial thinking, and the group lands on a shared lesson: don't get pulled into a debate when there's no agreed framework for adjudicating it, and wait for the facts before declaring a winner. The team breaks down the public exchange between Rep. Ro Khanna, who argues America must tax wealth and redistribute from billionaires, and Mark Cuban, who pushes back that "ideology is not a strategy." The host agrees with the diagnosis but not the cure: he concedes that people genuinely feel the system isn't working for them—and that they're right, pointing to the college-debt pipeline, an abusive housing market, and currency inflation eroding savings—but argues that taxing wealth misidentifies the solution. Walking through Cuban's argument, he explains the mechanics most people miss: founders of $10B "deca-unicorns" are typically cash-poor and stock-rich, worth billions on paper while the raised money goes into the company, not their pockets—so a wealth tax forces them to sell or borrow against speculative shares, which is often impossible and destructive to the company itself. He highlights Cuban's warning that a California wealth tax (Prop 40) would simply push investors to require startups to relocate to Texas, Indiana, or Florida first—meaning the state loses deca-unicorns it never even sees leave—and that "when you tax something, you get less of it." He connects it to his recurring critique of Bernie Sanders' framing: even if the revenue estimate were real (roughly $20B/year against a ~$30B Medicaid funding gap), you can only spend it once, and the act of liquidating shares to collect it would be self-defeating. The host's alternative is structural: get money out of politics, be fiscally disciplined, rebuild real manufacturing to take on China, stop funneling everyone into debt-financed college, let students discharge that debt in bankruptcy to force lending discipline, and stop suppressing wages with low-wage immigration so the true price of labor is revealed. Tom, Drew, and Ryan dig into a Census Bureau data effort that cross-referenced 2020 voter records against federal citizenship files—and end up in a genuine, three-way disagreement about what it means. Tom plants a strong flag: he believes there is significant voter fraud that will be revealed as more data is processed, arguing from "first principles" that where you have access plus incentive and no safeguard, abuse will follow, and that election integrity is worth shoring up even before there's overwhelming evidence. Drew and Ryan push back as the fact-checkers in the room: Drew stresses that the reported ~24,000 figure comes from a partial, unprocessed run and, crucially, that "non-citizen" includes lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) who aren't the same as people who crossed illegally—so the headline shouldn't be read as proof of illegal-alien ballot harvesting. Ryan fact-checks the specifics in real time: how Social Security numbers actually work for non-citizens (work authorizations, ITINs, fraudulent documents, expired visas), what California's voter-verification process actually requires (signature matching, with a first-time-voter ID exception under federal HAVA law), and the point that documented voter fraud in the US has consistently been shown to be well under 1%. The group works through California's and Minnesota's differing rules, whether signature-matching and vouching systems are genuinely exploitable, and lands on a striking meta-point: three people looking at the exact same facts arrive at very different conclusions, which is itself a lesson in how much of what we call "fact" is filtered through perception. A substantive, disagreement-driven look at election-integrity claims—with the receipts checked on air.gg See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby, and then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University, and the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Speaker 00

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement. The debate heard around the internet. Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson collided in a $300,000 debate that was an absolute train wreck for online debating as a thing. And if you care about the pursuit of truth, it was just things coming off the rails. This one winds me up. I do not understand what these guys thought was going to happen in this debate,

• 1:28Speaker 00

  how Andrew Wilson got sucked into this and looked terrible, by the way. Because, keep in mind, the facts of the case haven't even come out yet. So we're in preliminary trials where they're going to be putting forward some of their assertions. They are certainly not going to be litigating the entire trial in the pre-trial. So what exactly were these two planning to debate? But online debating has very rapidly slid into my sort of internal frame versus your internal frame. And when those two internal frames do not intersect, then you devolve into madness, which is exactly what ended up happening here. These two were approaching essentially the facts of a case that haven't even come out through the lens of personal framing. I think this, I feel this. You can't debate that.

• 2:13Speaker 00

  Andrew Wilson came in and he's somebody, I've never quite understood Andrew's positioning as the like king of debate me bros. Andrew to me is somebody who is a frame of reference debater. So here is my frame of reference. I'm going to state it whether you agree with it or not. And if he is debating, as Drew so eloquently said off camera, if he's just debating a bunch of OnlyFans models, then that works. Because they may not even have a reference for what an epistemological frame of reference is. And so he can just bully people. And he tried those tactics with Candace, which was an absolute nightmare. The way that Candace is approaching this whole trial to me is absurd in the extreme.

• 2:53Speaker 00

  She will put forward intuition, dreams, feelings as if they substantiate facts, which is crazy on its face. But she isn't stupid. And if you, instead of thinking stupid is an inability to come to the same conclusion that quote unquote "truth", which has not been defined yet in terms of the facts of the case being laid out and all of that. If you continue to think it is this person reaches the same conclusions using logic that I use, you're going to lose to Candace forever. Candace has a very strong, what I'll call feminine frame, where intuition is elevated, where something feeling wrong is an indication that it probably is wrong.

• 3:37Speaker 00

  And if you instead take the approach that intelligence is the ability to parse raw data through a filter very rapidly, you're going to realize that she's extraordinarily good at that. So one of the biggest highlights from the debate is where Andrew Wilson tries to pin Candace down on the actual allegations in the trial. This came on the back of Candace saying like, you don't even know what's going on in this trial. And he couldn't name any of the actual charges that were brought against him. So he just said Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk. And so he's like, that's murder. And she was like, that's not the charge in the case. And so then he was like, all right, I can't name any, but you can name all seven.

• 4:19Speaker 00

  And yes, she can name all seven, which then makes it look, which is the truth with Andrew Wilson on this particular thing, that he's not arguing from a deep understanding of the facts of the case. And like a debater in a more traditional style like Destiny would do, where I'm going to walk you through the facts of the case. I'm going to show you that I understand the nuances of the facts of the case better than you. And based on my understanding of the nuances of the facts of the case, I'm going to show you how if we follow your logic out, that it reaches a nonsensical conclusion, which is not what he did. There were times where he, I thought, made good points, but whoa. In terms of actually going, okay, here we have established facts. Here's how your interpretation of those facts is completely nonsensical.

• 5:02Speaker 00

  We don't have facts, so there is no way for them to debate on that, which is like playing perfectly into Candace's frame of reference. And then he tries to use the OnlyFans approach of, well, you just don't know what's going on. You don't understand whatever epistemology or insert Andrew Wilson's frame of reference here. She just kept denying his frame because she has a very strong frame.

• 5:26Speaker 01

  Seems pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty, I just think that you should, like, can you tell me one?

• 5:34Speaker 00

  Then let's do the counter. You can really, yeah, hang on, this is a great gotcha.

• 5:37Speaker 01

  You just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question.

• 5:42Speaker 00

  Name all seven since you've been following the case.

• 5:45Speaker 01

  Okay, sure. You name, you name one.

• 5:47Speaker 00

  Yeah, you named all seven.

• 5:48Speaker 01

  I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?

• 5:50Speaker 00

  I think he's, I think he's been charged with murder.

• 5:52Speaker 01

  That's actually incorrect.

• 5:53Speaker 00

  Okay, great. Now name all seven.

• 5:55Speaker 01

  He doesn't even, this is like.

• 5:56Speaker 00

  Name all seven.

• 5:57Speaker 01

  And, and I.

• 5:58Speaker 00

  Can you name all seven?

• 5:59Speaker 01

  I can.

• 6:00Speaker 00

  Then do it.

• 6:01Speaker 01

  Sure, you don't have to.

• 6:02Speaker 00

  Do it, no, do it, I'll count them, go ahead.

• 6:04Speaker 01

  You don't have to put your fingers up.

• 6:05Speaker 00

  Okay, hang on, name them.

• 6:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, sure.

• 6:07Speaker 00

  Name them.

• 6:07Speaker 01

  The first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence.

• 6:11Speaker 00

  So murder?

• 6:11Speaker 01

  No, that's not, that is literally not murder.

• 6:13Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 6:14Speaker 01

  And so just for people, no, don't, I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder, it's narrowly defined and because it carries a death sentence. I'm not, I'm going to answer the question.

