Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
๐จDemocratic Candidate MARIANNE WILLIAMSON #CJN
Recorded: June 16, 2023 Duration: 2:10:10Space Recording
Short Summary
The transcript highlights the increasing trend and growth in crypto-related content and discussions, with multiple shows focusing on different aspects of the crypto space, indicating a rising interest and engagement in the sector.
Full Transcription
All right, let's do this.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, we got you.
Yeah, absolutely.
Nelson, how are you, man?
He's still alive?
Man, I saw the title.
I was like, okay, let's talk about it.
Bro, you got to see the title on Sunday, man.
I can't tell you who it is.
But Sully says it's the biggest guess we've ever had.
Wow.
So that's, you know, we've had.
I disagree with him.
I think Elon's our biggest guess, but that's what...
That's what Sully says.
What time, what time on Sunday?
It's Friday, Friday, sorry, 4 p.m. EST.
Okay, perfect, all right, perfect. I'll be there.
Cool.
KK, is that you on stage?
There's no way it's you on stage.
Yeah, it is.
Hello.
This is one of the more serious spaces.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't fuck shit up here.
Let me get the invites out.
Even Sully's like Mario, don't mess around in this space.
It's got to be serious.
All right, let me get the invites out.
How was the AI space, by the way, Sully?
Really good.
Inspirational.
So much knowledge gain.
Please, can you just talk like a human being, man?
How was this space?
I'm serious not.
I'm telling you, it was really good.
So much knowledge gained, so many, so much information.
What did you guys discuss?
What I understand?
What's hard to understand about that?
There was a number of issues that were talked about.
They talked about regulation.
They talked about how AI can impact the various arts.
And then they also talked about, you know, the church where the sermon was given and using AI.
You weren't even listening, where you?
Come on.
There's no way you're listening, bro.
You're saying like the broadest stuff anyone could imagine.
No, that's...
No, no, that's what it's about.
You want me to relay the whole space here?
No, man, be serious.
We're like, we talked about the regulation of AI
and what AI could look like in the next few years.
And that's an explanation that we talked about what AI could mean to humanity.
We didn't talk about what AI can mean to humanity.
So I wouldn't make some of it that we didn't talk about.
But those specific talking points that I referred to, that's what we talked about.
If you say so, it's recorded, by the way.
So when you make shit up, I could go check.
You Greg.
Please go check.
All right, sending out the invites.
Good to have you all.
Get the answer, my wife.
Let's give this another minute or two.
Let me send out all the invites, let more people join, and then we kick stuff off.
We should kick up.
We should have come up with an intro, by the way, man.
Like some sort of intro at the beginning without me just unmeeting my mic and inviting people.
But music, I think, do you think music is good?
I think we should start putting music.
What do you think?
I think so.
No, no, I think you're right.
I think the good idea is to do an intro.
Play an intro.
Um, but like, you're gonna record one or something?
Yeah, I don't know.
Like, what do you think is putting cool music?
I used to enjoy it before when I used to put it.
Yeah, yeah, an intro with some music or get your team to make a more specific.
Ah, yeah, yeah, of course, like an intro for the show.
Yeah, that would be a good idea.
But I like the fact that there's no intro and stuff just makes it more authentic.
When you start putting intro, you're just becoming more.
What should you type on a laptop is a little bit?
That's kind of awkward.
That is awkward.
Okay. When you watch the Joe Rogan show is just the intro is just like monkey sound and that's it, no?
I don't know.
And then when you went with the Lex Friedman show is the same thing.
It's like barely an intro just him coming up. There's no music or anything.
But all in podcasts has a nice.
Yeah, but because in the Lex Friedman show, you put music on and then you had Friedman talk and you switch off on.
All right. I've sent out all the invites.
Okay.
And if it's glitching, you're not getting it, do let us know.
If you want to come up, DM us as well.
But yes, as we kick off the space, it's a bit of an update for everyone.
So we're doing more shows now.
We're doing every morning we do a finance show.
We've been doing this for two months now.
It's a very consistent show.
It's one of my favorite ones.
So Danish does a really good job there.
And then in the afternoon, right after, like about 10, 15 a.m.,
we do a crypto show, a more...
kind of macro financing crypto, more institutional.
So that goes on for a couple of hours,
so from 10 to 12.
And then generally we get about an hour break,
or a few hours break till the night show,
or an hour break,
and then we do either the AI or the Dgen shows.
So DGEN is another crypto show, and AI is AI.
And then we get a few hours break to, you know, for me to work.
Which is that, which for, obviously, Mario doesn't know the time it seems,
but that show is at 12th, the AI show is at 12.30 Eastern, Tuesdays and Thursday,
and the second crypto show is at 1230 Eastern on Monday.
Yeah, and then we have the news and politics and major event space.
um every day at six p.m.
that hyper show of the day.
Yeah, so this one's every day at six p.m.
We've been doing it seven days a week for a while.
We took a day off today.
Sorry, not today.
This week we took a day off.
Um, why?
It's just not much news and we were just exhausted, weren't we?
We had the six hour CPI space and we're just dead.
Yeah, I mean...
I just thought, yeah, there was, it was, we were tired, but also it wasn't like,
Wednesday and Thursday was a bit dead news.
I remember even yesterday, you basically found the news quite late on and you were like,
oh, let's switch.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
All right, let's kick this off.
So today's special guests, Marianne Williamson.
Sully, I'll give you the honors to do the introduction.
Why we have Marianne coming on today, who Marianne is.
It's a bit of an intro for the audience and what questions you're looking to ask her.
Give us a bit of an idea.
She's coming in 15, 17 minutes.
Give us an idea of her policies, et cetera.
Yeah, sure. I mean, these are some of the areas that we all want to go into.
So Marianne Williamson, she's third in the race for the Democratic nomination.
According to some polling, she's at 5 to 11%.
And remember Kennedy, who has got a signet, I mean, he's got the name as well.
He's got the name Kennedy and he's also had a decent amount of media presence as well.
And what I mean by media is alternative media because he did say he's not being getting onto mainstream media as much.
So Kennedy's polling at the like 19, 18, 14 to 19, depending on what the polls are.
Marianne's be polling at 5 to 11% depending on what polls you look at.
So she is behind, she is in third place, but it's not significantly below.
So let's see how this space goes in terms of maybe people getting better awareness of what she's all about, what her policies are all about.
Now, in terms of a specific policy, obviously, sorry.
No, I was going to say, I know one thing going to like.
So Marianne Williamson.
talks about, so I've prepared a few questions listening to a few to her interviews.
And one thing she talks about, now I understand why Silly is very excited for this.
So she talks about how the US is looking more of like an oligarchy and how it's controlled by all companies, big pharma and insurance companies, who quote unquote says they run this country.
She also says she's not really running against Biden.
She's running against the system.
which immediately
reminded with Soleimann's argument
how the establishment controls
every single bit of our life.
So I think Sully and her are going to geek out about this.
AllSource and Sam, I need you guys here to kind of balance Sully out because he's going to go off when it comes to the establishment.
Wait, wait, wait.
I disagree with her.
I've got a lot of issues that I disagree with her on.
So let's be clear, that's probably one of the few issues I agree with.
But I think so, I think it's going to need a lot of support from Alsace and Sam.
No, so, so I mean, I think it's very important to highlight that, you know, she's generally kind of identified more on the left spectrum of the Democratic Party.
She does have a lot of.
social aspects of her campaign.
You know, you can almost, like,
I'm not going to use the term Bernie Sanders,
but I mean,
she kind of has that Aurora of kind of at that camp.
And she really,
didn't she in 2020,
she endorsed Bernie,
but she dropped out,
she endorsed.
Yes,
and that's what I was going to highlight
that she did run in 2020.
for the Democratic primary when it was a crowded field.
And, you know, there's a lot.
And then that's the one that eventually Biden beat Bernie Sanders.
And she did not make it towards the Iowa caucuses, which was back then the first caucus at a race.
Her campaign ended before that.
But this isn't her first rodeo with the Democratic Party.
And I think that's important also to highlight.
I'm just going to give a quick shout out before you go Suli.
I'm just going to give a quick shout out to other spaces.
I want to start doing that more often.
So Nelson, who's next to us, make sure you follow him.
He does, even doing it for a long time, he will get annoying because he keeps saying, let's talk about it.
It's a condition.
It's a condition he has every second.
Can he stop sucking up to people?
Two seconds.
So shout out.
It's really good.
I don't know about what he says.
I don't know.
You've probably never heard his, never heard of space.
He says it once is cool.
I used to like it.
I just heard him say,
yeah,
when he says it once twice.
Let's talk about it, baby.
Let's go.
Yeah, so he says it every single sentence and he does his laugh.
Like, you know, the laugh that you do before killing someone, you know, the murder laugh.
So he does that.
right after and then I want to give also Phenom does great spaces anyway it's not everyone knows
Phenomenology so Barry Razi does great space is very consistent as well um
I can't pronounce it right bro Phenom we just call a phenom um so definitely check her out we should do
more regular space shout out Sully I think it would be a good idea for us to do here and there it's a
Pretty small ecosystem.
I'll shout out German Kaleisi's base, one of the best space.
Absolutely, yeah, Kaleisi as well.
I know she's a friend of yours.
So she's a really good speaker.
She's one of the few that scare me.
So similar to my co-host, Scott, she scares me, bro.
She's a good speaker.
But yeah, go ahead.
So what do you disagree with when it comes to Marianne?
Well, there's a number of issues.
I mean, I would just send a WhatsApp now and she was like,
It was a bit mad.
She was like talking about how paganism was like so brilliant because of their connection to nature and Christianity came and caused problems.
So there was that issue.
But I wasn't going to bring that up.
No, no, no.
Why really that's the back?
Can you talk about things that are more relevant that people care about?
Yeah, so she, yeah, yeah, of course.
So she's got, in terms of climate change, she said Biden isn't doing enough on climate change.
So it means she's got a very, very, hold on, I've never asked your stance.
What is your stance on climate change?
Ah, so we've got climate change space coming up, guys, early next week,
and you will find out my position when I smash.
Just can you answer the question?
Oh, God, I'm going to be on that space, Mario.
Don't worry, if we're not going to let the lame and ruin it.
Can you ask you a question, silly?
What's your stance?
Oh, my God, Sam.
If you're going to be on it, it is going to be ruined, bro.
Hey, man, I had a Tesla before half of people in the world knew they existed,
and I already know your position on climate change just because it's you.
You're right.
That's my position.
Do you support actually, can I ask someone?
Do you support it?
Because she does support universal basic income.
This is kind of something similar to Andrew Yang.
So someone, do you agree with that?
Sorry, I said that again.
The universal basic income, you know, like everybody gets a salary.
It's very popular with Andrew Yang.
She supports that.
Is that something that you support?
I'd say no, and I'll explain why, because I can't see how it'll function in a way.
And I've asked this to digital and I've asked this to people who basically support UBI.
And they're not able to explain from an economic perspective and from a financial perspective,
how you would be able to implement something like that.
It's because you're asking the people.
Yeah, tell us that.
Seliman, I surprised you don't like her.
I'm surprised you don't like her because she looks at, from what I've seen, she looks at the cause.
So like, why is there so much crime?
Because there's a lot of poverty.
Why is there so many, like, why so many people on pills?
Because we treat sickness, not health.
Like, she looks at the actual root cause, which is what I like about her.
And I'm surprised you don't like that being an academic, right?
Because it goes beyond just a surface layer.
No, no, so I think some of her points I don't agree with, but I don't dislike or like I'm going to find out on this space when she goes into deep.
That's what the good thing about this space is like I've put questions together, you guys have.
It's not like the other spaces where it was basically scripted.
It's not like the other spaces where buddies came up and basically praised Elon.
And guys, you can ask her questions without praising me.
It's no problem.
I know you guys want to, but you don't have to.
And in addition to that, you don't have to do any of that.
It's unchecked.
You can ask any questions you want and we can ask and let her go into detail.
And that's what I like about this space.
That's what's going to happen in this space.
She's actually a very formidable debate.
But Sam, Sam.
In 2019 when she debated, you know, she got raving reviews.
And they said she out debated everybody.
But does she have a chance?
She's polling it below 10%.
Me and Sully were having a heated discussion beforehand.
She seems like a really nice person.
She seems like she's a good speaker as well.
But the poll numbers just, has there been any candidate with such low numbers
that eventually became president?
Now, you can't use Trump as an example.
Trump's numbers were never that low, especially not that deep into the campaign.
It's a serious.
Obama came from way behind.
Obama came from way behind.
What numbers did he have?
I don't remember the numbers, but I know he was pulling at 10%, Joe.
Yeah, but he wasn't at 20% either.
Do you think that she's an actual candidate for the presidency, Joe?
I think the fact that her social media, she has more social media followers than any other candidate, not just on this platform.
I think her messaging is a bit all over the place.
She hasn't found her audience.
If she does find her audience and decides who she's actually speaking to,
she could be a formidable, formidable person.
I don't think, I think it's really up to Sarah.
Do you identify with her?
