Official Response to Yuval
Added 2025-08-15 02:47:36 +0000 UTCI'll be posting a shorter, vertical format version of this video to TikTok tomorrow, but here it is for all of you early and extended tonight. Let me know your thoughts!
Comments
David Pakman uploaded a fascinating interview with a guy who's been looking into 2024 election results and his findings could be huge. Obviously Pakman goes out of his way to say, "well we don't know" but I think we need to be amplifying this message. (Sorry for the comment on a month old video 😅)
Kyle Webb
2025-09-24 17:21:37 +0000 UTCChef’s kiss.
Schmiddles
2025-08-20 21:26:59 +0000 UTCThe amount of mental gymnastics people do to defend the biggest POS we have ever seen in politics is WILD. Why can’t we rise up? Because they intentionally separated us- some there needs to be incredible effort put into coming back together in order to take over the ( real enemies) the billionaire capitalists
Zentrinity
2025-08-17 03:54:57 +0000 UTCThat’s just an example of Trump having the mind of an 8-year-old.
I have never given a woman an orgasm
2025-08-16 00:39:00 +0000 UTCWord salad, bro. The point is that we should be having these conversations, but that requires engaging honestly with the core issue, not drowning it in endless tangents and hypotheticals. You’re treating practical limitations as if they automatically prove impossibility, without showing why those limitations couldn’t be overcome. If the only argument is “it’s too hard, so it didn’t happen,” then you’re not actually disproving anything. You’re just assuming the conclusion you want.
Stacy Walker
2025-08-15 17:59:13 +0000 UTCI'm sorry this is so long. Austin, as someone who loves your content, this is shockingly disingenuous. You are not representing his points accurately or fairly and you're not engaging the case he's making. And to be perfectly honest, your points are not as strong as you think they are. He fully granted you that Trump is a cheater, the question is if he could have done so here. Which is a conversation you don't seem to want to have. You just want to go back to motive and character, which nobody is disputing. You're even relying on movie logic here and arguing it's narratively compelling. Sorry, that's a lot of attack up front, but let's go through all of it. Yes, we know he cheated in every way he could in every opportunity he had. No one is disputing that. We have evidence of those cases. Collusion and pressure are very different from rigging election systems. Aside from examples of Trump cheating, we also have examples of him trying to cheat in systems where he can't, so he fails. Again, the question is not whether or not he would cheat. It's could he in this instance. We all know he would. But, could he. On your evidence section, you are ignoring whole sections of evidence. The data isn't the numbers that were produced. It's also how they were produced. It's the whole election system. The data is we have this system and it takes these inputs and produced these results. Cheating, in this instance, means that the results it produced are not what it should have produced given the inputs because of some kind of tampering. That infrastructure is key to this question and it is intrinsically tied to the election result numbers. You don't have to accept the numbers, but then you need to identify how the system was or could be manipulated. There's more to say on that later in the video, so I'll save it for now, but the next thing is your crime scene analogy. And, I gotta say, this analogy is shockingly disingenuous. Who is the forensics team in this analogy, Austin? None of this analogy maps at all. Who was the administration in charge during the election? Who is responsible for election security? Who runs audits? This is why the infrastructure matters so much, because who was in office actually doesn't matter as much as you would think. None of these systems are controlled by Trump. What are you even talking about here? The forensics teams telling you there was no fraud are not the ones who would go to jail if the attorney won. They're not even associated with that guy in any way. You need to cut this analogy and you need to stop assuming your conclusion that the results are unreliable without dealing with the process of how those results are produced. The Trump team is not involved in that process and so this whole section is just bad. It's just bad, Austin. It's not about Trump deciding to do it by the books. He's not in charge of the process or the books at the time of that election. Now you get to where he would only need to focus on a few key areas. How many areas would he need to focus on and how would he know which ones he needed to put his thumb on? The point of the data distribution is it shows a trend with no big outliers. The data itself is tracked polling location by polling location. How many polling locations would he need to put his thumb on? It's easy to say what you're saying when you don't look at what would practically need to happen to pull it off. What would it actually take, Austin? If you want to have the conversation, you need to deal with the on the ground realities of how things operate and how this would need to be done. How much would it take to swing the election, how much area would he need to cover to be sure he'd win, and how many places would need to be compromised to make that happen? Without a theory of a central point of failure, that means in person manipulation of voting machines in a lot of places even in the most charitable case, while leaving no evidence. Your opportunity section is probably the part I take most issue with aside from the crime scene analogy. You appeal to how narratively it sounds crazy and admit you're not a tech whiz. And then you flash headlines on the screen to supposedly support your point. Austin, do any of those articles actually provide a plausible mechanism for Starlink to be used to affect those polling locations? Is that one of the threats identified by tech whizzes? There's not a magical device that can remotely reprogram an air-gapped machine. If you want to get down to it, it becomes a physics problem. Voting machines are easy to hack if you have a vector by which you can access them. Everyone is telling you Starlink isn't a vector for that and you're just still sitting there being like, "well, it's still suspicious." I looked at those articles. The first two are the same story by different outlets and cover a tiny amount of the election, not enough to swing the election and there's no evidence any of those systems were compromised. The third article only applies to overseas ballots in one state, which, again, cannot have been enough to swing the election. This feels real bad, Austin. Flashing headlines that superficially look like they support the point is the kind of thing hacks do to make it look like their argument has more legitimacy than it does. And in your conclusion you say he's just pointing at the data trends, but that's just missing the point. The point is the that the trends in the data combined with the way the data is produced, the whole system behind it, makes it unreasonable to think there was tampering on a scale that would swing the election. By focusing just on the data, which you contest, you're ignoring a big part of the argument. You can go polling station by polling station to verify the data. And you would have to physically go polling station by polling station to manipulate the results. There is no small enough subset of these locations where you could reasonably expect to tamper with them and get away with it while still being able to swing the election. Still love you, but I have to admit this is disappointing.
