$300K Debate Meltdown, JD Vance’s Dollar Bombshell & The Wealth Tax That Could Destroy Silicon Valley | The Tom Bilyeu Show

ITU: Ready to break through your biggest business bottleneck? Apply to work with me 1:1 - https://impacttheory.co/SCALE Sign up for my AI Masterclass: https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=TBS-Livestream&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social https://tombilyeu.com/ai-masterclass?utm_campaign=TBS-Livestream&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social What's up, everybody? Today, I’ve got an episode I cannot wait for you to dig into. I’m sitting down with the brilliant Dr. Abdul El-Sayed—physician, public health expert, and a powerful voice shaking up the conversation on American healthcare, economic justice, and what it really takes to serve the middle class. You’ve seen him in the headlines, but today we’re diving deep: how do we actually build a system where people thrive, not just survive? Abdul brings firsthand experience from the frontlines of medicine and politics, and he isn’t afraid to challenge the status quo. We go head-to-head on the practical impact of Medicare for All, the real solution to out-of-control healthcare costs, and what it takes to get money out of politics for good. If you care about your family's future, if you’re worried about making ends meet, or if you just want to arm yourself with real knowledge—this episode is for you. You're going to walk away with a blueprint for understanding and navigating the current chaos, and real action steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. And as always, if you find this valuable, drop a review and share it with someone who needs it—so we can keep unlocking human potential together. I’m Tom Bilyeu, and welcome to Impact Theory. Sponsors: Cash App: Download Cash App Today: https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/v6nymgjl#CashAppPod *Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App’s bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. Cash App Visa® Debit Flex Cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC, and The Bancorp Bank, N. A., pursuant to a license from Visa U. S. A. Inc. See terms and conditions for the Sutton prepaid card, Sutton debit flex card, and Bancorp debit flex card. Cash App Green features, Savings, Direct deposit, Round ups, Overdraft coverage and Discounts provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit cash.app/legal/podcast http://cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosure. Quince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpod Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order. Surfshark: Go to https://surfshark.com/TOMBor use code TOMB at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark! ATT Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.com http://business.att.com Horizon.ai: Go to https://horizon3.ai/IMPACTTHEORY and request your free NodeZero demo. No commitment required. Results in hours, not weeks. Quo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impact Incogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Pique: 20% off at https://piquelife.com/impact Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Ketone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription order See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Let's talk about the moment your side hustle becomes a real business. Now, I see way too many founders stay stuck running their business like it's a hobby. And then they wonder why nothing ever feels real. It doesn't feel real because it's not. I've helped thousands of entrepreneurs build real businesses through Impact Theory University. And the first step in the path to building a legit business is registering it. And Taylor Brands will help you do just that in a few clicks. An LLC, a limited liability company, is an official business structure. It's inexpensive to form and very simple to maintain. It's how you open a business bank account. It's how customers know they're dealing with a real company. And Taylor Brands doesn't stop at the filing.

• 0:45Speaker 00

  Their dashboard tracks what comes next based on what your business actually needs. So EIN number, registered agent, licenses and permits, bookkeeping, business banking. I tell every founder the same thing. Just make it official. Click the link in the show notes to check out Taylor Brands and get started on your business today. This is a paid advertisement. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Bilyeu Show Live. It is very good to have you guys here. I hope you had a wonderful weekend. It was wild, if you are at all in YouTube culture. I will tell you that because that debate was hot. Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson collided in what I will call a bizarro world debate that went off the rails very quickly.

• 1:30Speaker 00

  We're going to be looking at that one. The ceasefire MOU with Iran has now expired, but I think the real fireworks are likely to come later for reasons that we're going to discuss today. So strap in. JD Vance has gone viral on X for suggesting that the US is actually hurt by being the reserve currency. It's an argument that he's made before. I'm very eager for a deep dive on that one. It is, I think he's right, even though I expect this to be a very unpopular sentiment at a time where people are struggling. Abdul El Said makes it clear he is economically illiterate by lobbying for a wealth tax, which if you guys were on X this weekend, you probably also saw Mark Cuban absolutely

• 2:13Speaker 00

  bodying Ro Khanna for a very similar reason. They're having a public debate over the wealth tax and Democrats' tax policies in general. Politicians, man, as a class of people, were on a tear this week as a ridiculous number of them have been convicted of everything from fraud and then some are allegations to sex trafficking. That, it's unhinged, man. AI has caused the collapse of an entire trial. The jury got dismissed and the reason is a glimpse into the very messy future of AI. And China's economic troubles continue to escalate. Startling new data points to a very different picture than what Xi wants us to believe is going on in China.