Like, I feel like she doesn't speak like an American.
I think women won't like her.
And that could be a problem too.
That's why I'm saying her messaging needs to buy a lot tighter.
But she has the reach that's needed.
She has the most followers out of everyone.
Yeah, but the followers, they're not, yeah, exactly.
Like, they're not, why do you think they're not resulting,
and I want to get Justin in here?
So the team, if they can, they can ping Justin to come in
because this is the area of expertise.
But having those followers, why isn't that showing in the polls?
Yeah, and also, if you look at our messaging, it's all over.
No, but also it's like, I think you said this before, Mario,
that followers does, is, you have to look at the engagement,
like, how well at her post doing.
Yeah, I was about to say the same, Simon.
I've got, like, a fraction of her followers on my post probably too bad.
Yeah, but a lot of yours are bots to name, but if you look at Kennedy, he gets, Kennedy gets, anyway, let's move on.
Kennedy gets like more engagement on Twitter.
I don't really work outside Twitter.
But the interesting thing is Biden's, Biden's numbers are dropping in the Democratic polls, but Williamson's are kind of dropping too.
But Kennedy's aren't rising through, kind of getting dilated, you know.
But we've seen sort of Biden drop from sort of 70% just a few weeks go down to kind of 54%.
today, Kennedy's kind of drifting around the mid sort of tens, like 15, 16, but Williamson
sort of struggles to get, you know, between 5 and 8%.
So to answer Maria's question, I think she doesn't quite get the engagement on the socials.
I think...
followers may not be from her political background,
whereas I think if you think about followers of other political candidates,
it's probably very much more related to directly to their politics
rather than their sort of...
Yeah, and that's important, because, like, Sam, you've got like 20,000 followers
and nobody can read your post.
That's the whole point.
You've got to write...
Guys, guys, can we get back to...
Guys, guys, can we get back to that point?
Look, I'm trying to learn something here
and then you go back to Sam and Sully.
Can we go back to Marian?
So what you're saying, Sam, is...
So how are the poll numbers looking for
Marianne and RFK versus Biden?
Can you give us a quick overview again?
Yeah, the latest...
okay so the latest ones that's really i mean these are coming and changing very rapidly
so the latest from a couple of days ago um kind of 54 percent byden 14 percent kennedy 5
percent williamson
A couple of weeks ago, it was like 72% Biden, 17% Kennedy, 7% Williamson, so they're getting diluted slightly.
But Biden seems to be falling.
Kennedy seems to be relatively stable.
And Williamson is as well, but fairly low numbers.
Neither of them seem to be making much traction over Biden, but his numbers are falling sort of on their own.
Yeah, and she compared, so when someone, yeah, I'll give you the mic, Dan.
Yeah, I will now.
Go ahead, Dan.
I also think it's important to understand that polling is directly impacted by mainstream medium.
And when the mainstream media isn't giving all the candidates the same amount of attention,
it is harder for them to gain that headway, to get those people to know who they are and what they stand for,
to get them to want to vote on polls.
Yeah.
It's very true, but also what's happening, as we're seeing here on Twitter and YouTube and things like that,
is that this is shifting.
We see the people who are watching the mainstream media news now,
and then we see, like, Tucker's program getting seen by vast numbers on Twitter,
and we see other people on YouTube.
So it is shifting, but I agree with you.
I think a lot of voters aren't yet on the social media.
I think a certain demographic half, but not everybody.
All right. Well, Marianne, it's a pleasure to have you, Salaman. I'll let you do the introductions,
but Marianne is on stage with us. Hi, how are you?
It's a pleasure to have you. Salaman, do you want to kick off the introductions?
Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Yeah, just a quick introduction.
I'm not like Nick who goes into long introductions,
but yeah,
appreciate the fact that Marianne has come on the space.
She is on the Democratic ticket in terms of trying to go
with a Democratic nomination.
She is in, currently according to the polls,
is in third position.
And when you look at her,
a lot of her policy decisions,
and we're going to go into deep about those issues,
She seems to be quite different in terms of her policy to the establishment positions, which are basically demonstrated by establishment candidates such as Biden.
But Marian, and first of all, thanks for coming on.
Let's go straight into that.
I mean, you heard the panellists talking about your poll numbers and how they were a bit lower than the rest of them?
Like, what's your thoughts on that?
Well, actually it wasn't accurate.
The last one I saw today had me at 11%.
I'm not sure that matters that much,
but the one that was someone on your...
on the space quoted 5%, then a couple of hours later.
I saw when I can find it here on my Twitter that said 11%.
I think at this point, the most important thing is that none of it really matters this early.
You know, even at 5% I'm higher than Barack Obama was at this point in his first race,
you know, in 2008, and higher than Bernie Sanders was in 2016.
So I certainly appreciate the 11% more than the 5%.
But either way, it's early.
And we'll see what happens.
We have a lot of time to go here.
And Marian, just a question, you compared to the numbers in the last election, it was 1%.
What changed since?
Because your numbers right now obviously are significantly better.
What change?
Is your messaging any different?
Is your strategy any different?
Is your strategy any different?
Well, a couple of things. First of all, there were many candidates last time.
Secondly, nobody had heard of me.
I also think this is a very different time.
The country is in a different place than it was four years ago,
although I'm not sure that that specifically would have affected my poll numbers at such a time as this,
but I'm not an unknown quantity anymore.
I mean, last time it was like, who?
And this time it was like, oh, yeah, she ran last time.
I know who she is, and it's a different situation this time.
And there are only three of us.
Yeah.
So, Marian, I just, one thing about this space is we want to really understand and know your positions on various issues.
And so you will have panelists asking you questions.
So, I mean, my first question is this.
The way I understand your position is you hold an anti-corporate stance.
And you said, for example, quote, corporate tyranny will end.
So in terms of your specific...
anti-corporate position, how does that marry with, for example, your psychology when it comes to
the military industrial complex or the pharmaceutical industry? Well, we have an $8.58 billion
defense budget. And 60 Minutes recently did an expose about the enormous price gouging of the
defense contractors are perpetrating against U.S. military. So...
Our military budget is as determined by profit maximization for Raytheon and North of Grummond and Boeing,
as it is by genuine military necessity.
Even the most conservative think tanks have said that they think we could cut 10% off of that and be just fine.
I think we could probably cut 20%.
But even more than that, we have to deal with the issue that,
if you have this price gout,
and one of the first things that I would do as president
is audit the Pentagon.
We don't audit the Pentagon.
So the military industrial complex is out of control.
Obviously, I think we need a strong military.
But the way I look at the military is like I'd look at a surgeon
So if you have to have surgery, of course, you would want the best surgeon, but a reasonable person tries to avoid surgery if at all possible.
You know, the very term military, industrial complex was coined by...
by Dwight Eisenhower, who had been the Supreme Allied commander in World War II.
So it wasn't like he didn't understand the need for a strong military.
He understood military necessity, certainly, but he also recognized the corruption that comes
about when war becomes such a big business.
So, Marian, can I ask you a question on kind of that specifically, right, when we're looking
at your foreign policy, right, because that's the tool of the U.S. military.
So I went over your...
campaign website and I was going through all your policies. And there was very minimal reference
to a foreign policy. The only thing I can really found that kind of touch about any foreign policy
ideas that you have is the establishment of a Department of Peace, right, a new cabinet position
within the U.S. government. So I would like if one, you can expand to the Department of Peace.
And then after that, I'd like to ask you a follow on questions on specific foreign policy
positions that you have that are very important right now in this election.
Great. So you want me to start with Department of Peace?
Or you want to start with the other issues you were mentioning?
Please start with the Department of Peace, please.
So the Department of Peace, first of all, would have to do with domestic as well as international issues.
I think a lot of Americans are unaware that peace building is a phrase that denotes specific...
activity and expertise. There are four factors which when present statistically indicate that there will be a
higher incidence of peace and a lower incidence of violence. And those four factors, and this applies to a
corner of a U.S. city, it also applies to any other corner of the world. Number one, the expansion of
economic opportunities for women. Number two, the expansion of educational opportunities for children.
Number three, the reduction of violence against women.
And number four, the reduction of unnecessary human despair.
Now, if you look at the size of the U.S. military, $858 billion,
then you look at the size of our State Department,
which is something like $70 billion.
That right there, look at that gargantuan gap.
And then within that, there's something like an $8 billion
which goes to USAID.
USAID has to do with humanitarian assistance around the world.
I would argue that that humanitarian assistance does more to actually wage peace
than does any activity of our military.
I support the men and women in our uniform, of course.
But no American, people are not stupid.
The Iraq War did not make us safer.
The 20 years or so that we spent too long in Afghanistan
did not make us safer.
So the average American is pretty aware that there is a U.S. war machine. There's the blob, and we know that it has an undue influence on American foreign policy. Even Donald Dumsfeld hardly a dove in all this said we needed to learn to wage peace. And I think we're at a point where
We recognize, just like you can't just not take care of your body and then just wait until you get sick and seek to eradicate or suppress the symptoms of illness, you have to proactively create health to the best of your ability.
And I think people are seeing that same kind of we're evolving in our thinking.
You have to proactively create health.
systems through greater justice, through greater humanitarian efforts that actually make the
probability of peace much greater and the probability of conflict much less.
So based on that then, Mary-on-so I think the dominant conversation right now in our foreign policy
that is either an active war zone or soon to be a war zone is Russia's invasions in Ukraine
and then China's position related to Taiwan. And so I would like to ask you two of those two
primary issues in foreign policy. One, if you were president of the United States, what would be your
plan related to the Russia-Ukrainian war? Would you continue to support Ukraine militarily and demand
Russia, as the U.S. position is right now, and demand Russia to withdraw from Ukraine? And then two,
how would you respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
All right. Well, first of all, let's look at Ukraine. I think the American people have to
walk and chew up at the same time.
This is a time in our history where it's very important that we look in the mirror.
We look in the mirror and we must look at the past.
So I don't think we should be foolish or naive enough to think that the United States was not meddling in Ukrainian affairs.
I do not look at the 2014 revolution there, like the overthrow of Mosadegh.
I do not see Iran.
I do not see Zelensky as just a mere puppet like the Shah of Iran.
I don't.
I think it's far more complicated than that.
But I do think the United States meddled.
I don't think our Aegis missiles should have been in Poland.
I don't think that we have been particularly wise in our dealings with the entire question of the expansion of NATO.
Having said that, nothing that I just said justifies Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine.
And therefore, I support at this point particularly, the counteroffensive in Bakhmud has really just begun.
Right.
And at this point, this is not a time to be withdrawing support from the Ukrainians.
This has got to be a negotiated settlement.
That's the only answer that is possible here.
I think most military experts and international affairs experts agree with that.
But I'd like it to be, and I think the United States who certainly support a negotiated settlement in which there is still a Ukraine.
Denmark has offered to host a summit, but they have rightfully said it doesn't do any good, you know, just for Ukraine's allies to be there. China has to be there, probably Brazil, India. But you said something just now, like we could just demand that...
Vladimir Putin leave. Well, would it be so easy, correct? It's not so easy. It's demanding
that Vladimir Putin leave. So at this point, yes, I do support the aid to Ukraine at this pivotal
time. And I think with the what's going on in Buckmoot right now, I think we'll know a lot more
in the next three to six months. It should not be a blank check.
I think actually the president is correct to say that our age should not be predicated on what Zelensky says he needs alone.
I think it should have to do with our own military calculations.
But at this point, I wish them well in this counteroffensive.
We should support all efforts at peace and negotiation.
But we understand that right now, Russia thinks they're winning and they're keeping it up.
And Ukraine thinks they're winning and they're keeping it up.
And right now we have to look very closely, but I'm on team Ukraine.
So, Marian, I mean, based on what you said, you've kind of said it, but I just want a bit more of a clarification.
Because you have basically Donald Trump and Kennedy, who essentially are saying that they would ensure and go for some kind of peace, and that would be the primary objective.
Right.
And then you have maybe people on the other side,
someone like Biden,
who's basically going to support Ukraine
and not basically go towards some kind of negotiate settlement.
So where would you put yourself in terms of,
if you were to put yourself in a position,
in terms of from a spectrum,
where would you put yourself closer to,
the Biden position?
Well, of course, we should...
Well, I don't even understand what Bobby's position actually is, because what is he saying he would actually do right now?
What is saying is that we should support peace talks.
We should support any kind of negotiated settlement.
Of course we should.
And that's why, you know, we're living in a multipolar world now.
The United States doesn't just get to stroll in someplace anymore and say, this is how it is.
But we should be part of any global effort.
to help there be, to form support.
Just to add to that, Maria.
I mean, his position is that it's a proxy war,
so vis-a-vis if the United States was to pull this apart,
then you would have more of a chance for peace.
Okay, so it is my impression here, at least with the American left, that there are people who think that if they can put the, they've figured out how to put the word proxy in the same sentence as the word war, as though then you have it all figured up and you don't have to do any more deeper analysis than that.
On a certain level, of course it's a proxy war.
But once again, what would he do?