• 6:29Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 6:29Speaker 01

  You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work.

• 6:34Speaker 00

  People are often intimidated by the way that Andrew Wilson debates, and that is the exact problem. He's used to being able to rely on the fact that he thinks on his feet faster than most of the people that he goes up against. And listen, Andrew Wilson is formidable when the style matchup is there, when it's something that he's spent a lot of time thinking about. I used to do Lincoln Douglas debate. It's a style of debate that you do in high school. There's like all these known rules. How long you can speak, how long you can ask questions for, your rebuttal period, the way that you're using, you have to like basically specifically state, here is the moral framework through which I am attacking this thing. So I'm going to be leaning on John Locke or whatever. And so you go through, but you set that up. I'm using this guy as my frame of reference, his moral framework,

• 7:18Speaker 00

  and I'm using that because it has the best outcomes or whatever. So then the person that is debating you can say, well, let me tell you why that frame needs to be rejected. And then they would attack both the facts of your case and the moral framework through which you're trying to put it to prove that people should agree with your assertion. And so there's none of that here. So they both though are holding their own, it isn't Lincoln Douglas debate at all, but they're both holding a way that things should be discussed in public in their heads. Neither of them are accepting the other person's frame of how a debate should happen. Normally, Andrew can just bully somebody because they don't even understand that a debate is meant to have this sort of frame of reference.

• 8:02Speaker 00

  And so he'll push that on them and he'll use these bullying tactics on people, and they'll succumb to that. And I've seen him quote unquote win so many debates by doing that, where the other person is just, they're confused, they're befuddled. They, they don't understand he's trying to bring them into sort of a debate package like you would a fight and say, no, no, no, you can't do, what do they call it? 12 to six elbows, you can't do that. And so the person's like, wait, what? And so they're just confused by this thing has rules. And so he then pulls them in, he gets them, he'll give like really narrow definitions and he'll start laughing at them and saying, you're like not even addressing this narrow definition that I've given you. And this is where I am just beside myself that people can look at Candace and think that she is dumb.

• 8:46Speaker 00

  That is so, that's full. If you think that she's wrong, fine. If you think that the way that she parses the world is not going to lead to good outcomes, as I do, fine. If you think she is dumb, you are in for a world of hurt. And so what she does, first of all, this woman is seven months pregnant, and she, she got Andrew Wilson to pay her a $300,000 appearance fee. No matter what happens in this debate, she's going to make 300 grand. She got him to travel to her. This is filmed in her living room.

• 9:15Speaker 02

  In her living room. Her and PBD.

• 9:18Speaker 00

  Bro.

• 9:18Speaker 02

  She went downstairs and got $300,000 to wash him. It's crazy.

• 9:22Speaker 00

  Like what, in what world do you not come in knowing how she debates? So that you've got to be able to explain what she does better than she can. So that you take this meta approach and you say, okay, listen, Candace, you are operating from within this frame of reference. Do we agree? Yes, okay. Now you're laying these things out as if they are facts. Can you please define a fact? Like if he went sort of beat by beat and said, listen, we have to ground ourselves in things that are provably true. Now, it would be a trap for him, which is why he didn't do it. We don't know what is provably true. But if you, if you're not able to bully her, and if he thought he was going to be able to bully her, which he seems to think he was going to be able to do, because that is the tactic that he's running right before our very eyes, you're a fucking fool.

• 10:07Speaker 00

  This is the one, nobody bullies Candace, literally ever. I've seen her go up against the most aggressive, the most intelligent, the most eloquent, the most like debater bro people ever. She always maintains her composure. She is always just like, okay, this is what I think, and does this kind of thing. Putting up your fingers is not going to make me rush. You're just going to embarrass yourself, slow down. I don't have to step inside your frame. She is so good at that. And so all of this just ends up melting before your very eyes. So one, everybody watching, you can learn a lot from Candace in terms of rejecting a frame of reference. This is something that Trump is extraordinarily good at. It may be one of the things that made Trump Trump was he's not going to accept

• 10:51Speaker 00

  the Lincoln Douglas style debate thing that you're trying to lay out. He's going to play his game. And he's going to be so consistent in applying his frame of reference that to have a conversation, you're going to have to step inside of his frame of reference and argue your way out from his frame of reference. That is what Candace did, and Andrew's just completely unable to argue his way out. So everybody walks away from this debate either going, well, I was already on Andrew's side, so I believe Andrew, or I was already on Candace's side, so I believe Candace.

• 11:25Speaker 00

  This one, watching the, and admittedly, I have seen clips, I've probably seen about half the debate, I felt like I was taking brain damage the whole time.

• 11:34Speaker 02

  The TLDR of it all, for those that didn't watch the whole thing, she lists out all seven, but as you can see in the previous clip, she was taking her time, she called out Andrew saying, "I don't think you think about this case."

• 11:44Speaker 00

  Which he doesn't.

• 11:45Speaker 02

  "Aggravated murder, murder is different because it carries a death sentence." So just name them, so just name them, okay, blah, blah, blah, blah, names out all seven. He says, "You took your time, I feel like you like, maybe you got cheating, you do have your phone on your lap."

• 11:56Speaker 00

  Oh my god, you play that.

• 11:57Speaker 02

  So then I have this clip.

• 11:58Speaker 00

  So, yeah, this is crazy. Whoops. Just was curious about, if, I'm just wondering, when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question, did somebody by chance text you that question?

• 12:08Speaker 01

  You can check my phone.

• 12:09Speaker 00

  I'm just curious.

• 12:10Speaker 01

  No, you can absolutely not, I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here, you want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it.

• 12:18Speaker 02

  You're just gonna be double embarrassed.

• 12:19Speaker 00

  You're going to be double, this is people, so, in that moment, Andrew realizes, I've been got, and he thinks somebody else has to be feeding her the information for her to have landed such a great blow. Candace is whip it smart, she is extremely intelligent. You don't have to agree with somebody to recognize that they're very good at what they do. This is not a good look for him. For me, Candace came out of this either unscathed or ahead. He does not. I doubt that this will be the beginning of the end for him, but this made me feel some type of way about him, where I'm like, I've always had this sort of lingering, and I don't pay a ton of attention to him, I'll be very honest, but I've always had in the back of

• 13:04Speaker 00

  my mind, like, there's something shaky about the way that he approaches debate, it's like a frame of reference saying blah, blah, blah. And this one really showed. He's not coming at it from a facts and figures perspective.

• 13:15Speaker 02

  I was watching one of the reaction videos, and Destiny, he put it out there, so I'm not gonna take credit for his idea, but he was like, "It's almost like Andrew walked in here cocky, because he's so used to owning women, that he was just like, okay, like Candace is, like, he's like, and I don't know if it's a misogynist thing, I don't know if it's a racist thing, I don't know what it is, but he just kind of walked in there like, "Ah, $300,000, let me go embarrass this girl real quick."

• 13:34Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 13:35Speaker 02

  And even, if you could just mute it, if you just watched the debate in mute, you will see Candace is still standing up, her legs are open, she's taking up space, Andrew's leg was like bouncing the whole time, he was sweating, he was rocking back and forth, he was sinking low.

• 13:47Speaker 00

  Rubbing his face, that's wild.

• 13:48Speaker 02

  The body language is showing who you, who the winner was, you didn't even have to listen to their argument, so he, even if you thought he won, he felt like he was losing, he felt like he was behind.

• 13:56Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 13:57Speaker 02

  So what, is this just a humorous thing, like, it feels, why would you pay $300,000 just to get like embarrassed?

• 14:03Speaker 00

  $300,000.

• 14:04Speaker 02

  I don't see that, but I guess some people, they just don't recognize.

• 14:07Speaker 00

  Bro, if I put up $300,000 against something, do you know how psychotically I would prepare?