• 2:56Speaker 00

  We're going to cover the underlying reality and what it means for your money. Today, we're going to be going deep, boys and girls. We've got that third hour, so make sure that you guys are ready. The, between the debate, between people getting arrested, between what's going on with China and the US economy, though we're going to get into the US economy later in the week. There is just a lot going on. All right, the debate, the debate heard around the internet. Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson collided in a $300,000 battle royale debate that was an absolute train wreck for online debating as a thing. And if you care about the pursuit of truth, it was just things coming off the rails. This one winds me up. I do not understand what these guys thought was going to happen in this debate, how Andrew

• 3:41Speaker 00

  Wilson got sucked into this and looked terrible, by the way. Because, keep in mind, the facts of the case haven't even come out yet. So we're in preliminary trials where they're going to be putting forward some of their assertions. They are certainly not going to be litigating the entire trial in the pre-trial. So what exactly were these two planning to debate? When you debate, you have to ground things on facts or moral framing. So you can certainly say, hey, we're just going to debate this from a certain moral framework and we're going to see which of these two stances comes out better based on this moral framework. But you have to have something that is independent of the two people debating that becomes that

• 4:26Speaker 00

  which adjudicates the truth. But online debating has very rapidly slid into my sort of internal frame versus your internal frame. And when those two internal frames do not intersect, then you devolve into madness, which is exactly what ended up happening here. These two were approaching essentially the facts of a case that haven't even come out through the lens of personal framing. I think this, I feel this. You can't debate that. So what was the possible conclusion that they were going to try to reach this? And if you guys have ever heard the idea that styles make fights, the style matchup here was absolutely garbage. And Andrew Wilson came in and he's somebody, I've never quite understood Andrew's positioning

• 5:10Speaker 00

  as the like king of debate me bros. If you want to know who's actually good at debate, love him or hate him, Destiny is extraordinary at debate. He will take the facts of something and he will show you, I am more prepared on the facts of a case than you are. And so he'll be able to go into each nuanced position. Again, you can hate him as much as you want, but he is very good at understanding, this is your claim, this is the framework in which we're going to pursue this, which with Destiny is normally the frame of just what are the actual facts of the case first? Then what do the facts imply? Then what would be the outcome if we were to follow your thinking all the way out? Andrew to me is somebody who is a frame of reference debater.

• 5:54Speaker 00

  So here is my frame of reference. I'm going to state it whether you agree with it or not. And if he is debating, as Drew so eloquently said off camera, if he's just debating a bunch of OnlyFans models, then that works because they may not under, they may not even have a reference for what an epistemological frame of reference is. And so he can just bully people and he tried those tactics with Candace, which was an absolute nightmare. I beg of you all, please, I understand many of you do not like Candace Owens. But if you continue to think that she is dumb, you are going to continue to look stupid yourself. And this is what was on full display.

• 6:37Speaker 00

  The way that Candace is approaching this whole trial to me is absurd in the extreme. She will put forward intuition, dreams, feelings as if they substantiate facts, which is crazy on its face. But she isn't stupid. And if you, instead of thinking stupid is an inability to come to the same conclusion that quote unquote truth, which has not been defined yet in terms of the facts of the case being laid out and all of that, if you continue to think it is this person reaches the same conclusions using logic that I use, you're going to lose to Candace forever. Candace has a very strong, what I'll call feminine frame, where intuition is elevated,

• 7:22Speaker 00

  where something feeling wrong is an indication that it probably is wrong. And if you instead take the approach that intelligence is the ability to parse raw data through a filter very rapidly, you're going to realize that she's extraordinarily good at that. So one of the biggest highlights from the debate is where Andrew Wilson tries to pin Candace down on the actual allegations in the trial. And this came on the back of Candace saying like, you don't even know what's going on in this trial. And he couldn't name any of the actual charges that were brought against him. So he just said, I think that Tyler Wilson, or yeah, Tyler Robinson.