Does that mean that he would actually withdraw at this moment?
Right.
all military support from Ukraine, that's the question.
The question is not how we got here.
I agree with Bobby on how we got here.
My point is, what are you going to do now?
So when someone says that, oh, it's just a proxy war, we should support settlement, I'm the pro-peace candidate, there's nothing pro-peace about that position at all if you just all of a sudden withdraw all support.
What would occur in that region of the world at this point, if we were to do that, is the opposite of peace.
we would see such brutal activity on the part of Vladimir Putin crushing the Ukrainian nation.
We're not in a situation where that could be called peace.
There is a war going on.
regardless what we wish. It's simply for those of us, I mean, I would see myself as a pro-peace.
It's not like the United States can just walk in and say the war will end now. What the United States could do right now is withdraw all military support.
And what we would have at that point is certainly not peace.
Let me go to Alex. Alex, go ahead, ask your question.
Hi. So there's been a lot of talk about politicization of the intelligence agencies, the FBI, and that sort.
I was wondering if you'd support any sort of reform of the FBI and intelligence agencies and what that would look like if so.
Well, the problem we have is how much we don't know. That's where the reform comes in.
There is, I think there is a legitimate concern, or let's just say this.
there is an ubiquitous distrust that is probably not completely unreasonable.
One of the ways in which the United States is in trouble now is people don't trust our institutions.
And in many ways, and in many cases, it's because our institutions have behaved in ways that have made people distrust.
But the cynicism at this point is dangerous.
So, yes, I think people have every reason to ask questions.
I think that there are very good men and women who on a daily basis even risk their lives, whether it's the FBI, whether it's the CIA.
But there's enough questioning.
There's enough, obviously, well, obviously in the case of the CIA covert operations.
Right.
One of the questions at Bobby, for instance, Kennedy, you mentioned Bobby Kennedy has brought up, which, you know, I'm old enough to remember the death of his uncle. And I remember that there was question at the time. My own father said, oh, I'm sure the CIA did this.
People have recognized many of the things that have gone on with U.S. foreign policy over the last few decades that have had to do more with CIA operations than it has had to do with Americans actually taking a stand for democracy.
So, yeah, somebody needs to get on top of this.
And there is a feeling in the air that the American president is in many cases more at the effect rather than at cause.
not only the president, but the government itself.
So, yeah, some things clearly need to be reined in.
I think that there's a general consensus.
There's some things probably need to be rained in.
Marianne, look, Alex asks a question that kind of links to my question.
Something we've debated heavily on this show is...
is what Sully calls the establishment. And we've talked, you know, Alex gave an example of the three-letter
agencies and the mistrust, the public mistrust and their level of interference in everyday life
and in social media platforms, for example, through the Twitter files. My question to you is,
when you say you're competing against the system rather than going against Biden,
can you please elaborate on what you mean by that system and how can you compete against that system?
I think that the president represents the mainstream establishment corporate Democrat today.
Now, and when I say it's not him specifically, it's because if it's not him, it would be someone else.
You know, I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic Party, much more than not, displayed an unequivocal, unabasheded advocacy for the working people of the United States.
Now, starting basically under the Clinton administration, when he formed something called the Democratic Leadership Council, there was this sort of split in the Democratic Party.
And the message was sort of we can have it both ways.
We can be there for the people, but we can also play with the big boys.
Now, those who want to play with the big boys, and of course that means with the insurance companies,
with the pharmaceutical companies, with the...
big ag, big food, big chemical companies, big oil companies, defense contractors, they are, they and the
money that is represented by the undue influence of those industries on our government now
represent the main power center of the Democratic Party. Now that establishment corporateist power
center of which Joe Biden is part, look at progressives like myself.
Like we're trying to hijack the party.
But actually, they hijacked the party.
We're Franklin and Eleanor.
They're the DuPons and the Morgans.
So at this point, it's not enough to say one candidate.
It's an entire perspective, which not only represents the leadership of the Democratic Party,
but represents an unfair grip that the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, has,
on the electoral process itself, where they, and they make no bones about this at this point.
They say they have a right to. They suppress. We saw it with Bernie Sanders in 2016, Bernie Sanders in 2020.
They, and they do this not only when it comes to the presidential race. They do it with congressional candidates.
They do it with senatorial candidates. They do everything possible to suppress on the level of primaries,
the voices of progressives and any others within the Democratic Party that would really be able to
successfully challenge the dominance of the corporatists in the party.
They're not always successful.
There are those who have made it through.
AOC is perfectly an example.
Some of Lee is an example.
There are those who have made it through.
But in general, the corporatists, those who, you know, this is the way I see it,
they want to help people.
They want to help people, but it basically comes to helping people on the periphery.
They will do what they can to make people's lives better, but they refuse to challenge the underlying corporate forces that make the return of people suffering always inevitable.
Now, this reminds me going back to Franklin Roosevelt when Franklin Roosevelt said the alleviation of stress is not enough.
We need genuine economic reform.
And that is what I mean about competing against the corporatists.
For the Democratic Party to say,
we're going to help people survive an unjust system
is not enough. The Democratic Party should end the injustice. And not only should we end the
injustice in order to be true to our political traditions and our own moral center,
but I don't think anything less than that will defeat the Republicans in 2024.
So guys, if you've got any questions, go to the bottom right and side and ask the questions.
I will be asking your questions to Marian.
I have got a couple of questions that we're going to ask, but I will ask them immediately after the next panelist ask the question.
So let me go to Sarah, but then any questions you have, put them in the bottom right inside and we will be asking your question.
Thank you, Salaman.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mary Ann, for being here.
I have a couple of questions for you.
I'm looking on your website,
and you talk about being the first woman president of the United States
and that you would use the full powers of your presidency
to advocate for the things women care about.
I assume that you mean women's health care and the wage gap.
You do speak about the wage gap a little bit further down on your platform.
Do you support a woman's right to choose?
And if yes, what would you do to ensure that women in every state still have the right to choose?
Well, unfortunately, the Democrats, when they had the chance, did not codify the abortion rights and other reproductive rights.
They could have.
Right.
Obama had the power, and for the first two years, Biden had the power as well.
And yes, absolutely, I do support it.
At this point, it depends on what kind of Congress I would have.
If I had the House and the Senate, then absolutely.
I would say get rid of the filibuster if we have to,
and we would be able to codify abortion rights.
If I didn't have a House and Senate that were both Democrat,
it would be very difficult.
Democrats should have done it when they could have.
Right. Thank you for that, Marian. And then I've got a question from the audience. And the question is that why not increase GDP? Well, actually, sorry, let me get the question. Why not grow GDP instead of increasing business taxes? So that was a question from phenomonology. So yeah, if you could answer that. That's a question from phenom.
I didn't hear that.
Why not?
Increased GDP as opposed to what?
Instead of increasing business taxes.
So it's more referring to your plan proposal about increasing business taxes.
Well, business taxes, what I want to sue in my country is an alignment, and in some cases a realignment, but I'm not romanticizing or whitewashing our past.
But I do think that there was a time when there was a greater social consensus that corporations should care.
Right.
and that corporation should at least try to walk an ethical path.
Adam Smith, who was the primary architect of free market capitalism, said it cannot exist outside an ethical center.
Low taxes, taxes that are too low for corporations,
create the unfettered corporate environment that we now have,
in which a kind of what's often called vulture capitalism, hypercapitalism,
now reigns in a tyrannous way over the American people,
especially given the Citizens United decision
where they have such unlimited power to influence our...
government. Now also, a lot of that tax money, when you look at something like the 2017 tax cut,
$2 trillion, right, $83 cents of every dollar went to the highest earners in corporations.
It is outrageous because not only will it never pay for itself, but what is also clear is that
these businesses did not use that money to create jobs. They didn't reinvest in
in their companies. Remember, all of this trickle-down nonsense was sold to us on the notion that these
people would become job creators. They are more often job eliminators than job creators because their
whole paradigm is about profit maximization and optimization, what they call optimization, is often
at the expense of the health and the safety and the well-being of people.
We need that money. We need that money for health care. We need that money for tuition-free college. We need that money for paid family leave. We need that money for free child care. We need that money for a for a guarantee sick pay and a living wage. The American people, you know, I'm in London right now because my daughter had a baby and I heard.
I don't know if I heard Irish accents or English accents. Clearly, this is an international phone call. I'm sure a lot of people on this call realize that such things as universal health care, such things as tuition or near tuition-free college are given as rights to the citizens of every other advanced democracy.
And what this means is that the American people, we have 70% of American people who now report, according to a CNBC report, that they live, 70% say they live with constant economic stress.
In the richest country in the world, the majority of Americans are living on some level of economic survival.
We have one and four Americans who live with medical debt.
We have 68,000 Americans who die every year from lack of health care.
18 million Americans who cannot afford to pay the prescriptions that their doctors give them.
85 million Americans who are underinsured or uninsured.
And this is just one area.
of this profound imbalance and inequity. And it's wrong. It is simply wrong. And, you know, I'm in England
right now. They don't have people here who are rationing their insulin. They don't have people here who
are putting GoFundMe pages up on the internet in order to pay for life-saving operations for them and for
their children.
So the way I look at it, these businesses, I'm sorry, they are the equivalent of the landed gentry back in England in the 18th century.
And my country repudiated those forces in 1776.
And as far as I'm concerned, those same forces and what they represent are back in terms of the corporatocracy in the United States.
And we need to repudiate them again.
Marianne, let me go back to your question, a point you made earlier.
First, I want to applaud you.
You're on stage, and we applaud every guest that comes on.
Because the panel for anyone that doesn't know is Marianne's team has not checked who's on the panel.
They give us full freedom to bring up any speakers we want and ask any questions that have not been vetted.
So I just want to applaud that, Marianne.
I want to go back to the point is that you said we live in an oligarchy controlled by all companies, big pharma and insurance companies, who, quote, you said they run this country.
When you say such a statement, these industries run the world's biggest economy. Can you elaborate by what you mean by that?
Well, everything that I just said in terms of the statistics regarding medical debt, the $88 billion medical debt in the United States, the only reason any of the statistics I just mentioned existed, exists is because of insurance companies.
It's as simple as that.
People say, oh, it would be so complicated to have universal health care here.
That's not the issue here.
It's pure unadulterated greed.
The reason we don't have universal health care here is because this situation is so corrupt.
Same with something like when I mentioned a few minutes ago about people rationing insulin.
The only reason people are rationing insulin in this country is because the pure unadulterated
greed of the pharmaceutical companies.
The only reason we don't have common sense gun safety laws in the United States is because
of the pure unadulterated greed of the gun manufacturers.
The reason we have carcinogens in our food, we have...
carcinogens in our fertilizers,
carcinogens and toxins in so much of our environment
is because of the greed factor in chemical companies,
food companies,
agricultural companies,
and of course big oil.
Why do we have the global threat
that we have, that climate change is posing, while we stay in this mass paralysis, I don't
even think it's mass denial anymore.
It's just this sclerotic nature of the way our government functions and this paralysis
of the system, despite the fact that people want more robust action on climate change.
Why?
Because of the pure unadulterated greed of the oil companies, and why is so much of America's
foreign policy?
influenced more by profit maximization for Raytheon, Northrop Grummond, and Boeing for the pure unadulterated greed of defense contractors.
And by the way, they know this.
The people run these companies, many of them, you know, if they were sitting there, they say, well, you know, they would say, well, it's legal.
We're not doing anything illegal.
What I'm saying is even when they're doing things that are not illegal, it is immoral.
And it is anti-democratic.
You know, the late Supreme Court Justice, Lewis Brandeis, said you can have large amounts of money concentrated in the hands of a few, or you can have democracy.
You cannot have both.
Marianne, does this all come back to, does it all come back to lobbyists?
Because you've described the government as a legalized bribery, a system of legalized bribery.
And everything you mentioned there would, for me, go back to corporate lobbyists.
So what would be the solution?
Well, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Citizens United is going to be overturned
any time soon, not with the super majority of the conservative justices on our Supreme Court
at this time.
But I do think that many of us who see this as the crisis that it is need to be as focused
on overturning Citizens United as some people for years were focused on overturning Roe v.
Wade.
There are issues that have to do with gerrymandering.
There are issues that have to do with the revolving door.
A lot of the lobbyists, we have situations where lobbyists and bankers and lawyers actually come onto the floor in the U.S. Congress and actually write the bills.
And what ultimately the only answer is, ultimately when you say what are going to do about it, is a political revolution.
It's really going to take, at this point, the system has its power so locked up that what it's going to take is a mass awakening on the part of the American people, which, by the way, I believe, is not only possible, but already starting to happen.
I think, for instance, Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump in 2016.
Right.
I think we're living in revolutionary times.
I think there's a political earthquake that already the, you know, the cracks in the ground are already visible.
Things are not going to remain the way they are.
The sheer amount of human suffering and anxiety out there is too great.
It's going to break one way or the other.
It's either going to break in the direction of greater democracy and justice.
or it's going to break in the direction of autocracy, authoritarianism, and even dystopia.
