20 Far-Right Conservatives Spewed Their Wild Beliefs In A Debate With 1 Progressive, And It's Going Viral For Being Absolutely Absurd
Their latest video, called "1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives," features Mehdi Hasan, an award-winning journalist and former TV host on MSNBC, as the progressive. Hasan agreed to timed debates with a group of far-right conservatives on various political topics, and so many moments are going mega-viral.
Some of the highlights from the 1 hour and 40-minute-long debate include one argument about whether or not immigrants are good for America:
Jubilee / Via youtube.com
Then, during an argument about whether or not Donald Trump is defying the Constitution, one far-right debater made a shocking admission:
After that, another far-right conservative made this bizarre claim during a debate on whether or not Donald Trump is pro-criminal:
Jubilee / Via youtube.com
Then during an argument about Donald Trump's plan for Gaza, this horrific moment happened:
Jubilee / Via youtube.com
Then, during the debate about immigrants being good for America, things got personal:
One person said, "The value of these seem to be demonstrating how it is ok to say things in public that would have been unthinkable to admit 10 years ago."
@adityav84 / Via x.com
"Just sat through the this.. The disgusting and horrible rhetoric that I just witnessed makes me absolutely sick," another person wrote.
This person praised Mehdi's knowledge in the debate. "I gotta say, the few of these types of videos I've seen clips from, the person hasn't been argumentative enough. Has been too afraid to really drop the hammer on people. Mehdi IS that guy and I have loved every clip I've seen from this video. Knows his stuff and isn't afraid."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Virginia judge bars Youngkin's university board appointments rejected by Senate Democrats
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — A judge ordered that eight public university board members tapped by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin be removed from their posts in a victory for Virginia Senate Democrats who rejected the appointees in a June committee vote. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jonathan D. Frieden severed the newly appointed members from their governing-board seats at the University of Virginia, George Mason University and the Virginia Military Institute. His order came at the request of nine Virginia Senate Democrats who filed a lawsuit last month requesting immediate action against the heads of university boards, also known as rectors or presidents. The nine senators argued that despite the legislative committee rejecting the membership of the eight board members, the board chairs had continued acknowledging them as members, and Frieden agreed. 'Here, the public interest is served by protecting the power of the elected legislature to confirm or reject gubernatorial appointees,' Frieden wrote in an opinion letter about his order. An attorney representing the board rectors said in court that if unsuccessful, he intended to appeal Frieden's order. The case comes amid the White House's effort to reshape higher education, with a focus on DEI. Colleges in Virginia and across the U.S. have recently become a groundswell for political tension between academic leaders and the federal government, with boards at the center of those battles. The political and cultural divide in higher education has only escalated conflicts over who gets to have a seat at the table for critical board votes that could shape those institutions' future. In June, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan resigned after the Justice Department pushed for his removal. Earlier this month, the Trump administration initiated a civil rights investigation into George Mason University's hiring practices. The board at George Mason is having a meeting later this week. And earlier this year, the board at the Virginia Military Institute ousted its president, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins. His tenure as president was marked by the implementation of diversity initiatives, which faced pushback from some conservative alumni. Last month, the Virginia Senate Privileges and Elections committee met through an ongoing special session and opted against approving the eight university appointees made by Youngkin, notably including former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II and Caren Merrick, Youngkin's former commerce secretary. According to the state Constitution, all gubernatorial appointments are subject to confirmation by the General Assembly. Following the vote, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surrovell wrote a letter to all board chairs, reminding them that appointees must be approved by the legislature. But Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares also wrote to the heads of the university boards, instead advising them that the appointed members should remain on the governing bodies because only a committee, not the whole state General Assembly, had voted to reject them. Mark Stancil, an attorney representing the Democratic senators, argued that the attorney general's guidance was incorrect. 'Their position flies in the face of the text of the Constitution, the text of the governing statute, and decades of longstanding practice," he wrote in a court filing. Christopher Michel, representing the rectors, countered that if the Constitution states that the legislature has the power to reject appointees, that would mean the full legislature rather than one committee. 'The General Assembly is a two-house body,' Michel said. Michel further questioned whether the Virginia senators met the legal requirements necessary to have board members immediately removed by a judge. He asserted that Virginia senators had sued the wrong people, and that the rectors did not represent the voted-down members themselves. In turn, Stancil argued to the court that rectors are responsible for holding meetings and counting votes. Frieden said in his letter that the rectors did have culpability in the case, writing: 'As the person presiding at those meetings, each ... is responsible for recognizing members who wish to speak and recognizing and announcing the votes of members.' Inside the courtroom, Surovell, state Sen. Kannan Srinivasan and Deputy Attorney General Theo Stamos sat among the benches. Surovell said to a group of reporters outside the courtroom that state Democrats had a responsibility to push back. 'These boards just don't seem very interested in following any law or listening to anything that the entity that controls them says,' he said. 'This hearing today is about making sure that we have a rule of law in Virginia — that the laws are followed and that the Senate is listened to.' ___
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: ‘Alligator Alcatraz' is ‘Trump's monument to misery and inhumanity'
To the editor: I am revolted by the photo of the grinning visitors flashing a thumbs up in front of President Trump's monument to misery and inhumanity, the so-called 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center ('Deportation flights from Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center have begun, DeSantis says,' July 25). How did so many people become dismissive and uncaring about rights, both human and those enshrined in the Constitution of this formerly great country? Shame on us. This is happening on our watch. Elizabeth Alexander, Ojai .. To the editor: In regard to the photo of a couple happily posing in front of the 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign — I know the comparison is not completely fair, but I could not help but imagine what it would be like to see the same scene in the 1940s, with a happy couple in front of one of Germany's concentration camps. It is well documented that most people swept up in the immigration raids have no criminal convictions and that raids target businesses and churches; it is not about catching hardened criminals. It is also well documented that the Florida facility has insufficient, even inhumane (and I would suggest un-American) conditions, with a name and location purposefully chosen for harshness. That people can go out of their way to proudly support a facility that isn't up to the standards of a prison, designed as a holding pen for noncriminals picked up at Home Depot and your neighborhood church — this will be another shameful part of American history. David Lynn, Simi Valley