• 14:12Speaker 02

  I would, Tyler, I would be Tyler Robinson if you didn't know, like, I would walk in with his face, like, I didn't do it, like, this is crazy, like, you can't be not prepared, like, I don't know, I feel like I'm missing something, and then people are like, you know, TPUSA propped them up, they paid for it, it was the, you know, promo tour, I don't know what it was, but it was definitely entertainment, I'll put it this way, I was sitting on the sidelines, I have no dog in this fight, I'm just, you know, reacting like the rest of the internet, and it was just a masterclass to see. Because the things that, the dream thing, it was probably 20 minutes of the three hour debate, and to your point, that was his biggest end, like, talk about the dreams, talk about how you blamed it on TPUSA, talk, like, those are moments that she was shaky on, but he was trying to debate her on case facts, and she was out here pulling statues, and, "Oh,

• 14:55Speaker 02

  Utah, blah, blah, blah, says this," I'm just like, yo, she's been doing this for six months, this has been her only piece of content for six months, it's this and Egyptian planes, like, why do you think she doesn't know the case, like, at the very minimum, or the milk the content she does?

• 15:07Speaker 00

  Yeah. So, I'll, I haven't watched Destiny's reaction, though I'm sure that would be far more entertaining than the actual thing itself.

• 15:15Speaker 02

  Because to your point, he's debating, he's breaking down the tactics, like, look, like, he should have doubled down on this, but he probably doesn't even know the side of, so, it's interesting to see that.

• 15:22Speaker 00

  Given that the facts of the case have not been laid out in a court of law yet, in fact, Tyler Robinson has not even entered a plea yet, this debate can't happen yet. So we can have this debate down the road, once the trial has played out, and now it's like, we've all heard the argumentation, this has been a broadcast trial, we've all seen the evidence, we've seen the claims, now that all of that's laid out, including the fact that all of the things that Candace, because I think Candace has said, like, "I've sent information to the defense," and none of those things were brought up. So if I'm debating this against her, I say, "The defense attorneys looked at your evidence and decided not to bring it up in trial."

• 16:06Speaker 00

  So that's an indictment of the quality of your evidence, full stop, but that we have paid $300,000 to have this debate now, like, what are we talking about? So, yeah, this is going to be a very interesting debate when the trial is over, but doing this now and paying $300,000, oh my god.

• 16:28Speaker 02

  But I think that's why he did it now, though, because, one, it's at its height, one, he could juice it out, and one, he wants to push clicks to the crucible and his own platform and things like that.

• 16:36Speaker 00

  All true, but don't you think he actually thought he was gonna mop the floor with her?

• 16:40Speaker 02

  Because he underestimated her.

• 16:41Speaker 00

  Yeah. That, my thing is like, I hope he reflects upon, that this did not go well, he could have and should have seen them coming a mile off, and he should not have thought, "Oh, this is gonna be another person that I'm gonna trap inside my frame, and then she's just gonna look stupid." So, yeah, wild, I don't understand how he could convince himself this is a good idea at this point, where there's no facts to actually be arguing.

• 17:06Speaker 02

  And just to ground everybody, because some people are asking like, what the claim itself was, the claim was, there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk.

• 17:15Speaker 00

  Yes, and both of them, including Andrew, were like, "I believe it to be so." What?

• 17:20Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 17:21Speaker 00

  What? What are you talking about? Overwhelming evidence is like factual, grounded, these things are true, these are the undisputed facts.

• 17:28Speaker 02

  And that's where I think he set himself up, because she was like, overwhelming, like, what is overwhelming? And then now it was an attack on him, it was from his perspective of attacking her on all the claims that she put out, poking holes into it, and they paved the road the next day, the van was stripped for parts and sold, all these things, he was like, "Yeah, but, like, but your feelings, but the French Legion, but you think people are trying to assassinate you," and it's like, yeah.

• 17:51Speaker 03

  Just goes to show that if you're confident enough, you can just go be wrong on camera and still win a debate, because.

• 17:56Speaker 02

  You can pay $300,000 to be wrong on camera.

• 17:59Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, no, not even that, I mean, like, her, I mean, Candace Owens is, I mean, we all know she is just wrong on all of this, like, she has some like, oh, there's some weird things, but, what do you mean Francis in this now, you know what I mean? So it's like.

• 18:11Speaker 00

  So really fast, don't make the same mistake that Andrew's making, we don't know that Candace is wrong. What we, that's, that's what I want everyone to understand, what I think you may mean is that, when I look at this, I believe that all this conspiracy-brained stuff is a disease of the internet, and Candace is like the ringleader of the conspiracy-brained wing of the internet, and so the very fact that she reasons through the world in that way, you can just say off top that, that she's wrong. And what Candace is showing is, right now, you can't do that.

• 18:52Speaker 00

  And so, she is just going to do to you what she did to Andrew Wilson, which is completely reject your frame, throw up a list of things that can't be answered yet, because the facts of the case haven't been laid out, and so, the, if I were to predict, and I would need to see all of this play out in the fullness of time to know if this is actually a wise strategy or not, but this is my prediction right now, that what's going to happen in the trial is Candace has put forward evidence that she claims, I believe this is true, that she claims that she sent that to the defense.

• 19:20Speaker 02

  She hasn't directly sent it to the defense, like, she's not involved.

• 19:23Speaker 00

  Are you sure about that?

• 19:24Speaker 02

  She's not involved in the case, directly.

• 19:25Speaker 00

  Oh, okay.

• 19:26Speaker 02

  She has her own style of investigation.

• 19:28Speaker 00

  So let's do this, okay, let's say she has things that she has said very, very, very, very publicly, and if the defense doesn't bring any of those things up, you have to assume they're aware of the assertions, and the fact that they do not use them to get Tyler Robinson off tells you that they either don't believe that they're compelling, or they don't believe that they're real. My instinct is, and trust me when I don't, I don't overestimate my instinct on this, but my instinct is, they're gonna lay out a bunch of facts, those facts will not include many of the more conspiratorial things that Candace has put forward, the trial, I think, is, and this is literally just emotion, because I've not looked at this closely enough,

• 20:11Speaker 00

  but I think that Tyler is just gonna be self-evident, yep, he shot him, he was on the roof, parents are gonna be like, "Yeah, there's a lot of damning evidence here," and so, it's like, my gut instinct is, yep, he's gonna be convicted, and it will end up being a more or less shut, an open and shut case, and we move forward. And then, you'll be able to go after Candace and have the argumentation of, if this were credible, hard-hitting evidence, then the defense would have used this, the fact that they didn't is in and of itself an indictment of the quality of the evidence. Now, I don't think it's gonna cause Candace to lose an audience, because she's going to take the approach of, "There are a lot of unanswered questions, the government has lied to us before, there's no reason to believe that they're not lying to us now," and I

• 20:52Speaker 00

  think that people will, people that are prone to agree with her on an emotional level will be completely convinced that that is enough, that that is right and true. So, that is my instinct about how this is gonna play out, but to say that we know right now that Candace is wrong, I. What evidence do we have? A frame of reference, sure, but evidence? We don't have the evidence. Now, do you disagree with that, Ryan? Do you think we have evidence?

• 21:21Speaker 03

  I think giving any level of credence to anything Candace Owens has said on the Charlie Kirk case is a little bit conspiratory. That's just my take on it, I feel like.

• 21:32Speaker 00

  And Liz, that's very fair, but that's just frame of reference.

• 21:35Speaker 02

  That's, yeah, that's interesting, because I didn't realize that Candace was like everything. She's like, she's Alex Jones in your head.

• 21:42Speaker 03

  Right. She is, she's basically Alex Jones-ing this whole thing to me. Like, I don't think Candace is a dumb person by any means. I think she's just trapped in this delusion that, like, because she kept adding things on. First, it was like, oh, now there's two killers. Just kidding, actually, it might be Israel. Actually, I just got in an argument with the French leader's wife, and now I'm gonna throw that in there, too, that the French were involved. And it's like, she can, she can think all these things, for sure. Like, I'm not saying there's, there's not science where you could, like, connect a bunch of dots. I just feel like he walks into this with the easiest layup in the world, like what you just said, that Tyler Robinson did this. And it's like, you could, you could just prepare, know the seven charges, and sweep the floor with Candace on this, because facts are on his side.