• 8:06Speaker 00

  I was like, wait a second. Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk. And she, and so he's like, that's murder. And she was like, that's not the charge in the case. And so then he was like, all right, I can't name any, but you can name all seven. And yes, she can name all seven, which then makes it look, which is the truth with Andrew Wilson on this particular thing, that he's not arguing from a deep understanding of the facts of the case. And like a debater in a more traditional style, like Destiny would do, where I'm going to walk you through the facts of the case. I'm going to show you that I understand the nuances of the facts of the case better than you. And based on my understanding of the nuances of the facts of the case, I'm going to show you how, if we follow your logic out, that it reaches a nonsensical conclusion, which is not what he did.

• 8:49Speaker 00

  There were times where he, I thought, made good points. But whoa, in terms of actually going, okay, here we have established facts. Here's how your interpretation of those facts is completely nonsensical. We don't have facts, so there is no way for them to debate on that, which is like playing perfectly into Candace's frame of reference. And then he tries to use the OnlyFans approach of, well, you just don't know what's going on, you don't understand whatever epistemology or insert Andrew Wilson's frame of reference here. And she just kept denying his frame because she has a very strong frame. So yeah, anyway, we'll watch clips from it so you guys can see this for yourself.

• 9:32Speaker 00

  In no way, shape or form, to me, was this a vindication of Candace Owens' way of interpreting the world, but it was certainly a vindication of Candace Owens' ability to stonewall in terms of not accepting someone's frame of reference, to be able to push back, to make somebody look silly by drawing them into her frame of reference, because there are no established facts in the case yet. This was madness. This was guaranteed to be madness from the beginning. All right, let's hear it in their words themselves. Here we go. We got some highlights.

• 10:02Speaker 01

  Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should, like, can you tell me one?

• 10:06Speaker 00

  Then let's do the counter. You can really, yeah, hang on, this is a great.

• 10:09Speaker 01

  No, no, no, you just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question.

• 10:14Speaker 00

  Name all seven since you've been following the case.

• 10:17Speaker 01

  Okay, sure. You name, you name one.

• 10:19Speaker 00

  Yeah, you named all seven.

• 10:20Speaker 01

  I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?

• 10:22Speaker 00

  I think he's, I think he's been charged with murder.

• 10:24Speaker 01

  That's actually incorrect.

• 10:25Speaker 00

  Okay, great. Now name all seven.

• 10:27Speaker 01

  He doesn't even, this is like.

• 10:28Speaker 00

  Name all seven.

• 10:29Speaker 01

  And I.

• 10:30Speaker 00

  Can you name all seven?

• 10:31Speaker 01

  I can't.

• 10:32Speaker 00

  Then do it.

• 10:33Speaker 01

  Sure, you don't have to.

• 10:34Speaker 00

  Do it. No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.

• 10:36Speaker 01

  You don't have to put your fingers up.

• 10:37Speaker 00

  Okay, I'll name them.

• 10:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, sure.

• 10:39Speaker 00

  Name them.

• 10:40Speaker 01

  Uh, the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence.

• 10:43Speaker 00

  So murder.

• 10:43Speaker 01

  No, that's not, that is literally not murder.

• 10:46Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 10:46Speaker 01

  And so just for people, no, don't, I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder, uh, it's, it's narrowly defined.

• 10:58Speaker 00

  Just avoiding the question.

• 10:59Speaker 01

  A death sentence. I'm not, I'm going to answer the question.

• 11:01Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 11:01Speaker 01

  You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work.