So it seems to me that this is time for each and every one of us to...
do everything possible to steer the ship of our civilization in a direction that is sustainable
and even survivable.
Marian, you mentioned justice.
If you look what's the indictment against Trump that we saw in New York and the latest one
as well related to Mara Lago.
Would you say this is politically motivated?
Do you think this is justice doing its thing and everyone being held accountable?
Or do you think it's a mix of both?
Look, there are two independent councils.
I don't think Jack Smith.
Jack Smith, you know, this man was at the Hague.
This man is a registered independent.
He's not an instrument of Joe Biden, and he chose to prosecute.
A grand jury chose to indict.
This is our legal system.
It's not perfect, but we must agree to agree on supporting it.
So I think it behooves everyone, no matter what your politics are,
all of us should hope for a fair and must agree to agree.
One of those is all or everyone is innocent until proven guilty,
and the other one is that no man is above the law.
So at this point, it was in the hands of a grand jury.
That's why he was indicted,
and it will be in the hands of a jury in his trial.
And I pray for my country, it will be a fair trial,
and that it will be a trial...
the fairness of which is recognized by the majority of American citizens.
That is, all of us are served by justice being done in this case.
In any case, obviously, but in this one, it's particularly important.
And remember, there is an independent council that has been appointed in the case of Joe Biden, too.
So none of this drama is over.
Let me go to Dan. Dan, go ahead.
Your question?
First, I want to say it's so nice to actually meet you on a Twitter space, Marianne.
I'm actually friends with your old friend from the 80s Michael Souter, and all he does is praise you all day long every day.
Oh, thank you.
And I wanted to build on what you were saying when Mario had talked about the US being an oligarch and having been for sale.
And I think it's important to also understand that 86% of the time the candidate with more money wins.
Therefore, we have these different industries putting unlimited amounts of money because of Citizens United into campaigns, which helps them get their candidates elected that owe them favors that work for them, not us.
And it goes even further, which leads to my question where it's not just our Congress that's been purchased, but it's also the executive branch of the,
Oh my gosh, I'm sorry, my alarm went off. It's all cabinet of the executive branch, meaning we have Goldman Sachs CEOs appointed and legislating monitoring over Goldman Sachs. We have ExxonMobil CEOs that are serving in the cabinet that are regulating the fossil fuel industry.
If you were elected president, would you make a pledge to not allow special interests into your presidential cabinet?
Well, I mean, it's almost a joke. Look who you're talking to. These are not people who support me, and they would have no reason to believe that I would be supporting them. You know, I think the most egregious example of what you just said is that our Secretary of Defense is a former Raytheon board member.
I mean, hello.
So, of course, and you have the Secretary of Agriculture,
you know, Secretary of Agriculture should not be someone who has, you know,
been connected to big ag.
Absolutely.
This is what we call agency capture.
And these departments should be advocates for the people,
for the safety, the health, and the well-being of the people.
I think everybody, listen, if I could make it to the White House...
That would mean that the American people woke up and saw everything we're talking about here.
No one would be expecting me to give treasury over to a guy from Goldman Sachs.
Silly, I want to...
Marianne, before I go to...
Yeah, I want to ask...
Can you ask a question about gender transitioning in LGBT rights?
Yeah.
And there's a good topic.
Yeah, that's awesome.
So, Marian, one of the major issues that people have both in the United States and in Europe,
specifically United Kingdom, is the teaching of, you know, LGBTQ in schools, teaching about sex
changes in school and teaching about transgender in schools, the argument is that children
are too young and their minds have not been developed enough to be able to understand
the content that they're learning. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that because I know
you've got positions on this. Well, for me, the overriding issue on LGBTQ, particularly
transgender at this point, is something much bigger than schools. Yeah, I think Marianne got a call.
Oh, hold on. Can you hear me silly? Is it my end?
No, we've got to.
I can hear you.
Whenever someone's mic, mute off, your question was, I wanted to kind of reword your question.
What are your thoughts on gender trans or sex transition for?
Mario, I can help with this issue.
Yeah, of course, Tiffany. We'll get Marianne to just come back, get her connection fixed.
And then we'll have a discussion, us as a panel after.
Hey, Marion, you're back. You just dropped out. I think someone called you, so what happened is it cut out?
So we didn't hear most of what I said.
Yes, they did, and I didn't see how to get rid of it.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
Okay.
I'm so sorry.
Yes, I was, yeah, I was talking about transgender Americans and how as president I would declare a special protection status.
for transgender Americans right now.
And I am very concerned, actually,
about all the laws that are being passed around the country,
which is actually trying to, you know,
there are people who don't seem to remember
that the Declaration of Independence,
which is our mission statement,
begins with all men are created equal.
and within alienable rights of life, liberty,
in the pursuit of happiness.
So what is important to me about transgender Americans
is that they are Americans.
People get to be whoever they want to be
and do whatever they want to do
as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
And the projection onto gay Americans,
who LBGTQ, plus transgender,
that they are somehow hurting anyone,
much less our children,
is very dangerous.
And I would very vigorously,
vigorously,
make it clear that I do not agree with that and I don't believe it's an American sentiment.
I also would direct my Department of Justice to vigorously investigate any civil rights violations
against transgender.
And I'll tell you something else.
In general, I'm not a person, and nor would I be a president to say, oh, I'll have a black woman do this or a Muslim man do that or anything like that.
I don't think that that kind of identity politics always serves us, but I would say that I would have a transgender American in my administration because I think it's important that we push back.
and how do you push back against prejudice and bigotry?
You push back by people getting to know someone
who is of a certain whatever group of people
are being heard at that time.
Now, you ask the rich, I'm sorry.
I'm going to add one more question to it, Marianne.
A more direct question is should sex transition be legal
for anyone below the age of 18?
I don't believe that anything non-reversible should be allowed before the age of 18.
But there are some things that are reversible.
But no, I don't think that operations that are non-reversible should be allowed before 18.
Shaliyah?
Sorry, and just a follow up on that.
There's not many people are generally speaking who disagree with your point in terms of equality, equity, and so on and so forth.
Where the major concern lies, and you see protests in the United States, we've seen protests in Canada, we've seen protests in the United Kingdom in 2020.
Right.
is about teaching it specifically in schools
because people are concerned about their children.
So, and the reason for it is not because they're not accepting
other people,
but the reason is that children are too young
and are basically being almost indoctrinated
into thinking about changing their gender
when maybe they don't have the mental capacity
to even make that decision.
So based on that,
what would your position be specifically in,
on this issue in terms of teaching sex education to youth in primary school or teaching this to children in schools?
You know, it's not an illegitimate argument.
I mean, the prefrontal cortex isn't even fully formed yet.
And I think, well, you know, at this point, we're living at a time now where someone simply being gay is really within the purview of, I don't have any problem with children learning about that they're gay Americans.
When it comes to something like transgender, yeah, I think people, I don't have a, I mean, I don't have a child at that age at this point.
But I do think there are kids who probably...
learning about it at school, I don't know.
I think that, you know, obviously states make those decisions.
I don't know.
That's a tough one.
I don't think kids need to be taught every little thing about every little thing that's going on at a young age.
I wouldn't have a problem with parents saying, let's just not get into transgender in the sixth grade.
You know, I think that's reasonable.
So Marian, you said nothing reversible.
Let me just quickly ask on that.
Yeah, you said nothing reversible.
There's obviously questions whether hormone therapy,
it's said to not be, it's said to be reversible,
but some people are questioning that.
So how do you feel on that subject specifically giving hormone therapy?
The articles that I've read said that those things are reversible.
And that would be for me the issue.
If something's reversible, then the parent and the minor can make that decision.
But in general, there's a reason why society says about certain things 18.
You know, I mean, there's a reason for that.
And I think at 18, you're an adult and you can make your own decisions about everything.
But if it's a reversible, if it's a reversible procedure, then that's different.
I'll let Nelson jump in.
Actually, before you do, Nelson, Dan, do you want to comment more on this particular topic?
Because I know he's got a lot of knowledge there, and then we'll go to Nelson.
Hi, Marianne. Thank you for joining us. My name's Donish. I'm a physician.
So, you know, one thing that I found very compelling about your message and your platform has been that you've been willing to ask very clearly about, hey, are we doing the right things for patients?
You know, you talk about the medical industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industrial complex, and as a physician, that is very compelling because we see it every day, right?
But...
But there's something that I can't square completely, which is that the science currently on, for example, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for children and even for adults, hormone therapy for adults, is not settled science yet, especially puberty blockers for children.
We don't know what the long-term effects of this are.
Sure, in the short term, there are some poor quality studies that show that suicidal ideation goes down.
But its effect on suicide itself is also not completely subtle science.
We're very early in our journey right now.
But what we do know is that the long-term risks of putting kids on puberty blockers can be severe.
So my question is, why don't-
Hold on a moment.
You said, could be what?
Severe.
Long-term effects can be severe.
Yeah.
Yes.
For osteoporosis, puberty blockers can actually have long-term effects.
We know that there are multiple studies showing that.
So my question for you is, how do we square your opinion that we shouldn't trust
you know, just automatically trust the medical industrial complex, the pharmaceutical
complex when it comes to certain things, but we should completely trust them when it comes
to the care of transgender children or children that want to transition. How do we square the fact
that people are making millions of dollars on some of these procedures and all of these medications?
And yet no one is saying, hey, do we have all the data yet? How do you square that position of yours?
I agree with you, actually. When I talk about the medical industrial complex, I'm not saying I don't trust doctors. I'm not saying I don't trust scientists. I'm saying I don't always trust the hospital industry. I don't always trust the insurance industry. I don't always trust the pharmaceutical industry. But I think you said you're speaking as a doctor, didn't you?
Yes, that's correct.
Yeah, well, that's very, very different.
I would listen to you very seriously.
And I would ask such people as yourself actually to come into my office and talk to me and
tell me what this is all about.
And to the extent, I mean, I think I know what it's quote unquote all about, but tell
me your perspective because I think everything you just said made a lot of sense.
So I think that's the point.
it is the doctors we should be listening to, and it is a scientist that we should be listening to.
And bringing together a group of experts and a spectrum of opinions on that would be absolutely within the purview of power that I would exercise as president.
Let me go to Nelson. Nelson, go ahead with your question.
Yeah, I was going to jump in and, you know, just take the conversation back to, you know, the corporate tax, you know, strategies that she's looking to implement.
But I really don't want to get off of this transgender topic because I think is also very important.
So I'll just defer to anybody else on stage that wants to stay on that.
Yeah, and then we'll shift up and go to you, Nelson.
Joe, do you want to take this one?
Yeah, I mean, I'm going to go off topic, but I really want to.
Marianne, I like the fact that you look a lot at solution,
but I've heard some of your speeches,
and what kind of throws me off is not just me, I think a lot of Americans,
is when you start talking about reparations, how, why, what's the benefit,
what's that helping in your four-part plan that you spoke about early on,
about getting back to peace and setting America on the right path?
What's your plan for that?
You know, after World War II, Germany paid Jewish organizations $89 billion in reparations.
And of course, the United States even paid $25,000 each as reparations to those who were placed in Japanese internment camps during World War II.
So by the middle of the 20th century, the idea of financial remuneration
being provided by a people that has wronged another people to those who were wronged,
was considered a reasonable, civilized action in foreign affairs.
And I think most importantly is that those reparations from Germany,
while obviously they don't mean the Holocaust didn't happen,
I think that they have gone far.
towards providing greater emotional and psychological reconciliation with the Jews of Europe.
And you can see this.
I'm not saying anti-Semitism isn't a problem in Europe again,
but it's not Holocaust.
based, you know, what I'm talking about in terms of Jews, the vital Jewish community in Munich and so forth.
We, however, the Civil War, having ended in the middle of the 1860s, we are still passing this toxic baton generation to generation.
We had not only almost two and a half centuries of slavery, but that was followed by another hundred years of institutionalized oppression of black people in the American South.
350 years. Now, if you had been kicking someone to the ground, I think we would all agree that you owe it to them not only to stop kicking, but to reach out your hand and say, let me help you get back up.
And 350 years of kicking is a lot of kicking.
Now, in the 1960s, we did achieve the end of segregation.
We had the Voting Rights Act.
We had the Civil Rights Act.
We desegregated.
I think that if Martin Luther King had lived...
Certainly, if Bobby Kennedy may be senior, had become president, who knows.
The conversation was not over.
They had not gotten to the third leg of that school stool, which was a financial remuneration.
Now, at that point, Richard Nixon became president, and his domestic advisor, Patrick Moynihan,
used a pretty sinister term, benign neglect.
He said, enough is enough with all this talk about race, and he suggested benign neglect.
So, in other words, America came together and said, let's stop kicking.
But we didn't say, let's help you get back up.
And so I believe that in life for a nation, as well as for an individual, you can't really have the future you want if you're not willing to clean up the past.
And I think...
This is where you lose me a little bit, Marian.
And I'll tell you why.
It's because...
You spoke about crime, and this is actually what got my attention about you.
You spoke, when you were asked about crime, you said it's, the issue isn't the crime.
