Challenge: Show me one single fucked-up thing in this country that is not entirely explained by the premise of this podcast.

You have the entire comment section to make your case..... good luck.

Yeah, its long... Take it if you wish.

And for a closing statement, here it is:

There is one extremely important difference all should understand between those of us on this stage tonight.  I support the Constitution as amended, in order said Amendments were passed and with due deference to the Founders and all those who came before us, many of whom paid for the defense of our Constitution and freedoms with their lives.

Specifically, the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution exist because there are only two ways to resolve differences between human beings -- reason and violence.  All political power is, if someone disagrees and refuses reason, enforced with violence.

My opponent has no respect for either the First or Second Amendment.  In point of fact her own staff, who she did not fire, directly violated the First Amendment during the pandemic by attempting to force the censoring of alternative opinions through the issuance of thinly-veiled threats, including a threat to disregard Section 230 liability protections.  Mark Zuckerberg has confirmed that this in fact happened, he has stated it was wrong for him to comply, and Mr. Berenson is currently suing over this very point.

This is deeply troubling, particularly in the context of repeated advocacy by the Biden/Harris Administration to forcibly remove certain firearms from civilian ownership.  I will note that the very first gun control case heard at the Supreme Court, Miller, turned on whether or not a short-barrel shotgun was a weapon suitable for infantry use by the military.  The government argued that it was not and thus could be banned.  It is particularly important to note that the government lied, having previously purchased said weapons in size for use in trench warfare in WWI, and Miller had gone bankrupt prior to the case being heard and thus had no representation before the court to show that the testimony presented by the government was knowingly false.

Free Speech does not have a "but if there's a virus" exemption, nor does it for material someone considers offensive -- that is, "hate."  Indeed nobody in history has ever tried to ban speech they don't find offensive.  Yet such speech, offensive or not, might change opinions -- and if it does it will take the place of and thus prevent violence.  This is not only good it is the reason the Founders placed these Amendments in the order they appear.  My Administration will never seek to ban speech, nor to ban firearms.  Those arms and accessories that currently are banned by law on the basis of false claims all the way back to Miller should be removed from said status whether by legal challenge in the courts or acts of Congress, and I will encourage both.  Reason is always the better choice, but it is only recognition of the reality that the other option exists and can be resorted to that drives people who might otherwise be quite unreasonable to come to the table and engage in reason.  We must never cede either of these facts as that is the true genius of America, and setting those facts aside is the path to madness.  That shall not happen on my watch.

PS: If I missed something important -- and I probably did -- go ahead and post the question in the context of the debate that I omitted in the comments.  I'm game for either a live Rumble-style stream (with the other side being someone who wants to take it on, if in a debate format) or I can easily record a short with the answer and upload it, perhaps same-day.