• 11:06Speaker 00

  People are often intimidated by the way that Andrew Wilson debates, and that is the exact problem. He's used to being able to rely on the fact that he thinks on his feet faster than most of the people that he goes up against. And listen, Andrew Wilson is formidable. When the style matchup is there, when it's something that he's spent a lot of time thinking about. Um, and Drew, I will really look to you to tease out, to make sure that it's clear what I'm, the point I'm trying to get across. So I used to do Lincoln Douglas debate. It's a style of debate that you do in high school. And, um, there's like all these known rules, how long you can speak, how long you can ask questions for, your rebuttal period. Um, the way that you're using, you have to like basically specifically state, here is the moral framework through which I am attacking this thing.

• 11:51Speaker 00

  So I'm going to be leaning on John Locke or whatever. And so you go through, but you set that up. I'm using this guy as my frame of reference is moral framework, and I'm using that because it has the best outcomes or whatever. So then the person that is debating you can say, well, let me tell you why that frame needs to be rejected. And then they would attack both the facts of your case and the moral framework through which you're trying to put it to prove that people should agree with your assertion. And so there's none of that here. So they both though are holding their own, it isn't Lincoln Douglas debate at all. But they're both holding a way that things should be discussed in public in their heads.

• 12:32Speaker 00

  Neither of them are accepting the other person's, uh, frame of how a debate should happen. Normally Andrew can just bully somebody because they don't even understand that a debate is meant to have this sort of frame of reference. And so he'll push that on them and he'll use these bullying tactics on people and they'll succumb to that. And I've seen him quote unquote, win so many debates by doing that where the other person is just, they're confused, they're befuddled. They, they don't understand. He's trying to bring them into sort of a debate package like you would a fight. And say, no, no, no, you can't do, what do they call it? 12 to six elbows. You can't do that. And so the person's like, wait, what? And so they're just confused by this thing has rules.

• 13:14Speaker 00

  And so he then pulls them in, he gets them, he'll give like really narrow definitions and he'll start laughing at them and saying, you're like, not even addressing this narrow definition that I've given you. And this is where I, I am just beside myself that people can look at Candace and think that she is dumb. That is so, that's full retard. If you think that she's wrong, fine. If you think that the way that she parses the world is not going to lead to good outcomes, as I do, fine. If you think she is dumb, you are in for a world of hurt. And so what she does, first of all, this woman is seven months pregnant and, uh, she, she got Andrew Wilson to pay her a $300,000 appearance fee. No matter what happens in this debate, she's going to make 300 grand.

• 13:57Speaker 00

  Uh, she got him to travel to her. This is filmed in her living room.

• 14:00Speaker 02

  In her living room.

• 14:01Speaker 00

  This is.

• 14:02Speaker 02

  PBD.

• 14:02Speaker 00

  Bro.

• 14:03Speaker 02

  She went downstairs and got $300,000 to wash him. It's crazy.

• 14:07Speaker 00

  Like what, in what world do you not come in knowing how she debates? So that you've got to be able to explain what she does better than she can. So that you take this meta approach and you say, okay, listen, Candace, you are operating from within this frame of reference. Do we agree? Yes. Okay. Now you're laying these things out as if they are facts. Can you please define a fact? Like if he went sort of beat by beat and said, listen, we have to ground ourselves in things that are provably true. Now it would be a trap for him, which is why he didn't do it. We don't know what is provably true. But if you, if you're not able to bully her, and if he thought he was going to be able to bully her, which he seems to think he was going to be able to do,

• 14:48Speaker 00

  because that is the tactic that he's running right before our very eyes, you're a fucking fool. This is the one, nobody bullies Candace, literally ever. I've seen her go up against the most aggressive, the most intelligent, the most eloquent, the most like debater broke people ever. She always maintains her composure. She is always just like, okay, this is what I think. Uh, and does this kind of thing. Putting up your fingers is not going to make me rush. You're just going to embarrass yourself. Slow down. I don't have to step inside your frame. She is so good at that. And so all of this just ends up melting before your very eyes. So one, everybody watching, you can learn a lot from Candace in terms of rejecting a frame of reference.