It's the poverty.
These people are in a socioeconomic system, which creates crime.
If we get them out of poverty, we help reduce crime.
So why haven't you ever studied by giving reparations, how much reparations need to be given to reduce crime?
You could probably even...
offset some of the police costs and things of that nature.
But that's why I'm like, is this just talking points or is this actually really a plan?
Because it's deeply researched and it will reduce crime.
It will make sense in the budget and everything else.
Well, because I'd be all for it if it was, look, we're going to actually,
this is actually going to help reduce crime and give back to what we actually should have
given back to a long time ago.
Yeah, but the point is how much crime is rooted in poverty.
I mean, the whole, reparations plan is an anti-poverty plan.
Because what you're talking about is a huge wage gap between blacks and whites, which, by the way, if it were closed, would make our economy over a trillion dollars larger.
So to talk about crime without talking about poverty is to keep it only on the level of the symptom and not get it to the level of the cause.
So a plan for reparations is, among other things, a crime prevention activity because it is a poverty eradicator.
Marianna,
I would just
having some studies on that
because it'd be really good.
One second.
Oh, sorry, go ahead, George.
Is the same question?
No, I was just saying
I would suggest having some studies on that
because I think it would be really insightful to be there.
Okay, yeah.
Well, you know, I just want to say,
if I may say one thing about that,
this idea of a study,
another study,
we are studied up the gazoo.
There is a congressional...
a piece of legislation called HR 40, which was first introduced by the late John Conyers, who actually was a friend of mine.
And it was exactly what this gentleman is saying. Let's have a study and talk about the evidence of slavery and the sentence of slavery and what they go through and so forth.
So President Biden has said, well, I support.
Court HR 40, Congress should do it. Well, this is classic DC talk for, I don't want to touch it,
but I want to sound like I'm going to touch it, so I'm going to kick it down the road or kick
it to the other side of Washington, the other side of the Capitol. You know, okay, we get it.
My contention is enough with the studies. Let's do something. Nothing kills an issue, like
building a presidential commission around it.
At this point, I think enough studies are done.
We need to sit down.
Just like when the gentleman was talking about the medical evidence around transgender,
there are studies that say it's okay.
There are studies that say don't okay.
It's not okay.
Leadership is about listening to all of the people and then deciding what you're going to do.
I think I've read enough studies, and my belief is that it's time to put some negotiating principles on the table
and in our generation try to interrupt this toxic pattern.
That's all.
Maria, let me ask a separate question.
I know Suli, you want to ask a question about COVID.
I want to ask you about the social media companies.
We're talking about the US being an oligarchy
and talking about big pharma and oil companies.
But I haven't heard you speak about the amount of influence
social media companies have and the amount of time we spend on them.
So we've covered the Twitter files very heavily here,
and I know that Elon's been covered very heavily,
not really favorably recently by the media.
What are your thoughts on Elon's fight today?
against censorship. The pros and the cons, because there's, you know, censorship is needed in some
ways, but where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? And when you have centralization of power,
as we have a social media company, we're seeing how it can be abused, sometimes for good,
but many times for bad or for nefarious purposes or for financial reasons. We'd love to get
your thoughts on the matter.
Well, it's a very difficult topic, obviously.
I remember hearing the comedian, Sasha Baron Cohen, when the issue was about President Trump and his being the platform from Twitter.
I remember hearing Sasha Baron Cohen saying, if Hitler were alive today, he would be taking out 30-second ads on Facebook.
And I remember that was like a brick to my forehead.
It was just chilling.
You know, it just had this chilling effect on my heart.
You know, after all, you know, we do.
We have, you know, there were people with swastikas on huge flags outside Disneyland the other day.
At the same time, once you start saying that people cannot have any platform at all, you're in big trouble as well.
And I think what you said is the issue, who is it that's doing the deciding here?
Right.
And I think one of the reasons why it's been so, why Elon has become so controversial, why so many people are criticizing him right now, is for all his, because for all his talk about freedom, we have seen places where he's been very prejudiced in his own and using his enormous power to...
you know, silence voices in a way that he doesn't like. So there clearly needs to be some
regulation here. They have obviously way too much power. On the other hand, how you actually go
about that regulation, how it should be done. You know, nothing is going to replace ethics.
And that's the deepest problem.
Government should not be a bludgeon.
Government should not be a meat cleaver.
I think all of us realize that you don't want that.
Because then in whose hands is all this power, right?
Nothing.
Some things simply shouldn't be.
One of the things on this when we talk about technology
that has me deeply concerned,
and I think all of us should be deeply concerned,
is the power of AI.
But when you think about...
No, go ahead. Continue, Marianne.
So when you, when you, because to me it's such a, it's such a, such a threat in terms of the things that you were talking about,
because you're not just talking about platforming people.
You're talking about platforming intelligence that isn't even people and that we know has the capacity to go rogue to hallucinate and so forth.
But when I see certain things that have happened that are so obviously dangerous with chats like Bing,
To me, the deepest problem is who in their right mind with any kind of a conscience wouldn't have shut that thing down the next day?
So we can talk about regulations.
We all know that this is a very complicated subject because we have to balance First Amendment.
We have to balance free speech.
We have to balance the idea.
And I agree with this idea.
Every American should that the whole foundational principle is that the more voices you have out there,
if people have the opportunity to hear and make critically minded choices,
they will come up with the best thing versus the enormous power.
of these technology companies.
I think there need to be regulations,
but I think there need to be very careful regulations,
and nothing is going to substitute for people awakening
from this delusional, hyper-capitalistic,
crony-capitalistic canard that somehow,
because this makes me more money,
it's okay that I do it.
We need an introduction of healthy shame in this society.
Healthy shame, where people begin to realize that just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
And the fact that it's going to make you a few more tens of millions or even billions for your stockholders.
And even though it might have to be legal, because to make it illegal, we'd be counter to the First Amendment in ways that we would not want.
No one should think of those people as successful businessmen that we should admire.
And so that's why it's going to have to be a revolution of consciousness as well as a political revolution that gets us out of the mess that we're in.
Can I step us back real quick before we continue forward back on the reparation topic?
When I think about reparations, I think about...
Actually, Dan, before, before, yeah, we'll go back to reparations in a bit
because I think Silly wanted to press into the current discussion,
the current point that Marianne made a bit further.
So Silly, I'll give you the mic first.
Yeah, sure. My question was actually slightly off topic, but it was something that is important, I believe, to Americans, something that when we talk on these spaces is very important to them.
And that is the fact that they have lost trust in the election process, whether it's Democrat, whether it is Republican, you saw in 2016, whether it was disagreement about Hillary and then later on you saw it in terms of 2020.
So my question to you is, Marian, how are you going to give Americans confidence in the United?
in the election process?
What changes are things are you going to put in place
that once again people can trust the results of the election
and that the country then is no longer divided?
Well, I have to tell you,
I think most of the conversation about the election
not being safe and protected in 2000, you know, in this last one,
2020 was made up.
I mean, it was concocted in Donald Trump's brain
and agreed upon by his friends who wanted to override the election.
I mean, the real stolen election that we had, if you want to talk about a stolen election,
the closest to a stolen election that we've had was in 2020,
when Florida wasn't allowed to, the Supreme Court of the United States was overridden,
and they weren't allowed to count their votes.
Right.
That's where we had a real issue with an election.
This last one, there were enough experts to say, this wasn't a problem.
This wasn't a problem.
It was a safe election.
And I do think there should be paper ballots.
There should absolutely be paper ballots.
But the whole idea about how it was stolen and it really...
It really wasn't okay and it really wasn't kosher.
All of that came straight out of, you know, the Donald Trump camp.
So your presupposition here is what are we going to do about the fact that we have unsafe elections?
And I said, what are we going to do about the fact that there are people who, for their own political purposes,
would create this mass hysteria around an unsafe election when in many of cases they knew themselves.
There was nothing unsafe about it.
I ask the question about Hillary.
The reason is that I know you're referred to 2020, but we had the situation in 2016 as well when Hillary was won it, was not willing to accept the election results.
We had 2004 where there was issues between the Gore and Bush election.
So for me, like-
No, no, no, Hillary Clinton did not contest that election.
She did not contest the election.
And for that matter, Al Gore accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Okay, let me go to...
How does it feel to be shut down, Solomon?
Yeah, I mean, I'll mean, you want me to go into it?
No, no, it's good to see you shut down.
It's good to see you shut down.
I enjoy it.
I mean, Hillary Clinton...
Go ahead, Marianne.
Yeah, Hillary Clinton conceded the election.
May I ask the question about Hillary?
I mean, Marian, she conceded the election, but she continued open until 2019 to say that she did not accept the results of the election, and there were some issues with it.
So even though she officially conceded it to the public, they became doubt about the integrity of the election.
Yeah, I think, Marian, I'll position the question in a pretty objective way, is that the lack of trust in any system within the U.S.,
The system could be flawed. It could be corrupt. Judicial system is far from perfect. But when you have a break of trust, it gets very concerning very quickly. It's very difficult for an economy the size of the US, for society the size of the US to function without trust within the system. But there's good reason to lose that trust as well. How do you balance it out?
Well, what you just said is exactly how we began the conversation tonight, and I said exactly what you just said.
You're absolutely right.
The cynicism is at a dangerous level.
There is a certain kind of healthy skepticism that I think is part of good citizenship.
We should never just accept a priority.
But there needs to be a majority of Americans who feel...
basically they're trying their best and they're trustworthy people and more often than not they get it right.
I think that that has been afraid and I think it's been afraid for two reasons.
First of all, it's been afraid because the institutions themselves have behaved in ways.
I think COVID is kind of an example.
My own doctor at a certain point said something like, well, he was talking about something else and he said,
well, I used to ask the CDC, I don't even bother anymore.
So sometimes it's the actions of the agencies themselves, which are obviously captured by
money forces, whether it has to do with pharmaceutical or any other.
And that's very, very dangerous.
That's to be put at the feet of the agencies themselves.
And it's dangerous.
And the answer there is you have to get in there and you have to, how to do it.
have the kind of leadership that's not coming from just a partisan place,
and it's not coming from a corporatist place,
and that leader, and that's going to take more than four years to do,
but did you actually begin the process of cleaning this stuff up?
so that, for instance, your drugs are not being tested by researchers who are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies,
so that you're not leaving it to the defense contractors to do their own regulating and their own accounting.
I mean, everybody can see the corruption.
So on one hand, you can't blame the American people for their cynicism,
and they're not trusting because the lack of trust is so obviously โ
reasonable because we see all the corruption everywhere we look.
But then on the other hand, you have some forces,
and I believe that Donald Trump is an example,
who just in order to shore up his own political power
becomes a chaos agent, just throws a bomb in something.
There's a difference between, I'm going to smash this because it's corrupt,
and I'm going to smash this because it doesn't serve me.
And so things like, for instance, with the election system in 2020,
I think that there is enough reason to believe that it was a basically safe election.
And I believe that most of the cynicism about it was artificially created by a man who just didn't want to give up the job.
Let me go to Kaleisi.
Your question?
Yeah, I have.
Thank you so much, Suleiman.
Hi, Marian.
It's been really good listening to you on this space.
So...
You've been quite outspoken. I'm British, so I'm obviously looking at the foreign aspect of this,
and you've been quite outspoken about the foreign policy in terms of Iraq was a mistake,
Afghanistan was a mistake. You've even said Vietnam was a mistake.
You've talked about Ukraine, Russia.
You've talked about any aid that goes to Israel should go with stringent rules
that it cannot be used to hinder the human rights of Palestinians.
Right.
But what I want to ask you is, what would your approach to NATO be if you were to be elected?
How would you deal with that?
Thank you so much.
Well, I think some people, particularly on the left in America today, think that NATO should not exist.
But, and it's interesting that you said that you're European, I've been here for the last three weeks, I think that NATO should exist.
I think there's a reason for NATO to exist. When you have a country like Finland, who's remained neutral all these decades and now is saying that it wants to join NATO,
But at the same time, I don't think it should be used just for our geopolitical purposes.
And I think in many ways, I think the United States, and I realize that I'm running for president of the United States,
but one of the things that the United States must become more of is humble in our foreign policy.
This is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The United States is not the only country making decisions here.
And I would seek...
a relationship with Europe.
And, you know, Japan is part of this too.
It's not just Western democracies.
We must have a revitalization of commitment.
around what is truly the championing of democracy,
as well as the proper defense of democracy in our time.
I think we all know now that the post-World War II era,
in many ways, some of those coat tails are no longer ours.
They need to be reinvented.
And I think the decisions about NATO need to emerge from that revitalized conversation and dedication.
And I would look forward to deep conversations with leaders of other democracies as we forge.
new ways to stand for the principles and the values that we believe in.
Part of that would be the decisions about what to do with NATO.
So we have to go also, we have to, just because we got one more question, if you don't mind also.
So I'll give it to Mays because she hasn't asked a question.
And then I'll wrap it up with one final question that we always ask, special guests.
Mays, Marianne's team told us just one more question before my question.