Joel S Wilkinson
2025-08-15 16:29:08 +0000 UTCI think my biggest issue with Yuval’s argument was how he just wants to shut down this conversation entirely. I see his point and I really do understand where he’s coming from but we gotta be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I think this kind of civil discourse and conversation is lacking on the left much to our detriment. I’ve watched both you and Yuval for several years now and I also hope the discussion/debate between the two of you stays on a productive track. We have to allow these varied and nuanced opinions/takes to have a place in the same party otherwise people will just become more bitter and more divided.
CJ
2025-08-15 16:22:33 +0000 UTCExcellent response. Hope Yuval gets it now and acknowledges he should’ve listened more closely to what you said in your first video
NellieNel
2025-08-15 16:02:45 +0000 UTCIt's amazing to me how people dont comprehend the information in your videos Austin. I find your breakdowns easy to follow, simple in terms of being able to comprehend the information and very accurate. Its very very easy to follow your work. Yet somehow, some way, there's always a dude that just cant...its like he didnt even listen to your video and was just forming bad arguments in replacement of actually hearing your words.
Anthony Ocean
2025-08-15 12:38:12 +0000 UTCLove your heart & brain, Austin 👏🏼💝
Carly Bennyhoff
2025-08-15 12:23:07 +0000 UTCEasily. Especially since some are computer only with no paper involved to potentially later be checked against the count. They're flooding us with every crime so we're too exhausted to try them for any. South Park is going harder at Trump than Congress × SCOTUS. And bonus-ing Steven Crowder 👏
Amber Stewart
2025-08-15 07:07:56 +0000 UTCI've lost some regard for him. His arguments are weak and it doesn't seem like he even listened to you.
Anne
2025-08-15 04:26:09 +0000 UTC"He knows those computers, those vote counting computers better than anyone"
Sarah
2025-08-15 04:21:51 +0000 UTCGood response. Why would we just assume everything was flawless, and all data accurate, with zero questions
Nathleigh
2025-08-15 03:57:10 +0000 UTCI don't understand why so many are dead set on not even entertaining the idea. Because there's a ton of evidence to support the idea. There's also a lawsuit going on in New York RIGHT NOW about this very thing.
Elise Nathan
2025-08-15 03:50:05 +0000 UTCIt seems to me that voting machines could also be pre programmed to change votes.
Camille
2025-08-15 03:42:19 +0000 UTCI usually love Yuval's content, but every now anad then he distances himself too much and ends up being condescending and dismissive. I'm not saying that there's no chance 47 actually won. I'm not saying that Musk actually did anything that level of evil. I'm saying that it's so fucking naive and silly to act like both things aren't possible. Hell, it's frustrating that anyone would try to argue that it isn't more likely than not. Between their history, their confessions, the documented cases of MAGA preventing people from voting, and just, you know, having eyes, there should be a whole lot more people asking questions. It isn't even a thing where saying the offical numbers are fine and everyone played by the rules is the most reasonable position that makes the least assumptions. The only reasonable position here is aggressive skepticism about the results.
Phina O'Neil
2025-08-15 03:39:58 +0000 UTCAnd they didn't need to be called late in the game this time. They could have been in on it from the jump and could have led the way.
Sam Quincy
2025-08-15 03:31:58 +0000 UTCSolid. Makes me wonder which Sec of State was called this time. Only reason we know about the Georgia call is because Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told us.
Sam Quincy
2025-08-15 03:31:25 +0000 UTCThis is an excellent response and it touched immediately on what the crux of the issue is: reliability. Based on so many data points, the very numbers people want to point at are possibly unreliable and it's challenging for some to look away and question them - because it means our perceptions and trust are shot.
Carly
2025-08-15 03:08:52 +0000 UTCNo, if you keep watching I reiterate that for the vast majority of data no tampering would be necessary. They don't need to tamper with data in areas where he had legitimate gains and victories. I'm positing that they kept their eyes on a few key areas and tilted those numbers ever so slightly to appear to be in line with the legitimate gains he was getting elsewhere. I'm specifically not saying that they changed the numbers across the board everywhere.
Austin Archer
2025-08-15 03:04:32 +0000 UTCI’m a little confused about what you said between the 7 and 8 minute mark. Are you suggesting that Trump’s team has control over the various sources of polling data? Maybe I’m not understanding which data you’re referring to
I have never given a woman an orgasm
2025-08-15 03:00:32 +0000 UTC