• 15:31Speaker 00

  This is something that Trump is extraordinarily good at. It may be one of the things that made Trump Trump was he's not going to accept the, uh, Lincoln Douglas style debate thing that you're trying to lay out. He's going to play his game and he's going to be so consistent in applying his frame of reference that to have a conversation, you're going to have to step inside of his frame of reference and argue your way out from his frame of reference. That is what Candace did and Andrew's just completely unable to argue his way out. So everybody walks away from this debate either going, well, I was already on Andrew's side, so I believe Andrew. Or I was already on Candace's side, so I believe Candace.

• 16:12Speaker 00

  It, this, this one, watching the, and admittedly I have seen clips, I've probably seen about half the debate. I, I felt like I was taking brain damage the whole time.

• 16:23Speaker 00

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. There's a reason Quince sells cashmere for $60 and it isn't the cashmere. It's real 100% Mongolian cashmere. It's the same stuff luxury labels charge a fortune for. Quince just works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So there's no need for a markup and no logo tax. The $60 goes to the actual sweater, not the fancy name on the tag. That's why everything they make runs 50 to 80% less. And it's not just the cashmere. I ordered a few things myself. They're fleece joggers, a couple of their tees, which I wear obsessively.

• 17:05Speaker 00

  First thing I noticed was the quality, soft, well-made, built to hold up. They make down jackets and wool outerwear now too. So upgrade your stuff to things you'll actually wear. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada and the UK too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Impact Theory. It's the best way to support the show. Let's talk about what it means to actually be visible in today's day and age. When you build something public, whether it's a business or an audience, anything on social media, you become a target.

• 17:47Speaker 00

  This is something that legitimately keeps me up at night because our data isn't just on the obvious broker sites. It's on old news portals, public forums, obscure directories, places you would never think to look. That's where Incogni's exposure scanner comes in. It hunts down your personal information across the wider web, not just the 420 plus broker sites. Incogni already removes your data from automatically. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com/impact and use code IMPACT for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk-free for 30 days.

• 18:27Speaker 00

  That's incogni, I-N-C-O-G-N-I.com/impact and use code IMPACT. Let's talk about your sales pipeline reviews. If your CRM is half empty fields and notes, nobody finished, every review turns into guesswork. I've seen it so many times in my own sales team, and that's where today's sponsor, Pipe Drive, comes in. An intelligent AI-powered sales CRM that is loved by growing sales teams. Pipe Drive just launched meeting intelligence built right into the CRM. Before the call, it pulls the deal history and past conversations into one brief. During the call, it records and takes notes. After it drafts the CRM updates for your rep to review and approve.

• 19:12Speaker 00

  The record stays complete and you see what's actually happening. Switch to a CRM built by salespeople for salespeople and join the over 100,000 companies already using Pipe Drive. My link gets you an exclusive 30 days free instead of the usual 14 day trial. So make sure you use it. No credit card or payment is needed. Just head to pipedrive.com/impact to get started today. That's pipedrive.com/impact and you can be up and running in just minutes.

• 19:46Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 19:50Speaker 02

  The TLDR of it all, for those that didn't watch the whole thing, she lists out all seven, but as you can see in the previous clip, she was taking her time. She called out Andrew, saying, "I don't think you think about this case." The reason that-

• 20:01Speaker 00

  Which she doesn't.

• 20:02Speaker 02

  -aggravated murder, murder is different because it carries a death sentence. So just name him. So just name him. Okay, blah, blah, blah, blah. Names out all seven. He says, "You took your time. I feel like you like, maybe you got cheating. You do have your phone on your lap."

• 20:13Speaker 00

  Oh my God, you play that.

• 20:14Speaker 02

  So then I have this clip.

• 20:14Speaker 00

  So, yeah, this is crazy.

• 20:16Speaker 03

  I didn't notice something. I just was curious about if, I'm just wondering, when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question, did somebody by chance text you that question?

• 20:24Speaker 01

  You can check my phone.

• 20:26Speaker 03

  I'm just curious.

• 20:26Speaker 01

  No, you can absolutely not. I didn't, I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it.