So the mic is yours.
I appreciate you. Thank you so much, Mario.
Hi, Marion. Thank you so much for coming here and answering questions.
I just wanted to get your take on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
and kind of how that's coming down the pipeline in forms of ESG and other things in terms of like we've talked about earlier, comprehensive sexual education.
And just to kind of get your idea about what you think and will you be moving forward with the ESG protocol?
Okay.
You know, I'm in a lot of thought about that right now.
For the most part, silent thought, and I'll tell you, I mean, thought is silent,
but I mean, I've been pretty silent on this publicly, and I'll tell you why.
I was as excited as anybody about the millennial goals and taking them into the 21st century,
their transformation and so forth.
There are other people who I admire and respect,
who have a lot of cynicism about some of the influences and some of the industries and some of the corporate powers
that have appropriated certain aspects of decision-making when it comes to the form that the goals take now.
This is an area. Remember earlier on the phone call when the physician was talking?
And he was talking about transgender.
And I said, I would have some people in my office.
I would call together the people who have the most to say about this, and I would do a lot of deep listening.
And on this, the same.
I would listen deeply to how we're going to make these goals happen in the 21st century,
and we're going to have the sustainable development, and we're going to have the ideals of the United Nations,
and we're going to make it happen and create a more beautiful world.
I mean...
That is why I'm running for president. At the same time, I'm not naive about the appropriation of some of these things that are the best that we have to offer by forces that perhaps are not. And I would listen, you know, the reason I said I haven't been talking about it publicly is because I'm doing a lot of reading.
So do I want the goals? Of course I want the goals.
Am I naive enough to believe that this is all a matter of we're tripping through beautiful grass and flowers and it's all sunshiny and there are no bad actors anywhere near?
No, I don't.
But I would seek to learn as much as possible.
from those who have some really expert opinions on this.
And I would back all efforts to make the goals realized but without undue corporate influence.
Marian, I'll ask the final question that we ask all special guests that come on the show.
So we've asked this to Elon, Hunter Biden, Giuliani, Andresen, the list goes on.
And it's a very simple question.
Your experience on the space, I think,
I didn't check your account yet,
but I think this is your first, if not one of your first spaces.
And I know because you called it a call.
So anyone that joins spaces for the first time,
they call it a call.
Sorry.
And I said this to your team.
No, no, everyone does this.
Everyone does.
And I said this to your team.
I said to them, she's gonna feel like it's a call,
and there it is.
So I want to get your thoughts.
You've just had questions from a panel you did not vet.
On a platform that obviously has a different way of censoring, censorship does exist on Twitter.
I would love to get your thoughts on the experience.
I felt respected.
I felt given a first shot.
And I appreciate him.
What an end.
Marian, it's a real pleasure to have you, whether we agree with you or disagree with you.
I think everyone enjoyed the discussion we had today and the fact that you took unvetted questions from a panel you didn't know.
Thank you, Marianne.
Thank you very, very much.
Have a good day.
Guys, epic discussion.
That was just such an,
it felt like we're all in a room together.
I really enjoyed this.
I'm not sure about you, Sully.
But I really enjoyed the feeling of just like
we're all sitting together on a table
and just having a very civil conversation,
which is so different to...
the mainstream media's hit pieces, for example,
they're like,
gotcha.
I said to her team,
I'm like,
we're not looking for a gotcha moment.
She want to have a discussion,
want to ask the tough questions,
want to be able to disagree.
And that's a discussion we had.
I really enjoyed that one.
What do you think,
Silly?
Yeah.
Yeah, I completely agree with you.
I think you summarised really well.
I don't think there's much I can add.
And you said it in the space.
None of these questions are vetted.
We brought random people up from both sides of the aisle.
There were people who were supporters of Trump.
We had people who were supporters of dissenters.
We had people who were liberals.
We had moderates.
we had Kennedy we had we had a conspiracy we had a conspiracy theorist
co-host we even had you bro I mean don't attack don't attack yourself Mario please
but essentially and we are very logical people on here who understand things
holistically we had a wide range of people and that's what why I give her a lot of
credit I mean she would have carried on I actually it wasn't her team saying only like
stop I literally messages and said oh how much how much more more and then they said okay
let's do a few more questions
So again, I mean, she would have carried on even longer.
So yeah, I give her a lot of credit.
Yeah, I enjoyed it.
Greg, let me give, guys, let me give, sorry,
we're going to give the mic to Greg,
because I know Greg wanted to ask a question,
you never got the chance to.
So instead, Greg,
we'd love to get your thoughts on the discussion instead,
and sorry, you couldn't get the mic for a question.
Yeah, I thought it was a great conversation.
Obviously, I'm disappointed, spent the time here and didn't get a chance to ask.
But here's what I wish that we could have brought up, and I'd love for us maybe to talk about this.
Back at the end of March, the DNC made a comment that there would be no debates in the primaries.
So RFK, Marian, they're not going to have an opportunity to ever get on stage with Joe Biden at the present moment.
Marianne blasted the DNC when they made that decision.
and I'm just curious now that
you know,
their polling numbers
come out.
That would have been a good question
that Greg.
I wish I wish you got.
I know,
I have an epic question.
That would have been...
I was waiting to ask it
but I couldn't get in.
Yeah.
I hate that.
Mariana is still here,
guys.
Yes.
I apologize.
I apologize that Sam kept jumping.
Yeah, so Marianne, this question, let me send, if Marianne's listening, I don't know if she wants to come up,
I've sent her an invite to come to answer that one last question.
Let me just fix the panel very briefly.
I'll just remove people that love me that will agree that me and removing them.
So Marian, I've sent you an invite, you don't have to come up because I know you're probably exhausted
unless you're on here and not listening.
But Greg, that's a really good question.
And the fact that what we should do, and I'll see if Elon could come up with something,
is that we could really put them on the spot.
because I know Elon wants to have presidential debates here.
I think a lot of people do.
And if we can position in a way where we get,
we kind of lure in,
like we just highlight to Biden that, hey,
You know, we get RFK, we got Marianne, we got other big names coming in,
and just highlight to Biden.
I call him, hey, you're a chicken while you're coming here
and just speaking directly to the people.
And again, you can like Biden, but still be against the fact that there's not going to be debates.
That's a great question, Greg.
And yeah, I think the real issue is that Biden simply can't handle a debate?
Yeah, obviously this is a reason.
Obviously, this is a reason.
But this is just unfair, unfair to the other candidates.
Yeah, I mean, I mean, you tell Biden it's a telephone call and for there, you can have a script.
Yeah, it highlights, though, with something that she said earlier about Bernie Sanders and the DNC being unfair, you can go to the RNC and the treatment of Ron Paul in 2008.
Both the RNC and the DNC control exactly who we get the vote for.
And there's no really debating that any other way.
And I want to know how Marianne feels...
After running for president before seeing the corruption within the DNC and now being told,
hey, you're not going to get a shot to get on the stage.
I think that that's a question needs to be told, asked any Democrat primary candidate at this point in time.
Because that system has to change or else we are not represented as Americans.
Yeah, I'm just looking at the, so Spaces Dashboard, which has great statistics that the founder is listening to the space.
Just tell me the statistics of all the candidates and how many followers they have and how many spaces they've spoken in.
Impressed. All right, so Joe Biden, 37 million followers spoke at zero spaces.
So Trump obviously is not on Twitter at all.
Tim Scott.
So I'll tell you who hasn't been in spaces.
Tim Scott.
Hutchinson has not been in spaces.
And then we have Nikki Haley hasn't.
And that's it.
And then Perry Johnson hasn't either.
Now, who's been on the most spaces?
It's an easy one because he's been on this space the most.
There's Vivek Ramaswami.
He's been on 13 spaces and probably 13 of them are ours.
Now, Joey, there's a bunch of others.
But he's been on 13 spaces.
Suarez, Francis Suarez, we need to invite him sully.
He's been on five spaces.
Ron DeSantis obviously has been on one with Elon and David Sachs.
RFK Jr, he's had two.
He's been on one and he's hosted two.
And he's hosted one where Maze was on stage earlier
and myself were co-hosting,
where he announced that he's running for president.
He did it obviously at a live event
but also streamed it on Twitter spaces.
So it's a bit different to what DeSantis did.
And then we have Larry, Larry Elder,
he spoke at one space, really interesting.
So that's the statistic.
So Marianne, you come in at number three.
After Vivek and Francis Suarez.
So not bad.
After today's, it'll be four.
So you'll be ahead of, you'll be very close to Swares.
And Mario, you know, I've got to say, this is her medium.
Like, you could tell that she was so comfortable.
She was so good, yeah.
She was so good.
And, you know, I've watched her YouTube.
I've watched some of the others.
And, you know, I did ask her, in my opinion, a tougher question.
And I felt like even though, you know, she was kind of blindsided a little bit, she just, maybe it's because of her background.
And because she talks to people on the phone all the time, you know, because of our old profession.
I think there's something special about the fact that she was able to get her voice out.
It was quite interesting.
Yeah, there's a lot of points that people could disagree with.
But I was expecting easy moments of being able to catch her saying something just illogical.
You know, I'm a very logical person.
Something illogical that I can catch her on.
and I struggled, obviously you could disagree based on opinions,
but in terms of any gotcha moment,
I know I said we're not here for gotcha moments,
but when I find them,
I really grab onto them and kind of highlight them.
There was none.
I think she was just really,
and I liked one question she answered,
I think it was yours, Danish,
where she literally took her time,
she's like, I'm actually not sure.
That for me, when someone admits, that's something I tell Suli, we argue a lot.
When someone admits what they don't know, they admit what they're something they don't understand or they're not sure about, that takes courage.
So again, I don't say he praising Marianne and that's it, but I just really enjoy the conversation.
So I'm on a bit of a high.
Doc, what do you think? Maybe you can bring us back to reality.
I mean, the other side is you should probably know the issue rather than not know.
And that's probably the problem.
No, but you can't know everything.
No, silly, you can't know everything.
This answer is the answer.
Your comment right now shows that is the definition of ignorance and ego.
But go ahead, Doc.
But even beyond that, a lot of the presidential candidates,
they actually know the answer to everything.
I'm not going to, you know, it's like Voldemort.
I'm not going to take his name.
But there's a lot of people that try to.
I try to say that they have the answer to every single thing.
And complexity is there.
There's so much complexity in a lot of these topics.
And I love that she was like, ah, yeah, I guess I agree with you there.
Yeah, maybe we should do some studies.
And I was like, oh, interesting.
So, you know, again, to me, it was quite surprising.
I was very surprised by that.
Doc?
So, Doc, look, I think you guys all have rose-colored glasses on it, you know, maybe just because you're up on it.
I knew it.
I knew he's got for gas really.
Go ahead.
Tell us, Doc.
Tell us.
And you didn't want to, forget about a gotcha question.
How about a serious follow-up?
Uh-huh.
I mean, her initial answer about the trans, is it related to children that Dr. Adanish answered, you know, asked.
That was a completely irresponsible and uninformed response on her part.
She was talked out of her position just by, you know, by a comment.
The notion that puberty blockers and intervention with children isn't a problem or that there's any studies that seriously suggests that it's reversible is a joke.
It's uninformed.
Uh, her, uh, uh, doubling down on the, on, uh, was it Colise's question.
Uh, maybe it was mazes about, uh, the U.S. U.N.'s goals and plans in this regard, again,
reflected just a really uninformed basis. Uh, her, her embrace of Washington, D.C. and the
regulatory authority of the, of the government, what she would do in terms of adding, uh, uh,
you know, a Department of Peace or what have you.
And at the same time, saying that there has to be a revival in this country
and awareness of the corruption of D.C., the power of corporations,
the powers of the pharmaceuticals, the military industrial complex,
she's lost.
And this is a joke that the first thing she didn't bring up is the fact she's been,
she and other Democratic candidates are being denied an opportunity to speak to the American people.
Go ahead, Donish.
But, Doc, you know, I do want to push back at this notion.
And, you know, again, do I think that there's a world in which she could have better advisors that could give her both sides of the conversation?
Sure.
But to try to act like this is settled science on either side.
Like I said yesterday, it is not settled.
That's why we shouldn't do it at all, Don't.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I let you speak the whole way through, Doc.
Doc, I let you speak the whole way through.
And you know, I respect your opinion, especially when we're up here.
So, you know, I just want to push back that this is not settled science.
There are a bunch of people.
They're out there.
They're running for president.
They're acting like they know exactly what's going on.
And the answer is we are in an uncertain times.
And maybe just maybe right now we need a president that is willing to.
to question their priors that's willing to say,
you know what, maybe you might be right about this.
Let me look into this.
Let me figure out what we should do.
You're right.
Maybe I should look at it.
Because if people just keep believing every single thing
that they keep spouting every single day,
if that's what you want in a leader,
perhaps it's better to move to a country
where people don't get questioned.
Right.
Because I like the fact that we live in a country where we do get.
You're talking in generalities now, Doctor, and I'm talking specifics about that one issue, about her one answer.
And your question about puberty blockers and intervention while children are still prepubescent.