• 22:25Speaker 00

  I want to be very clear, we don't know the facts yet. This is where I think everybody continues to derail. We don't know the facts, the case has not been argued, and that's why, by definition, having this debate now was a suicide run for Andrew Wilson, because it, it is by definition going to be one frame of reference versus another frame of reference. And so if it's, it's the exact approach that Candace is taking, but just from the opposite angle, which is precisely what I think Andrew is doing, which is that it is self-evident that she is conspiracy-brained, that this, none of this makes any sense, and it's like, well, what's your positive evidence for the fact that this is all fake? He's not going to have positive evidence, because it hasn't been tried yet.

• 23:06Speaker 00

  So that's where I'm just like, dude, that same thing can be wielded back against you. Wait until all of this comes out, and then you can litigate it.

• 23:14Speaker 02

  Just to ground everybody, shout out to Kit Moon in the chat. The preliminary hearing was approved if the prosecution had enough evidence to go to trial. Tyler Robinson hasn't been convicted of anything, he's been charged with things, this is what the prosecution is building their case against. He hasn't entered his plea deal, so this is the part before they can even ask for a mistrial, because technically, they haven't even started a trial yet. So this is very early, we haven't even got to the point where the jury hasn't been fully selected, like, there's still a lot more steps we need to go. So we have time before we're gonna get the true facts of the case, but yes, he's not, he hasn't sat in front of the jury, he's not in court, he hasn't done his time yet.

• 23:48Speaker 00

  All true. And don't get sucked into debates if there isn't a frame of reference for adjudicating the debate. We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60, and it isn't the cashmere. It's real, 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman, so there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less, and it's not just the cashmere.

• 24:32Speaker 00

  I ordered a few things myself, their fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively. First thing I noticed was the quality. Soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now, too, so upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns, now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about what it means to actually be visible in today's day and age. When you build something public, whether it's a business, or an audience, anything

• 25:17Speaker 00

  on social media, you become a target. This is something that legitimately keeps me up at night, because our data isn't just on the obvious broker sites, it's on old news portals, public forums, obscure directories, places you would never think to look. That's where Incogni's Exposure Scanner comes in. It hunts down your personal information across the wider web, not just the 420-plus broker sites Incogni already removes your data from automatically. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk-free for 30 days.

• 25:59Speaker 00

  That's incogni, I-N-C-O-G-N-I, dot com slash impact, and use code IMPACT. Thanks for sticking around, let's get right back into the action. The Census Bureau, man, they ran 2020 voter records against federal citizenship files. Of the first 128 million records, more than 24,000 belonged to non-citizens at the time they cast a ballot. 32 million records still left unprocessed, so you can expect this to get worse. Now, this is not registrations, these are actual ballots that were counted. So these are real illegal votes, the very thing that people were telling you isn't happening is actually happening.

• 26:41Speaker 00

  Drew and I have been in sort of a silent battle behind the scenes about this. This is a particular thing for me, I am on fire for all of this. Drew kept saying, listen, anecdotal evidence is not the same as data, although I really do believe that there is something to, the saying is that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I actually think that there's some BS behind that. I think that's precisely what data is. It's formalized anecdotes finally coalescing into something that you can show a repeatable pattern. This really does hit a new threshold for what we can actually verify. Now, non-citizen voting in a federal election is already a felony, but are we treating it as such? As you guys, if you've been following me for a while, you know that I'm very heated

• 27:26Speaker 00

  about the way that things are done here in California. We're not the only place that does it. I know Minnesota also has very lax ID requirements, but in the state of California, it is actually illegal to ask somebody to show ID when voting. That's already crazy, so that is somebody saying, hey, let's make this easier for the fraud to happen. The Bureau linked voter files against USCIS, ICE, and Social Security records. Mexico led the country a birth list, so you've got roughly 3,800 of the illegal votes being cast were cast by people that are from Mexico, followed by Canada, by the way, the Philippines, Jamaica, Germany, the UK.

• 28:10Speaker 00

  Around 7,000 records have no country data at all, so we'll see where those end up coming from. The thing that the Bureau didn't publish is the immigration status breakdown, so please keep in mind that this ties back to non-citizens voting. So when we talk about what do we need to do to shore this up, and people saying, you've got to prove that you're a citizen, unfortunately, you can't even rely on a government ID for that. Many states have already watered down the, like, a California state driver's license does not mean that you're a citizen of the US. You can get that in some places regardless of your status, whether you're legal, illegal, doesn't matter, there are places that are pushing to get people those IDs. That doesn't work, so we need something to prove that people are citizens.

• 28:54Speaker 00

  So take my wife, for instance, who cannot vote, doesn't vote, even though she's lived in America legally for over 20 years, but nonetheless is not a citizen and should therefore not be voting in these elections. And what we're finding is that people actually are. Now, in the fullness of time, I imagine that we'll actually get the answer to the immigrant status of the people that have been voting, at least if we're able to identify exactly who they were. So I don't know if the 7,000 people were because they're sort of mystery question marks, or if we know who they are, and that data just hasn't been aggregated yet, we'll see. So it's still early days, but I really believe, as we look closer and closer at fraud, at voter fraud specifically, that we're going to find that all of these things that we

• 29:37Speaker 00

  were told are not actually happening are, in fact, actually happening, because the incentive system exists, and the ability to do it exists, and any time that you create an incentive structure, and there are no safeguards, you're going to get that thing. That, that is just how these incentives work. When people say that they're thinking through something from first principles, and they don't mention incentive structures, and they don't mention that when there are incentive structures and nothing physically stopping people from doing it, that they will, in fact, do it, that you can follow that literally from first principles, then they're not being honest. When you look at voter reform needs from first principles, and you acknowledge that

• 30:18Speaker 00

  when you have access plus incentive, you are going to get that behavior. And so for me, it was literally just a matter of time that this was going to start coming out, and I think that this probably will be the beginning of something that we'll find more and more of this stuff. Now, why does all of this matter? This matters because everybody that votes illegally is watering down your vote. And at the end of the day, we are a republic, we are not a true democracy, for the better, by the way. That is a battle for another diatribe, but we are a representative democracy that is making sure that people's voice can be heard at the ballot box.

• 31:00Speaker 00

  And when you're allowing people to come into your country to vote illegally, now that begins to water down your actual vote. And I know that there's a lot of cultural energy from the far left on this idea that borders themselves are somehow oppressive. You must understand that the first order of a government is to provide for the safety of the people within their country, and if you have a whole bunch of people pulling in opposite directions, you begin to lose that high-trust society, that begins to break down. You now have people abusing the system, which is exactly what I think is gonna come out more and more, that the fraud in America is just absolutely rampant, because you don't have people that are buying into the American system, because we are not putting up, and I use this word somewhat to get people's attention, but we don't have discriminatory

• 31:44Speaker 00

  borders that say, this person can vote, that person cannot vote, so that we can maintain a cohesive identity. If you do not have a cohesive identity, you don't have a functioning society, and I do not understand how people don't look around the world and see how hard it is to create a high-functioning society, how difficult it is to maintain that high-functioning society, how much soft things like trust, social cohesion, play in that. And so when we look at the fact that people are removing the things that would stop somebody from voting illegally, and we create through social programs the incentive to come in illegally and vote to ensure that you get a bigger and bigger base.

• 32:30Speaker 00

  Of welfare options, that that is obviously going to play out, that people are going to race down that path, that that is going to happen, and we're seeing that more and more. So to plant a very simple flag, what I believe is happening is there is a massive amount of fraud, there is a massive amount of corruption, there is a massive amount of voter fraud, and that this is going to be revealed over time as we look more and more closely at this, in the same way that I hope people were aghast when Doge first opened and we saw some of the just absolutely insane things that were being done with people being able to sign off on funds without having to account for where it's going. I mean, that's absolutely

• 33:11Speaker 00

  insane to not even require that people say, these funds are for this thing, that there was no text field that was mandatory to fill out. I mean, it's just absolute insanity. And this all ties back to what J D Vance was saying about the exorbitant privilege of being the reserve currency puts people over time in this very, it's not lazy, but you get very undisciplined about everything. You get undisciplined about your finances, you start saying yes to everything because you don't have to be in any way, shape or form disciplined. And when that discipline goes out the window, then you start the

• 33:54Speaker 00

  long and steady march to empire decline, and empires in decline start acting crazy. We're gonna talk about that when we get to China. This stuff matters.