• 20:35Speaker 00

  So it-

• 20:36Speaker 02

  She's gonna be double embarrassed.

• 20:37Speaker 00

  You're, you're going to be double. This is people. So in that moment, Andrew realizes, "I've been got." And he thinks, "Somebody else has to be feeding her the information for her to have landed such a great blow." Candace is whip it smart. She is extremely intelligent. If she has producers that are even smarter than her, I would be very surprised. Candace is a generational talent. You don't have to agree with somebody to recognize that they're very good at what they do. And that's where I'm always like, I'll even say this, Ben Shapiro, if you're gonna come out, you were part of the reason that Candace rose.

• 21:22Speaker 00

  You saw in her, "Yo, this girl is incredible. We gotta put her on the roster." Now, I get it. You ended up breaking up. And there's a very famous phrase, which you guys would do well to remember, "You don't divorce the same person that you marry." So you, meaning, you guys get married because you love each other. So you're Ben Shapiro, you're running the Daily Wire, you find this generational talent, you see a black female conservative, you're like, "We gotta get her on the roster because she really is that good." Then you start having ideological differences. You fall out of love. Now you start confusing yourself. And you confuse, "I'm not in love with this person anymore, for this person is dumb." That's a mistake. And I, I just, I see people do it in life, across the spectrum,

• 22:06Speaker 00

  all the time, and they cannot get out of their own way. Their own emotions for, "I don't like this person," begin to cloud their ability to see whether this person is good at what they do or not. And Candace is very good at what she does. And so to think that, if, if you're trying to mentally map what Andrew Wilson is thinking at this point, what Andrew Wilson is thinking at this point is, "I am smarter than this person, so there's no way, she just got me." So it's gotta be somebody behind the curtain that's actually like pulled this fast one on me. And I must be up against a team of people who have sent something. Bro, you, you are failing to understand that you're in, you're in the NFL of online personalities.

• 22:51Speaker 00

  These are the top of the top of the top. And, yeah, this is not a good look for him. For me, Candace came out of this either unscathed or ahead. He does not. Now, I doubt that this will be the beginning of the end for him, but this made me feel some type of way about him, where I'm like, I've always had this sort of lingering, and I don't pay a ton of attention to him, I'll be very honest, but I've always had in the back of my mind, like, there's something shaky about the way that he approaches debate. It's like a frame of reference saying blah, blah, blah. And this one really showed. He, he's not coming at it from a facts and figures perspective.

• 23:27Speaker 02

  I was watching one of the reaction videos, and Destiny, he put it out there, so I'm not gonna take credit for his idea, but he was like, "It's almost like Andrew walked in here cocky, because he's so used to owning women, that he was just like, okay, like Candace is, like, he's like, and I don't know if it's a massage or anything, I don't know if it's a race thing, I don't know what it is, but he just kind of walked in there like, "Ah, $300,000, let me go embarrass this girl real quick." And even, if you could just mute it, if you just watched the debate in mute, you will see Candace is still standing up, her legs are open, she's taking up space, Andrew's leg was like bouncing the whole time, he was sweating, he was rocking back and forth, he was sinking low in the shit.

• 23:59Speaker 00

  Rubbing his face, that's wild.

• 24:00Speaker 02

  The body language is showing who you, who the winner was. You didn't even have to listen to their argument. So he, even if you thought he won, he felt like he was losing. He felt like he was behind.

• 24:08Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 24:08Speaker 02

  So what, is this just a humorous thing? Like, like, it feels, why would you pay $300,000 just to get like embarrassed?

• 24:15Speaker 00

  $300,000?

• 24:16Speaker 02

  I don't see that, but I guess some people, they just don't recognize it.

• 24:19Speaker 00

  Bro, if I put up $300,000 against something, do you know how psychotically I would prepare?