You and I both know that there's no studies right now that demonstrate that there's no harm from that process.
And so we should not do it.
We should not entertain it until it's proven.
And I agree.
Period.
There's no idea.
I agree with that.
But he's that prove that tobacco caused
his cancer and liver
or alcohol destroys your liver and kills people
but we don't outlaw those things
just stating that.
Yeah we do. It's called the Hippocratic
fucking oath, right? And we license
doctors to do no harm.
This is doing harm
All right?
Well, until we know that it's doing benefit.
With stupid ideas like that.
So just to be clear, just to be clear,
this was a civilized debate and now you're
swearing and sharing the people.
Let's just try to remain civilized.
The point that I was trying to make was more about the risks
versus, again, you know, sometimes we can have conversations
Going back to Marianne and her approach, I found it very encouraging that like a lot of populist leaders that act like they know the answer to everything, she took a measured approach. She had a point of view.
I challenged her point of view.
And then she said, you know what?
I need to reevaluate my point of view.
I think that is very encouraging.
I think we need more of that in this country.
Yeah, but then you contend, but then you condemn Donald Trump.
On the very next question, first of all, I said I will not take any other candidates name in vain.
So I literally said those words.
I did not talk about Donald Trump at all, just to be clear.
Okay.
Chicken. Go ahead. You and other Democrats for not stepping in and gain saying the medical expertise over COVID.
That he set back and he listened to other people and let the experts decide.
But that's somehow a condemnation on his part.
Rare occasion me and you are on the same side.
Let me just explain the point.
Yeah.
Donna, she invited you basically to a study, right?
Because she didn't know.
When I call her out on the fact that she didn't know what she was talking about on reparations,
because she never studied the reduction on crime,
and she was just doing it as a talking point.
That's why she went into like a three-minute monologue about the history of reparations.
Right.
She told me studies are the way politicians kick things down the road.
But she just invited you for a study in the previous question.
And then she did it again in the last question.
You know what I mean?
And I actually entered this wanting to hear her because I liked a lot of her talking points.
I even started out to space by saying...
I like the fact that she looks at the solution and not just trying to fix the problem.
She looks at it.
She looks at it.
I don't completely agree because this is the thing.
Study, it's not like, for example, I have issues with a number of studies.
That's why I always ask like, who's doing the study?
What?
Who is it on behalf of?
Where are they getting the funding from?
Any academic who's worth his weight in anything
will check these things immediately.
So whenever, like, Mario gives a study,
that's almost like...
But she did not.
She did not talk about the...
Joe, let me just my point, right?
Let me finish my point.
So that's why whenever Mario makes a complaint about, like, you know, when I ask Mario and he loses it, but that's the reason I'm asking.
But from the other side, there are certain studies that you are basically quantifiable, the tangible.
For example, number of deaths.
Unless there's some kind of parameters that have been manipulated, generally you can look at that day.
So there's certain data that are tangible you can look at.
So I don't think by rejecting certain studies and being open to other studies is a complete contradiction.
I think the problem is this is a fringe debate and we're trying to turn Marianne's entire pitch into another trans debate.
This is actually a fringe debate in US politics that affects, I hate to this, affects a tiny amount of people.
It's become a big talking point for populists on Twitter.
But why are we turning yet another spaces where this woman made lots of good points on lots of good topics?
Why are we talking about trends again?
I'm not correct that incredibly.
I'm talking about reparations, not hold on.
Go ahead, Tiffany.
Go ahead, Tiffany.
Go ahead, Tiffany.
Thank you.
Because we're talking about it because we're talking about reality.
We're talking about truth.
We're talking about the fact that there are two biological sexes.
And there are small percent of people that think that the gender they were assigned at birth, which is how they phrase it.
is not reflective of the body, of the soul that they inhabit.
And we're talking about truth, and it's changing our entire world.
We talk about Marianne Williamson's run for president,
and she had a fairly neutral stance on it.
She had a fairly neutral stance.
Why were you facing it?
No, Tiffany makes a point, which is there is no neutral stance.
Mario, I'm trying to talk.
There is no neutral stance on this when it comes to kids.
May I please?
Yeah, Libby's right.
Like, go ahead, Libby, take it.
Yeah, no, I was just going to agree with you, Tiffany, and I would like to hear presidential candidates come out directly and speak about their views on this.
We need to know how people feel about it. We know how the president feels about it.
He goes out there on, you know, every chance he gets and encourages parents to push their kids into gender transition.
He encourages so-called affirmation. He doesn't have any idea what it means.
and we need presidential candidates to understand exactly what this means, what the process of...
We need them to fix a thousand children, preventing kids from growing up naturally is all about.
We need them to fix a thousand other problems, which are much larger than the transgender issue.
No, because biolence is about the nature of reality itself.
Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on.
This is the problem when we get into these debates, guys.
Like, I got it.
It's an issue.
We asked about it.
And now we've been, what, 10, 15, 20 minutes debating this thing that we literally had a debate yesterday, which was about a completely separate subject about racial justice in this country or just, you know, whatever you want to.
You're not wrong.
The nature of reality matters.
Stop.
Stop.
Stop.
Okay.
Like, seriously.
Like, we're in the background about this, like, trans, trans, trans, trans, trans, trans.
Okay, so let me ask you a question.
May I mean?
I don't agree.
I don't agree.
Let me talk about something else.
No, this is silly also.
Your point is not, doesn't make sense.
So, okay, Suleiman, you're telling me right now, in the entire world and in U.S. domestic politics,
The number one main issue we should be debating right now
that we've already debated, we've had this debate,
we continue to have this debate, is about trans,
or can we talk about another thing about a presidential candidate
who came and actually had a debate about...
What do you think the most important issue is?
Do you have children?
Do you have children also?
Yeah, I have two.
What do you think the most important issue is?
Oh my God.
Listen guys, one second.
Also, your point again is does make zero sense.
So now is your contention that you can only ever talk about something
if it's the number one issue.
It's a very,
it's a very,
what do you think that if you win?
Can you let someone finish their point ever, bro?
You just speak for it.
Yeah,
you're right,
so I never talk.
No, no, when you talk that, you don't let somebody else basically come back on.
The fact is that we have a major presidential candidate, someone that wants us to take them seriously,
who engaged in a discussion tonight without the facts about something that is an important issue to the American people.
That's the fact.
And when I tried to request to speak, when she was speaking, I was removed as a speaker from this space.
And I had some questions.
I wanted to know, Marianne Williamson.
What is a woman?
Define it.
That's just a silly question.
Could I say?
No, it's not.
It is.
So I, I, so this is a nature of reality is not a silly concept.
It, it really matters what reality is.
Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't disagree that what is a woman is based on truth, right?
But the more important issue, I believe for most people, and you see it based on the protest, and hence why, again, I don't disagree.
I don't agree.
What are you saying the most important issue?
Are you going to let me finish Libby?
Yeah, so long as you get to your point, what's the most important issue?
Well, there's many issues that important, but what's my issue than what is a woman is transgender issues being taught in schools.
I think that's more important.
So let's, with the fact that we don't have a good...
All right, so for you, what's more important?
Transgender being taught in schools are what is a woman?
Yes, Sally, she answered that very clearly.
She answered that very clearly and basically said she didn't really think it was appropriate
and that parents should have that conversation with their kids have to.
No, no, I'm asking.
She gave a clear answer on it.
Yeah, I know she did.
I'm not asking Libby.
Libby for you.
Honestly, I thought we were here to speak about a presidential candidate,
and it doesn't feel like anyone cares about it.
You're right.
What she said, Sam, what she said about this issue when she spoke about it and said that was encouraging.
You're absolutely right.
That was encouraging.
I'm just concerned that she came to the table without a lot of information.
It felt like she was throwing a lot of talking points about the wall.
at the wall and hoping that something would stick.
And on issues that are important as this,
about the future of our kids,
I felt like she needed to be more informed about the issue.
That's the bottom line.
So, Lib, for you, what's more important?
The question, what is a woman
or whether transgender is being taught in school
and sex education being taught in schools?
Well, how can you possibly talk about?
The same issue.
This is just your...
Hold on. Hold on.
I seriously want to know.
I seriously want to know.
Because, again, this just blows my mind.
How much of this debate is going to be about trans?
When are we going to move on to other issues?
I really want to know.
The problem is also, even in this question,
we asked her at least about six, seven questions.
We asked her silly and she answered and you just want to push your agenda on every single space.
It's boring.
We know about the debate about teaching in school.
She answered it.
Have you even got an ability to understand?
She answered this specific question.
It's your number one policy and you want to push it on every space.
Move on.
Sam, you are, by the way, I'm glad they did.
Oh, that was me.
Sorry, my bad.
Yeah. But Sam, you are really thick.
You do not even understand the point.
I believe it's an important issue, but I disagree with these law that she didn't answer it well enough.
I think we asked her about six or seven questions, and I think she answered it.
So again, you have the lack of ability to understand a person's point.
It's just that you know, Simon.
It's just that you always go back.
You asked her the same question four times about the school.
She answered it.
When I literally do not even, I didn't even make the point that you're saying I'm it.
You asked her the same question about schools four or five times during the debate.
She answered it very clearly.
I think we've all agreed on that.
Let's move on.
No, that's not true.
First time I asked her, she didn't answer the question.
She tried to make the argument.
When I asked her about schools, she made the argument about adults.
Do you know, guys, can I tell you something?
Can I tell you something interesting, Tilly, Tilly.
Do you know people care very little about you, Sam, or all source, or myself, actually?
So let's go back, whether you asked or you didn't ask her, that's your agenda, not your agenda.
Tira, what do you think?
No, it's not.
No, you're obsessed.
Again, silly, silly.
You really got to, I was just sitting there waiting for jumping.
But Tyra, you're like the only mature voice right here.
You and you, Greg, you, Greg.
And full stop. Libby and Tiffany don't know me well enough, so I'm going to put him as well.
So you four, that's it.
Yeah, but Mario, this is your lack of understanding and inside.
Okay, bro, I didn't.
I said nothing except let's go to Tira.
So you want to debate me about saying nothing?
I have no, no comments to make because I can't be bothered.
Go ahead, Tira.
There's no point, bro, to finish.
Let's move on.
All right, bro, then don't wind later asking me to like sort things out because essentially people have not understood the point.
Okay.
Okay, I want whine about something things.
No whining.
No whining.
Go ahead.
No whining, anyone.
That's the rule.
So I think as a presidential candidate, one of the things we should be asked.
No, no, here, please, please.
This is something epic just happened.
This is so epic.
my mother is listening to this space.
No, I'm not making this up.
My mother, who doesn't even know what Twitter is, listening to the space,
and she sends me this message.
She's like, L.O.L.
debate about transgender.
You need to change the title.
That's my mother.
You sent me that message.
Your mother's more sensible.
I'll forward you this now.
That's so epic.
I swear I can't believe she knows how to use Twitter.
But you're sorry.
Listen to your mother, Mary.
Go ahead to her.
Go ahead to her.
Mario's mother.
Sorry, Mom, like this is very...
Mario is a good boy.
He's been eating his vegetables and he's been trying to extend his life.
You should be glad about that.
Okay.
I got you.
At any rate, as a presidential candidate...
Wait, wait.
Your mother, your mother is listening to us right now?
Guys, no, no, don't play with this.
Don't play with this.
Tira, go ahead.
Don't mess with this.
As a presidential candidate, there are certain things, issues that the president can have an impact on.
The issue of education is somewhat more limited than many issues because education costs are basically funded mainly by states and local governments, right? So 8% of education is funded by the federal government. Everything else comes from in general property taxes, things like that. So I think that
that the number of questions we should be asking her about transgender educational policy
should be somewhat more limited because it is not, in fact, something the president can do that
much about. Wait, can you, Tiffany, Tiffany, I'm speaking. Okay, it's called don't interrupt. Now,
people asked a lot of questions. She gave answers. Me personally, I thought that, you know,
she's interesting. She speaks well. I thought some of her answers were not
as well thought out potentially as they could be,
or at least the implications are not well thought out.
The reparations thing, I do agree with Joe,
the thing about studies in one sense,
it's like, I'm going to take Donish here
and we're going to have studies,
but then on other things,
we're not going to have studies,
we have too many studies.
So I sort of feel like there were some parts
of what she said that were not thought out.
I don't, I didn't hear everything, so I don't know if we got to economic issues and the Fed and, you know, I think there are many issues that a presidential candidate should be asked about, and I don't think we should dwell on transgender issues only because I really don't feel that a president has that much potential power.
May I answer back tonight? Can I respond?
Hold on. I'll let you guys respond. I'll let you guys respond. But that's exactly my point. There was questions about, we could have asked about,
Corporate taxes. That was a whole portion of this conversation we did. The reparation. We'd even ask about universal income. That is a core tenant of her thing of her policy is universal income, right? How do you pay for it? Universal health care. Another thing that she said in this space that I asked about was this Department of Peace. So what that essentially means is the expansion of powers of the federal government. You're going to create an entire other entity of the federal government.