• 34:04Speaker 02

  Okay, let's talk about what this is and what this is not. I want to just make sure that we are clear about what this report has released. Now, the report is very specific by saying non-citizen.

• 34:15Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 34:15Speaker 02

  It does not say illegal alien, it does not say illegal immigrant. The reason I'm making those two distinctions is because Lisa is a great example. If somebody has a green card, but they did not fulfill their nationalization oath, which means they didn't, they are a lawful permanent resident, and they try to vote, they will be counted here.

• 34:32Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 34:33Speaker 02

  They're searching the federal databases. So this is anybody that has a social security number, anybody that has an ITIN, anybody that is federally registered, visas in both school visas, travel visas, immigration visas, green cards I mentioned already. So I just want to make it very clear that these are people who are permanent residents, who are then getting cross-checked around citizenship pool. And then after that cross-check, they are then checking, has this person been officially nationalized yet? If that answers no, they are a non-citizen. If that answers yes, they are a citizen. I'm gonna click that box. The reason I want to give that specification is because it's very easy in this moment to be like, see, they're coming over the border and they're giving them a ballot, or they're ballot harvesting in Mexico and they're mailing them to California. That is not necessarily true. And I also want to do-

• 35:18Speaker 00

  Well, so in fairness, you're making a very fair point, and I think that that's wonderful. At the same time, I want to make sure that we put the similar caveat, which is we don't know that these aren't illegal aliens. So right now, the document does not give a detailed breakdown of whether these are just non-citizens, and these 100% of them were all here legally, or if these were some mix of the two, which I imagine is precisely what you're going to find, that it is some mix.

• 35:47Speaker 02

  The sources that they are coming from are from federal sources. So if they have a person sourced in America, then you wouldn't be illegal because then you wouldn't register.

• 35:54Speaker 00

  But are you saying that only people, the only people that have social security numbers are here legally?

• 35:58Speaker 02

  I'm not saying the only people that have social security numbers are illegal. I'm saying everybody that is-

• 36:02Speaker 00

  Right, but you could then be in the federal system even though you are here illegally.

• 36:06Speaker 02

  You can't get a social security number if you are here illegally. You either have to go into the visa process-

• 36:11Speaker 00

  I'm saying that there is already, and fact-check me in real time, because if I'm wrong, then I'll just say, oh, yes, I was wrong about that. But it is my current understanding based on things I have read, that I may be misremembering, but things that I have read, that there are for sure illegal aliens who have been given social security numbers.

• 36:33Speaker 02

  It's either a work authorization, or I think it's an ITIN, I N I T, ITIN number, something like that.

• 36:39Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 36:39Speaker 02

  But it's a separate classification number.

• 36:41Speaker 00

  Ryan's gonna fact-check us, but you're saying what this data says, which is not what I found in my research, but you're saying the data very clearly states that this is 100% people here that are legal.

• 36:51Speaker 02

  Everybody here that is already federally in a federal mandate. The reason I'm making this designation is because there is an assumption, a lot of times when we have this conversation-

• 37:00Speaker 00

  Yes, this is my assumption.

• 37:01Speaker 02

  That people are coming over the border with no federal registration, we don't know where these people are, and they're going to the ballot box. And what I'm saying is you can't just walk into a federal, you can't just walk in to vote, you have to be registered, you have to be on the list. Now, those people are registered in all-

• 37:15Speaker 00

  So this is what I was trying to cover in, so there are two things that are on the table right now. There's the point you're trying to make, which I think is actually a worthwhile point, we should keep going down that path. Then there is the single sentence that you just said now, which is that you can't just walk in and vote even though you're an illegal alien, which I did address in my opening thing, you may disagree with my facts. I'm talking about, let's stick to California because I know California better. So in California, it is illegal to ask somebody for their ID.

• 37:41Speaker 02

  Yes, but you also have to have a voter ballot.

• 37:43Speaker 00

  So I can walk in, and all I have to do is know the name of somebody who is registered, and then I'll be able to vote, no problem, there will be no friction whatsoever. You agree with that, right?

• 37:54Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 37:54Speaker 00

  Okay, so now there is nothing stopping an illegal thing from happening. So then we go, well, people aren't gonna do the illegal thing. We've seen plenty of evidence-

• 38:02Speaker 02

  You're just saying you're voting for somebody. You're not saying you're illegally voting. Because you're, what you're saying right now is, you're, so you're saying, I could walk in and say, I'm Tom Bilyeu, I live here, I should be able to vote now. And they'll say, okay, Tom, here's your ballot.

• 38:15Speaker 00

  Correct. But I'm also saying that somebody else could walk in and say, I'm Tom Bilyeu, and they would not ask them to show ID. So as long as you know the name of somebody who is registered to vote, you are going to be able to vote.

• 38:26Speaker 02

  And then on the back end, they'll have three Tom Bilyeu votes from three different people. And then Tom Bilyeu's vote will be stricken from the record.

• 38:32Speaker 00

  Yeah, so let's presume that some of that will be that, and those will get thrown out, no problem. But some of it is gonna be, I know the little old lady in my building is never going to vote, and so I'm gonna go use her information to vote.

• 38:45Speaker 02

  Got it.

• 38:45Speaker 00

  And so they're already finding that people are doing this, they're already finding that people are registering to vote that are illegal. They tell the person, I am not here legally, can I still sign up? And they say, hey, you're gonna have to sign a document that says that you are legal. So we know that there are places, they've been caught on camera saying that, hey, you gotta sign the thing, I wouldn't do it if it wasn't real. But they, even though that person has just said to them, I'm not here legally, they will still give them a registration form. And so they're like, you gotta sign it, so just make, so it's like, listen, the, there is nothing stopping people from doing this. We are already finding that people are voting illegally, maybe they're all true,

• 39:28Speaker 00

  they're here legally, they're just non-citizens. So we know that people cast illegal votes, we know that people register even though they're not legal. Hey, Tom, it's just anecdotal, it's, you know, only the, the, the three people that got caught on camera doing it, they're the only three that have ever done it. Get the fuck out of here. If you want to understand how I'm parsing this information, I look at that and I'm like, yes, you have made it so easy to go in and get registered, even if you're illegal, you have made it so easy for somebody to say that they're somebody else, even if they're not. We've had people on the voter rolls that are voting even though they're dead. We've had people on the voter rolls where you go knock on their door and say, hey, you, you, ma'am,

• 40:12Speaker 00

  have voted in, you know, whatever, eight of the last elections. They're like, I haven't voted once in my life. So they either are so riddled with Alzheimer's that they're going out and voting and just don't remember, or someone is using their information to vote on their behalf. And I'm just saying, I have a feeling, and it is just a feeling. I have a feeling that we can all ignore because emotions don't matter, but I have a feeling that you're gonna find that this is going to more and more, as we look more and more closely at this, we're gonna find more and more illegal votes. So you and I have been having a private battle, and you, you have been amazing. I want to let the record reflect. You came to me and said, hey, I want to make sure that you saw this

• 40:52Speaker 00

  thing, which is at least in very minor part, I think you would say, a vindication of my stance. And so Drew, as always, is intellectually honest. For whatever beef anybody may have with you, no one can say that you're not honest, and that's important for me to say.

• 41:09Speaker 02

  I appreciate it.

• 41:09Speaker 00

  So-

• 41:12Speaker 00

  But nonetheless, it was at first, hey, that's just anecdotal. Okay, well, now it's real. And I'm, again, it's just a feeling. We will need the data to keep coming out. But I believe, just as I am one step closer to being vindicated now, I think there will be more steps and more steps and more steps. Because, thinking from first principles, you realize if you make it very easy to abuse the system, and you create an incentive, or an incentive exists to abuse the system, then the system's going to be abused. So it's like, kids, what are we doing? So this is where we'll see in the fullness of time. This all needs to come out. We need to be looking at this stuff.

