This gets a lot right, but it gets a lot of stuff wrong as well, including several of the quotes. That makes it easy to "debunk." If someone tries to corroborate some of the claims made, in some cases they would be able to, and in some they would find that it isn't corroborated and is actually falsely stated.

For example, his quote of Woodrow Wilson wasn't from 1919, but was from a book he wrote for his presidential campaign in 1912, almost two years before he signed the Federal Reserve Act. He was promising to fight the Corporatocracy, even though he had worked for them (as part of the Carnegie Foundation or rather the CFAT).

That's just one of several examples (there were around 15-20 things he got wrong). Unless you are extremely careful with these expositions you tend to only increase the divide between the "two sides." This show is not careful enough, even though it does give a fair bit of good information.

This gets a lot right, but it gets a lot of stuff wrong as well, including several of the quotes. That makes it easy to "debunk." If someone tries to corroborate some of the claims made, in some cases they would be able to, and in some they would find that it isn't corroborated and is actually falsely stated.

For example, his quote of Woodrow Wilson wasn't from 1919, but was from a book he wrote for his presidential campaign in 1912, almost two years before he signed the Federal Reserve Act. He was promising to fight the Corporatocracy, even though he had worked for them (as part of the Carnegie Foundation or rather the CFAT).

That's just one of several examples. Unless you are extremely careful with these expositions you tend to only increase the divide between the "two sides." This show is not careful enough, even though it does give a fair bit of good information.