So you might agree or disagree with that.
But that was the frustration where I think if we just, it's this singular focus on one thing when we have this entire debate of, yes, you want to have a conversation about LGBT and trans?
I got it.
But guys, like food insecurity in America is a huge issue.
Healthcare and security is a huge issue.
Can we please expand a little bit?
Let's have, let's have Libby and Sully respond back because obviously the debate, this debate can.
Did you?
Silibe, I know you were trying to jump in.
I know if you were Tiffany.
So I'll let you respond to all sorts and Tyra.
I'd love to.
Yeah, go ahead.
And I'll go to Sully.
So I do think that there are a substantial number of issues facing the country that need
answers.
I think we need to know if Joe Biden accepted bribes in order from, you know,
Ukrainian energy company in order to influence U.S. policy.
I think that's huge.
We need to know what that's about.
I think we need to know, you know, what's going on there.
I think we need to deal with the border situation.
I think that's a really huge issue.
We need to know what's going on with that.
We need to know why the border is essentially porous.
We need to know why China is spending so much money in our backyard, and we're not paying any attention to that.
Kamala Harris just went to Africa and, you know, gave a little speech about how the African
continent should move away from reliance on China.
She flew into a Chinese built airport.
She drove on a Chinese built road and she spoke at a Chinese built conference center.
So she has no idea what's going on either.
We have a democratic field that isn't even sure if they're going to get a shot because,
you know, the DNC is all wrapped up with Biden.
We have a president who we're not allowed to discuss his mental capabilities or his faculties,
even though he's so obviously losing his mind, right?
So many of us have elderly parents.
I do.
You know, my father is substantially sharper than Joe Biden, and I still would not put him in the White House.
at his advanced age.
The issue with transgender and the issue with education is important,
and I know that it gets talked about a lot.
For the people who have been talking about it a lot for years,
We have been screaming about this for years.
And finally, it does seem like culture may turn a corner,
and we may have a chance to take back some of this conversation
and bring reality and scientific facts back into the conversation.
So when you hear us screaming about it, we're just like, wait a second,
we really have a shot to get this through.
In terms of the president, just one second,
let me just respond to the president doesn't have a lot of authority over education.
Okay.
the president this year or um was it this year but as soon as joe biden took office
he signed an executive order um first day he's done it a couple of times yeah first day
about gender and then he's done a couple of more executive orders where he has instructed
every agency of the federal government to use their authority to further policies embracing
uh LGBT issues and um
He's done that a couple of times.
So what the department,
let me, let me, let me, let me jump in.
Let me just, let me wrap it up.
I won't, I won't be too much longer.
I really promise.
I can be concise.
The Department of Agriculture under Tom Vilsack went out and said, okay, we're doing what the president said.
So if you are a school and you do not permit boys to use girls' bathrooms, we're going to withhold free lunch funding.
The Department of Education went out.
I think the point, I just want you up here.
I haven't made.
No, no, I'll make it, Libby, Libby, just because there's a lot of hands up.
You want to make my point for me? Is that what you're...
No, I'm trying to respectfully...
I really want to eat a couple of more seconds.
Okay, go ahead.
Just a couple more seconds.
Title IX has now, instead of being there to further opportunities for women's sports in academia,
now Title IX is for...
Libby, I'm being played now.
You're playing me now.
You can't say a couple of things.
No, that's absolutely true.
And it's also true with the Department of Health and Human Services,
and they're the ones who are telling insurance companies they have to cover sex changes for kids.
Okay, no, is Libby.
Silly, I wanted to go to you before going to the panel.
What trigger, I'm genuinely curious, what triggered you so much about this?
It's like, what, the silliest things trigger you.
Are we talking too much?
By the way, in the comments, let me know.
Do you think we talk too much about LGBTQ issues and transgender issues?
Or it's worth, it's worth a time.
Yeah, so silly, what do you, I want to know why that triggered you so much out of all people.
That surprised me.
No, no, I'm not triggered. The point is, I'd just like to finish my point.
Please go ahead. No, go ahead.
Yeah, yeah. So my point was quite simple because I think Doc made a point and said that, look, she didn't get follow-up questions.
And my point was actually quite simple. It was that she actually got a lot of follow-up questions about the transgender question significantly.
She got like five or six follow-up questions. So even when she gave the first answer, which I believe wasn't up to standards,
which was that she didn't talk about transgender in schools
and I asked her another question.
Darnish asked her another question.
I think someone else did and then I asked.
And I felt like I asked the more important question
which was about transgender in schools
as opposed to what is a woman
because Libby felt like that was more important
and I disagreed with her
because I think most people
who are concerned about the transgender question
are more concerned about the impact
it's going to have on vulnerable people
and for us the vulnerable is our children
so it was from that perspective
that I thought she was given a lot of questions
she was given important questions
we might not be satisfied
with the answers but she was asked
so I like silly do you know
how tempted I was
how tempted I was that's why I asked you in the messages
I send you a message hey are you pissed
because I was so tempted to ask you to finish your point
and then just end the space on you
but I did it so it just shows that I'm not a complete asshole
but look I do want to wrap it up
let's tell Mario's mother he's not a complete asshole
is this one thing for the yeah Dan I'll give you the mic
I promise I'll go to wrap up I'll give you Greg and Troy the mic
Actually, how did Troy get on you?
Good to see you, Troy.
But I'll give you guys the mic to kind of wrap up.
First, I just want the audience to let me know
how you think the space went.
I'm genuinely curious for feedback.
Like, I enjoyed the discussion.
It just felt like, again, just a bunch of us in a room.
Again, just a bunch of us in a room.
whether we should have asked this question or that question,
pressed on this, or pointed this out,
disagreed on that, okay, these are small details.
But in general, your thoughts on how the discussion went.
So I want to go through the comments.
In the meantime...
I'd like to ask Dan the same question.
Well, Dan, I mean...
I know you're bit towards the left.
Oh, Dan.
Okay, I was trying to figure out where Dan is.
Yep, good.
Yeah, yeah.
So, I mean, just from the perspective of, like, what's your thoughts about the fact that this is a person who is a possible presidential candidate?
She is third in the race in the Democratic nomination.
She came on a Twitter space.
It was unfiltered.
We had people from various backgrounds, and she answered questions irrespective of what those questions were.
Like, what's your thoughts on that, Dan?
It's a great question. I'd love to answer it. I do want to state, though, we've been hearing all these arguments and all of these opinions. And ideological beliefs are great, but the facts need to come in as well. How many people in this room can come in and answer this question right here without going to Google Scholar? How many children, 17 and under received gender affirming care in 2021? The last year...
Hey, Dan, do you know how many girls are right now on GoFundee? Over?
40,000 girls
are coming to get top surgery.
I gave you your time without interrupting you at all,
Miss Tiffany.
May I please just have a few more seconds?
1,400 children have received care.
My state alone in Arkansas, 25% of children,
50,000 children in Arkansas go to bed with a hungry stomach
because of poverty, but we're not talking about that.
We're focused on the 1,400 children
who've been affected by gender affirming care.
It is an important discussion,
but we need to talk about the other important discussions as well.
And I think it's great to have these spaces
You know, as a candidate that ran for the United States Senate here in Arkansas twice and we'll be running again, I understand her answers.
It's really hard to answer to a group of 13,000 people to get your point across in a limited amount of time.
And yes, some of her answers did...
did conflict with each other.
But again, I think she did the best answering that she could
with questions that she wasn't vetted.
Most of these candidates, when they come on these spaces and do interviews
or go on the news and do interviews,
they have every single question that they're going to be asked
at least 48 hours ahead of time so they can look at those questions
and figure out what answer they're going to practice for it.
How do you know that?
Because I'm a candidate for the United States Senate.
But Dan...
How do you know that?
I'd like evidence that all of these presidential candidates,
when they go on the news, have questions that are being asked in advance of them.
They know what they're going to be asked.
I'd really like to know that.
I'll look through my email, and I'll try to find you some, like, when I'm going to know.
Yeah, I think Dan made such an important point there about these huge issues.
Everybody's saying, look, we're trying to protect our children.
That's why we're focused on the trans debate over and over again on spaces after spaces.
And Dan just said, without anybody commenting,
about how many children go to bed hungry in the US every day?
And we're focusing all of our time and attention on what is a political smoke screen,
as far as I'm concerned.
It's a very contentious issue.
We're still talking about it for some reason.
It's a very contentious issue.
Yeah, because I'm hoping that we'll actually learn from it.
It's apparently triggering for both sides.
I think what we should be talking about the fact is that she was completely contradictory
on her role, on her commentary around Ukraine.
She was supposedly anti-war, anti-military industrial complex, but it's okay for now.
But why didn't we push that?
Yeah.
Why didn't we push that instead of asking her about trans for half the space?
Thank you.
So guys, you're welcome.
Either way, guys, I think it was a great discussion.
I don't agree about the Ukraine point as well.
We did push her.
I asked her at least two or three questions in terms of...
It's always Husserlemy.
What was Marius then?
Posing things up.
It was a good space.
Mario, before you close things up.
Yeah, sorry, hold on.
Whoever muted.
Yeah, go ahead, Greg, and then we'll go to Troy.
And I'll let your app up.
Just real quick,
concisely, I know a lot of people in this room may not know who I am.
I do a show Monday through Friday.
My show exists to try to bring two sides together.
And when I do so, emotion always clogs up the lanes of having logical conversations.
And I actually sent Mario a message during it saying,
I think we need to get off the LGBTQ part.
Because the problems here in the United States right now,
we have an issue with the economy that's not going away.
People are struggling at a very large level.
Inflation is a worldwide issue.
We should have been talking about that.
You know, Dan just brought up the poverty issue.
I'm a high school teacher during the day when I'm not during my show.
And I have...
Most of my kids are in poverty, so we're on government assistance.
We don't talk often enough about how our local governments are the place where most of the things that affect our life is happening, our local school boards.
So these questions, when you get to LGBTQ, they're being handled by local school boards right now.
We have policies that just went in the place just for our high school.
I wanted an opportunity tonight to talk about the Ukraine, to talk about how do you pay for reparations when we were $33 trillion in debt.
And I just would ask everybody to examine that we don't get stuck in the emotional conversation so we can really have fruitful conversations that really matter to all Americans and not become...
you know, gender identity and identity politics in the future. I think this is a great space.
You guys all are wonderful people, but I really would like us to see us push the envelope to a spot
where we're really asking questions that matter of candidates. And just to go to Dan, I've interviewed
a couple presidential candidates, and yes, I do get,
ask what questions I'm going to be asking, and I get questions about, you know, well, will you go there?
Please don't go here.
So yes, people do vet the journalist beforehand to make sure we don't go certain places because they're off limits.
Thank you so much, Mario.
It's always been a pleasure and everybody.
Have a great night.
Sully, did you want to say something before we go to Troy?
Yeah, yeah.
Again, I mean, I find it ironic that.
You dropped out Sully.
Go ahead, Troy.
I think Sully dropped out.
Oh, I thought you ended the space on him.
Oh, he literally dropped out completely.
That would have been right, Marion.
Hold on.
All Sos and Sully jumped out.
No, no, I would have.
Is what you were going to consider, what would you call this?
Would you call it a campaign event?
Would you call it a town hall?
Would you call it an open forum?
Because I think.
You know, this is, we're in June to 2020.
This was a, I think it went very well for, for everyone for the space and for Marianne
Williamson.
I am a Biden voter.
I don't think that's any secret here.
And I still am.
But the one question I would have liked to ask was along Greg's line is, you know, it's,
it's an open, it's not an open secret.
It's, it's a known fact that Biden's not going to be debating anybody.
And that's been the practice with the DNC since the Ford administration.
It's just not.
going to happen. We have an incumbent running and I understand the arguments and all that, but uh,
I did want to ask at what point do you, you know, make a formal protest or do you just,
do you go independent or do you plan to support Biden or would you see yourself supporting
another candidate?
That's what I was looking for.
But yeah, I think the conversation afterward kind of got stuck on culture.
Yeah, that question I wanted to ask, like, if you drop out of the race, would you be
supporting whoever candidate, obviously Biden, would you be supporting Biden?
But I've seen every mainstream media ask that same question.
She had like a memorized response for it.
so I just wanted to move away from that, just ask questions that generally don't get asked.
And her feedback at the end, that she really enjoyed it.
So yeah, look, I want to kind of wrap up the space.
I think we've butchered it enough.
Sully, final words, and then we end the space.
Go ahead, man.
Ah, Suli, you can't mute.
All right, guys, I wasn't going to end it, Sulaia.
I totally wasn't going to end it.
But I appreciate all being here.
We'll see you again tomorrow.
As you know, we're doing, tomorrow we don't do the afternoon spaces of AI and crypto.
So these don't happen on weekends, the afternoon spaces.
The morning finance space also doesn't happen on weekends because Danish is too lazy.
So on weekends we'll only be doing the evening space because me and Suleiman are hustlers.
See you all tomorrow night and enjoy your weekend, everyone.
Thank you so much.
Bye-bye.