• 41:57Speaker 00

  But what I would beseech anybody that can hear my voice right now is where you see an incentive system, and nothing is being done to block it, and that incentive system creates a real consequential problem, we should all be saying, hey, let's shore that up. Even if we don't have overwhelming evidence that this is a problem, let's shore it up. It's consequential enough. Now, if something isn't consequential, I get why people just say, listen, this is gonna fall low on my priority list. But, ooh, buddy, protecting the integrity of your elections when you are the wealthiest nation on earth, and everybody is trying to get to your country, and everybody would like some of them free handouts. And as a culture, we are sliding towards the give me more free shit, which is what every empire does. And guess what happens to every empire

• 42:41Speaker 00

  when they stop being disciplined and they say, give me more free shit? They collapse. And so I'm just saying, man, we are racing towards empire collapse. Tick tock, baby. You are on, bro, I still stand by my nine-year timeline. It was 10 a year ago. It's now nine. We are not moving in the right direction.

• 43:03Speaker 03

  I have the fact checks, if y'all want them. So first fact checked is regarding the social security numbers. And then the next one is California's voter process. So I'm gonna go through both of them. So we'll start with the social security numbers. Both of you are technically correct. So the Social Security Administration obviously doesn't give undocumented migrants social security numbers. That's not how that happens. But they do get them through, like what Drew was saying. They're given specific permission to work by the Department of Homeland Security. And then the most common ways undocumented immigrants have social security numbers are both fraudulent documents and expired visas. And so fraudulent documents, at least I can speak from a Texas perspective, most of the illegal immigrants in Texas fake their papers because there's just an underground industry for it.

• 43:49Speaker 03

  You know, that being said, most of the people doing that are just doing their day-to-day lives. But, and then expired visas, so people holding on to the things that allow them to be here. So that's the social security thing. Y'all were both kinda right. Points to the one lane. And then-

• 44:03Speaker 00

  Real fast as an orienting mechanism to, so I can understand your worldview. What's your take on what they're now calling crimes of necessity?

• 44:15Speaker 03

  Crimes of necessity? I think, I don't know why we need to go into this, but if we were going to-

• 44:21Speaker 00

  Because you made a single sentence that was like, hey, I just wanna make sure that everybody knows that they're really just going about their daily lives, and that's why they have a fraudulent social security number.

• 44:27Speaker 03

  They are, I mean, yeah, I think crimes of-

• 44:28Speaker 00

  So now I wanna know if we're, if your belief system spills over into crimes of necessity.

• 44:34Speaker 02

  Fall for the trap, right? Don't fall for it.

• 44:35Speaker 03

  It's not a trap, but I'll give my honest answer. I think crimes of necessity are still crimes and should be punished as crimes. But I'm not gonna hate someone committing a crime of necessity as much as a murderer. And I think that's a fair take.

• 44:46Speaker 00

  That seems very reasonable. I don't have any beef with that.

• 44:49Speaker 03

  Now, for the California voter identification, how this process works, and I'm a Texas boy, so our process is different. I have to hand my driver's license in when I go. But for California, which y'all voted, so correct me if I'm wrong in this. Basically, you have to sign something, and they compare your signature to the digital registration. And the key exception is if you're a first-time voter, and you didn't have like a license on record, or an ID number from California, or your social security number, you have to present that when you're there. So they'll compare-

• 45:18Speaker 00

  Sorry, you have to present that when?

• 45:19Speaker 03

  If you're first, like if you, if you're a first-time voter who didn't put that in there, like who didn't have that on record. That's the time they're allowed to ask, that kinda thing.

• 45:28Speaker 00

  Meaning, are you registered or not registered?

• 45:32Speaker 03

  Registered by mail and did not provide a driver's license number, California ID number, or the last four digits of your social security number at registration. Federal law, HAVA, requires you to show identification the first time you vote. So that's the one instance they can't ask for ID. I was just adding that extra.

• 45:46Speaker 00

  Wow, will you do a search, do a search to see if that's actually enforced?

• 45:53Speaker 03

  Oh, and you can do like a utility bill. I didn't know that. Texas didn't, I don't think, allow like utility bills and rent. What was the question? Sorry.

• 45:59Speaker 00

  You can, sorry, you can do a utility bill instead of showing ID?

• 46:06Speaker 03

  This is like for first time. It says acceptable ID in that case can be a photo ID, driver's license, passport, etc., or a document showing your name and address, utility bills, bank statements, government checks, etc.

• 46:17Speaker 00

  And so you look at that and you're like, this is locked down.

• 46:20Speaker 03

  I mean, to me, it's like, we just, there's less than 1% voter fraud in America.

• 46:25Speaker 00

  There's less than 1% voter fraud that's already been documented and shown. I will give you that.

• 46:29Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, I'm saying, are you asking my take? Or are you asking for, like, people in general?

• 46:34Speaker 00

  Cause here's, here's what I think is far more likely, given the number of videos I've seen people record at registration offices, the number of videos I've seen people record actually going to the ballot box, my own experience going to the ballot box. They don't ask for shit. And in California, maybe minus this one caveat, it is, it is illegal to ask for somebody's ID.

• 46:59Speaker 03

  Well, that's because they got the signature. So I think that's the, like a normal voting process, they show your signature, right? Like you sign something and then they compare it to your registration?

• 47:07Speaker 00

  They don't do shit.

• 47:08Speaker 03

  That's what this is saying. This is saying you give your name and address to a poll worker who looks you up in the roster of registered voters for the precinct. If they find you and you haven't already voted, you sign the roster next to your name, and your signature is compared to the one in file.

• 47:19Speaker 00

  Do me a favor, look up, can somebody vouch for the identity of a voter?

• 47:24Speaker 03

  Vouch for, in California?

• 47:26Speaker 00

  It's California and/or Minnesota.

• 47:30Speaker 03

  Can I just say California for the sake of-

• 47:31Speaker 00

  I would say California or Minnesota, because I can't remember which one.

• 47:34Speaker 02

  Minnesota has a James O'Keefe video. So we have to talk about Minnesota to back up the claims of the video. Otherwise, the video will be thrown out of evidence.

• 47:41Speaker 03

  Well, I'm just saying, like, are their processes different? Or are they similar processes?

• 47:45Speaker 00

  I would assume they're different, yeah.

• 47:46Speaker 03

  Cause I just wouldn't want the things to get mixed. But I'm asking both. We'll ask both. California, no, there is no vouching system. California verifies identity through the registration process, and then it's just repeating the stuff I said earlier.

• 47:55Speaker 00

  So now I know that's bullshit. Cause in California, you can, if somebody is unable to sign, you can sign for them and say, yes, this is that person's ballot.

• 48:06Speaker 02

  That's for mail-in ballot. So you'll, they'll sign it, put it in a sealed envelope, and then you drop it in the mailbox or drop it off at a ballot.

• 48:11Speaker 00

  Sure.

• 48:13Speaker 00

  Why does that? Why is that better? What?

• 48:16Speaker 02

  Mail-in ballot, you have like the sealed envelope. So it's just like if you drop in, drop off your mail-in ballot.

• 48:20Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 48:21Speaker 02

  So I can, so if Ryan gave me his mail-in ballot, it's sealed, it's closed, and all these other things, I can then drop it off with my-

• 48:26Speaker 00

  And say, yeah, for real, for real, this was Ryan. You don't see a way that that could be abused.

• 48:30Speaker 02

  I can take somebody else's and sign their names, and yes, submit it. Yes, I can do that.

• 48:34Speaker 03

  I mean, I think any system can be abused.

• 48:35Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 48:36Speaker 03

  But also, like, I have the Minnesota, if you want Minnesota.

• 48:40Speaker 02

  That's his whole point.

• 48:41Speaker 03

  Cause Minnesota does back here.

• 48:42Speaker 02

  It is possible that people can fill mail-in ballots and, and do that. Yes, that is-

• 48:47Speaker 00

  And then, sorry, you're saying the vouch-

• 48:49Speaker 03

  Minnesota part, yes, Minnesota has a longstanding vouching provision under Minnesota used for same-day election day registration. A registered voter can vouch for up to eight people, but someone who is vouched for cannot vouch for someone else. And the staff at residential facilities can vouch for an unlimited number of facility residents. The mechanics, the voucher must accompany the person to the polling place and sign an oath under penalty of perjury affirming that they're registered in the precinct or employed to the facility, and they personally, and that they personally know the person resides in the precinct.

• 49:19Speaker 00

  Okay, so this, this is utterly fascinating. So, boys and girls, the key takeaway, in my opinion, to all of this, at least for the three of us here on camera right now, is we are looking at the same facts, and we see something so different. This is why, understanding that the vast majority of the human experience is perception, and has, it is almost impossible to ascertain what an actual fact is. Because people will look at the same things and see something completely different. So I see a system designed to be a grease shoot for fraud. And you guys see, I don't wanna put words in your mouth, you see something different than that.

• 49:54Speaker 02

  I see 24,000 from the Census Bureau out of 128 million. They got 32 million more to go. Let's see what that final number comes up to.

• 50:05Speaker 00

  There it is, boys and girls. There it is. Welcome to the human experience, everybody. If you're new here, this is how life works, man. Taking a short break, but there's more Impact Theory after. Stay tuned. Let's talk about how much you're paying to stay safe online. Count it up. A VPN, a password manager, something to block ads and trackers. The service scrub your data off of broker lists. A tool to flag scam emails. That's five. Five subscriptions, apps, logins. And most people still have gaps. That's the problem Surfshark solves. It's not a VPN. It's an all-in-one security suite. One tool that protects your connection, your personal info,

• 50:49Speaker 00

  and your devices all at the same time. Go to surfshark.com/tomb or use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark, backed by a 30-day money-back guarantee. That's S-U-R-F-S-H-A-R-K.com/tomb. Surfshark.com/tomb. Use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark. Thanks for staying tuned. Now, let's get back to it. You've got Ro Khanna laying out like, hey, we gotta tax this wealth, man. We gotta tax these billionaires. Like, this stuff is crazy. We gotta get that money. We gotta redistribute it. I don't even understand why people are pushing back.

• 51:34Speaker 00

  Mark, if you came with me on a tour of America, you would see that people really do hate business leaders. They hate billionaires. Cool. Hey, I'm willing to agree that people hate business leaders, but that does not mean that that's actually going to solve the problem. So you can hate these people all you want, but if you Luigi Mangione them and shoot them, this does not solve the problem. If you have misidentified the solution to the correct problem, you still are gonna be worse off than you were before. You've got to identify the correct problem and you've got to identify the correct solution. And that is the very thing that we're not doing. So we have, Ro has identified, hey, people really feel like the system is not working for them.

• 52:19Speaker 00

  Yes, the system is not working for them. We're pushing everybody into college, getting them insanely indebted. Then we are driving them with that debt on top of them into a housing market that is just absolutely abusive for a whole host of reasons. And then we are making it impossible for them to save because we're inflating the currency away. And all of this, under cultural changes that people aren't being honest about. And so you have all this energy where people used to be raising families. All of that energy now is going into political causes that are completely unhinged and just absolutely going to make things infinitely worse. But nonetheless, here we are. And so you're building up all of this resentment inside of a system that has both psychological problems,

• 53:04Speaker 00

  going back to the burrito issue, and real systemic problems, housing, healthcare, debt, et cetera. So, okay, here's what Mark Cuban had to say about all of that. Ro, I like you. You know that, but you need to read the state of the state. The number of DECA unicorns, so 10 billion-plus unicorns. Unicorn is a startup. Traditionally, the unicorn means that it was self-funded in the beginning. So anyway, the number of DECA unicorns in Cali is growing by the day as investors chase amazing startups. A unique feature of these $10 billion startups is that even if they raise a billion, a billion, little, if any of that money goes to the founders, which is very important, by the way,

• 53:49Speaker 00

  the vast, vast, vast majority of money that people raise goes to the company. So the people giving you the money are like, I'm not giving this to you, the founder. I don't care about you. I expect you to run this thing. And if I win, then you can win. But you've gotta get us to an IPO. You've gotta get us to a sale. If you don't get us to an IPO or a sale, I don't want you taking any money. I don't wanna see you driving fancy cars. I wanna make sure that you get this thing to increase in value. Okay? So the money's going into the company. Now, it does make the company more valuable. And so on paper, this person running the company, who might still be largely broke, is now being considered a billionaire themselves. And this is where the trouble begins, people not understanding wealth.

• 54:34Speaker 00

  Okay. So, uh, so if and, little if any of the money goes to the founders, who are now worth billions of dollars overnight. They are the definition of cash poor, stock rich. How are you going to tax them? Make them borrow money against their shares if they can? They just raised money to grow their company and a bank will come along and loan them money? A company that has been in business maybe less than a year, lol. Will you take their stock if they can't? Do you really think each of multiple founders who started an amazing company in Cali and is now a billionaire can each just pull out $250 million per billion of net worth for their raise?

• 55:17Speaker 00

  You know they can't. If this passes, and it doesn't directly impact me at all, he's saying himself, I won't be a Cali resident. But you can bet if I'm investing in a multi-billion-dollar startup, I'm asking them to move from Cali first. In my opinion, if this passes, meaning the wealth tax, only idiot startup founders stay in Cali. I've done it before and I will do it again. Dallas, Pittsburgh, Indiana. I will make not being in California a prerequisite for an investment. Ideology is not a strategy, Ro. So here you have one of the most visible investors in the world

• 56:01Speaker 00

  telling you, hey, if you guys do this, I will not invest in a company that's in Cali. Now, I might invest in them, but I'm gonna make them leave California first. He's already done it before. People act like it's a myth that if you do this stuff, people will leave California. They will leave California for sure. And many of them, you won't even realize they've left California because of things like this. They will make them leave first, then they will invest, then they will become the DECA billion-dollar company. And so you won't have a sense that we lost a DECA billion-dollar company, because you didn't. They first moved to Indiana, Pittsburgh, Florida, Dallas, wherever, and then they got the investment that they were seeking. And if you think that Mark Cuban is the only one who understands this,

• 56:46Speaker 00

  you are out of your mind. So there are going to be a ton of investors that are going to do the same thing. And by the way, California has a direction of travel. And that direction of travel is worse over time, not better. So you see them continuing to ratchet things up. So anybody paying attention knows this is not going to be a one-time fee. Remember, my big beef with Bernie Sanders is that he keeps saying that, oh, with that, however much billions he's saying that day that we're going to raise, you could feed this many kids, secure healthcare for this many people, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, you could do all of that stuff, but you can only do it once. And that assumes that you actually are able to get that much money, which odds are that you're not going to be able to

• 57:30Speaker 00

  because the act of trying to sell those shares to raise that money will be destructive itself. And like Cuban already pointed out, these guys are probably not going to be able to borrow the money because it's so speculative that they're actually worth that money. Okay, so this is in reference to what I was saying earlier. So Ro was like, Mark, listen, just come with me. You're gonna see that people all over America hate business leaders. And so Mark says, when you talk to voters in Cali and you propose Prop 40, the wealth tax, do you tell each voter how they will benefit? The estimates that it could generate $100 billion, which will be paid over the five-year term or $20 billion a year, give or take.

• 58:14Speaker 00

  The state lost about $30 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which means even if you took 100% of the Prop 40 funds each year, and by the way, I'll add this, assuming that you can actually raise those funds, which I will say you will not be able to, certainly not 100% of them. But if you took 100% of the Prop 40 funds each year to subsidize the loss in funding, it doesn't cover it. The good news would be that, okay, I'm sorry. That was me fixing his grammar. He actually said, the good news is that a few million people who lost coverage could get it back and people working at providers that accept Medi-Cal could keep their jobs. That's great. But it also means that only a few million Californians will benefit. Great. The rest get no benefit.

• 58:59Speaker 00

  None at all. Zero. Anyone you talk to that didn't lose Medicaid won't get shit. Affordability, nope. Lower healthcare costs, nope. Lower gas prices, nope. Lower home insurance, nope. Wildfire protections, nope. Here is the math as I see it, and feel free to correct me. Right now, Cali collects 13.3% on any income above $1 million a year.

• 59:23Speaker 00

  You also collect 8.8% on Cali corporate earnings. Which would you rather have? 13.3% and 8.8% that people have been paying annually? Or a one-time 5% tax? Which probably equates to about 20 billion a year? Plus some unknown number of wealthy people leaving and taking their companies and jobs with them. It's a math problem, not an easy one. If you went to those same voters and told them you were going to cut their healthcare, food, housing, home renters insurance, and more, which do you think they would prefer? A billionaire tax or lower costs at home? But that would actually, but that would require actually doing things outside your comfort zone.

• 1:00:06Speaker 00

  So what Cuban is trying to get, I would say, anybody with these absurd tax policies to understand is when you kill the goose that lays the golden egg, you may get that one golden egg, but it stops laying golden eggs in the future. They're not even contemplating anything beyond 10-year timeframes. So how do you keep this train rolling? And the answer is you keep taxing the billionaires. Now, if it worked the first time, of course, they will go back to that well. But the odds are it won't work the first time. And whatever amount it does work, it causes more people to leave. And it just makes the next Silicon Valley guaranteed to be built somewhere else. Because smart founders realize, I want to go somewhere when I have nothing. Where if I build something, then I'm going to be able to capture the upside. That's how people are incentivized. So they're going to go elsewhere.

• 1:00:50Speaker 00

  And when they go elsewhere, slowly over time, that state just ends up declining in its ability to generate tax revenue. And so if people actually understood, you should want to be the place that business flocks to, which is precisely why California has the economy that it has, that Newsom keeps trying to take credit for. But the reality is, this is something that started, I think, back in the 60s. You had guys leave Bell Laboratories, which was on the East Coast, and they end up going to the West Coast and building what is now Silicon Valley. And all of that infrastructure built up around it. As this generation gets taxed into oblivion, the next generation is just going to build somewhere else. And so they, instead of thinking long-term, how do we make sure that we are the place that people want to be, we're going to be like the film industry.

• 1:01:36Speaker 00

  Everybody else realized, oh, to get this film business dollars, we're going to provide tax incentives rather than tax the life out of people. California took the opposite strategy. They taxed everybody. When you tax something, you get less of it. So if you tax billionaires, guess who you're going to get less of? Billionaires. Now, I get it, people hate billionaires and they think they want fewer billionaires. But the reality is, when you're a billionaire on paper, you become a billionaire because you've created a company. And that company is incredibly valuable. And that person that owns that company may one day be valuable if they're ever able to go public or sell.

• 1:02:10Speaker 02

  Where do you think this disconnect comes from? Where politicians are pushing something that they think their constituents want, but ultimately, like, I think with Ro Khanna, he's hopping on the wave of what's popular right now? Because I feel like he sees that the DSA wave and he's trying to split that between the establishment Democrats. Like, he has no aid to Israel in his bio, like, all of a sudden, he's an Israel hawk. But I do feel like the Senate in general, completely Republican-controlled the last two years, they passed like two bills. And I think that the things that they have passed, their constituents haven't felt it. Democrats are now going through their thing. What, why is it that they're not listening to us? Like, is it, do we need to flip the power dynamics? What is the thing that would make our politicians more effective at what they do?

• 1:02:51Speaker 00

  Well, you'd have to get money out of politics. So part of this is that the game is working really well for one part of the K. And they are funding people that are going to be pro their agenda. Then you've got things that are just so important to the psychology of the cycle of youth to adulthood, namely, the ability to buy a house, raise a family. And we've damaged that at a cultural level and at a policy level. So housing is just insanely expensive. And kids are coming out of college with so much debt. And we've hollowed out the middle class by sending jobs overseas. So you would have to do several things.

• 1:03:36Speaker 00

  You would have to be fiscally disciplined so that we stop taking on debt, so that servicing the debt can start reducing over time. You have to grow the real economy. So rather than just growing the part of the economy that's financialized, you've got to start building things here. You've got to build things that the world wants. So you're going to have to take on China from a manufacturing perspective. You've got to bring back middle, middle-class jobs, so making things. You've got to stop sending everybody to college. Not everybody's going to be able to make that debt back. You've got to let students discharge that debt. So if you come out, they should be able to declare bankruptcy. So that that will force discipline on the banks, who will stop lending money to people that they shouldn't have lent money to, which will put those people in a position where they have to go,

• 1:04:21Speaker 00

  well, I can't get a loan to go to college, so what am I going to do? I'm going to go into a trade and do something that is actually beneficial that the world wants. You need to make sure that you stop bringing in low-wage workers so that we find out what the real appetite for things is in terms of, yes, I want my burrito delivered to me, but I don't want a $60 burrito, which would maybe like what it would have to be if you were going to say, this is a job that is taken by somebody who's treating it like a career. Also, this is pure intuition. One should never trust their intuition. Use it as a starting point for research, don't trust it. I just went to D23. D23 is like a comic book convention for Disney.

• 1:05:05Speaker 02

  You went?

• 1:05:05Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:05:06Speaker 02

  Oh, that was selfish, you ain't telling nobody?

• 1:05:07Speaker 00

  Uh, well, I did it to spend time with my mom and sister. So otherwise, I wouldn't have gone.

• 1:05:11Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:05:12Speaker 00

  But I find myself there. And I was struck, okay, it was a Friday, so this is not the weekend. But Drew, when I say, but it's a Friday in the summer. Anyway, it was, I'm going to say, 3% under the age of 25.

• 1:05:31Speaker 02

  Jeez.

• 1:05:32Speaker 00

  3%. This is Disney. 3%. I was like, what is happening?

• 1:05:37Speaker 02

  To Disney adults.

• 1:05:38Speaker 00

  Now, the far more terrifying thing, because that's just bad news for Disney. The more terrifying thing is that there were no teenage employees at a convention for Disney. Which tells me either kids just don't care about Disney, so they don't even think to apply for a job there. Or teenagers aren't getting jobs like that anymore. And when you walk into a cheap thing, a thing that is meant to be inexpensive, which fast food was meant to be inexpensive, okay? When I was broke, you would just time the dollar menu. So you would go, and McDonald's had something where it was like three burgers for 99 cents. You would go there because you couldn't afford other things. So you could get a full meal for like $3.

• 1:06:21Speaker 00

  And so you would go and you would time that. I did these things called Tina's Burritos. I don't even know if they exist anymore. But they were three for 99 cents, but you actually had to go to the grocery store. And terrible ingredients, for sure, but they were cheap and they kept me alive. So anyway, you're, when you go to an establishment that's meant to be cheap, you should see teenagers. And what we're seeing now are middle-aged people to old people. And so it's like, what? What are kids doing for jobs? They're either not getting jobs at all and their parents are just shoveling them into the college pipeline. So it's like, during the summer, just take it to play, during the summer, study or whatever.

• 1:07:01Speaker 00

  At least in my age group where I grew up, I, from the time I was 13, technically, I started when I was 12, but from the time I was 13, I had to have a job. I took the one when I was 12 so I could buy a Nintendo. But from 13 up, it was a requirement in the bill you household that you had a summer job. So that just doesn't exist. Now, me doing that labor meant that somebody got me very cheap. They got labor who was dumb. I didn't know what I was doing. But you could get me to do menial tasks. So I worked in a door factory, a paint factory, a paint warehouse, a paint store. I worked in, like, this guy had some weird thing where he sold clothes, like, to all these random places. I did that.

• 1:07:43Speaker 00

  I broke concrete and like laid paving stones one summer. All kinds of things that you pay somebody just because, hey, you're physical, you can go do a thing. And so they got extraordinarily cheap labor. And I got a job so I can make some money to be a little bit less of a burden to my parents. Apparently, we don't do that anymore. So there, there's like a, my intuition is, I need to research it more. But my feeling is that there, there's a breakdown in how we think about the pipeline from youth to adulthood that's causing, that is a part of a feedback loop of distortions in the economy. And I think those distortions are the things that I already laid out. College, the expense, the debt, all of that.

• 1:08:27Speaker 00

  And just this cultural belief that everything should be cheap and free. But we're doing it now with immigrant adults rather than teenage citizen kids. So yeah, we, we have created a very strange feedback loop that is causing all kinds of problems.

• 1:08:42Speaker 02

  Yep, that is very true. I have noticed that as well, especially at amusement parks. Because when I grew up, I have worked at Six Flags. That was the high school job. And now you go to an amusement park and it's a bunch of adults there.

• 1:08:53Speaker 00

  Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break. And that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done. You're getting 75-plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient-dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements, and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make.

• 1:09:38Speaker 00

  Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2, and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.