• 24:24Speaker 02

  I would, Tyler, I would beat Tyler Robinson if he didn't know. Like, I would walk in with his face, like, I didn't do it. Like, this is crazy. Like, you can't be not prepared? Like, I don't know, I feel like I'm missing something. And then people are like, you know, TPUSA propped them up, they paid for it, it was the, you know, promo tour, I don't know what it was, but it, it was definitely entertainment. I'll put it this way. I was sitting on the sidelines, I have no dog in this fight, I'm just, you know, reacting like the rest of the internet, and it was just a masterclass to see. Because the things that, the dream thing, it was probably 20 minutes of the three hour debate. And to your point, that was his biggest end. Like, talk about the dreams, talk about how you blamed it on TPUSA. Talk, like, those are moments that she was shaky on, but he was trying to debate her on case facts, and she was out here pulling statutes, and, "Oh, Utah, blah, blah, blah,

• 25:09Speaker 02

  says this." I'm just like, yo, she's been doing this for six months. This has been her only piece of content for six months. It's this and Egyptian planes. Like, why do you think she doesn't know the case? Like, at the very minimum, when they milk the content she does?

• 25:20Speaker 00

  Yeah. So I'll, I haven't watched Destiny's reaction, though I'm sure that would be far more entertaining than the actual thing itself.

• 25:28Speaker 02

  Because to your point, he's, he's debate, he's breaking down the tactics, like, look, like, he should have doubled down on this, but he probably doesn't even know the side of, so it's interesting to see that, but go ahead.

• 25:35Speaker 00

  And I'll walk you through how, and this is the same approach that I take to the economy. I'll walk you through how Destiny prepares. And by the way, he prepares in public, so you can watch him do it. So if he were going to be debating Candace, he would do something like this. He would go, "Okay, what are the, like, whatever, 25 things that Candace goes back to all the time?" Because Andrew is gonna say, "This is somebody that is expecting you to believe that a dream is real." Now, Destiny, or anybody that's good at debate prep, is gonna go, "I'm gonna say that. What's she gonna say back?" So this is something that if, if I were gonna prepare for a debate like this, it would look like I would follow a very similar Destiny model, where I'm gonna list out here the 25 things that she's gonna come back at me with, but I'm gonna ask somebody to play

• 26:19Speaker 00

  Candace. And I'm gonna say, "Okay, let's actually do a mock debate. I wanna know what the best arguments are against my arguments against you. So I need to know what are like two or three back and forth that we're gonna get. We'll go as deep as we can. Give me your best stuff. Maybe I'll put three or four people on that side, so I'm making sure I'm really getting the best of the best of the best arguments, so that I've got these things down." And so, the thing that I think makes Destiny such a formidable, formidable opponent is he'll spend hours and hours and hours and hours and hours pursuing each fact, going to, like, he'll watch clips of Candace talk about whatever, the, the Egyptian planes or the French Foreign Legion, and he'll go deep on those sayings and say, "Okay, this

• 27:01Speaker 00

  is the, the thing that she's claimed, somebody sent her this, this is like, here's what we know about that, or at least what Candace has claimed publicly. When pushed on this, she always says the following thing, because it comes up here, but this is not the first time she's said it, where she'll say, "Well, I'm not able to research those facts anymore, so I have given that to the proper authorities." Now, she states, "I've given that to the proper authorities," and at one point in the debate, she walks through all the different people that she sent her claims to. I forget what the specific claim was, that somebody was going after her or something, I forget. But she laid out, like, "I sent it to Dan Bongino, I sent it to the Trump administration via this department, I sent," right? And she lists it all out. So if you're really gonna be prepared for that, you know the

• 27:44Speaker 00

  places that she sent it to, you know why she believes that that is in and of itself proof that this is real. And that's where you have to go, "Okay, she's gonna say all these sayings, she's gonna say that that means that it's real." And then the real response to that is, "Okay, that isn't, that is a set of facts about your behavior, it is not a set of facts about the claims that you're actually making." And so you have to like, keep bringing the person back to that. Now, in, in Andrew's defense, he does try that several times, but she rejects the frame. And so if I had to guess, you tell me because you watched it, but I'm gonna guess Destiny's saying is gonna be something along the lines of, "If we can't agree on like what victory looks like, that we're

• 28:27Speaker 00

  going to establish the facts of the case, and the person who shows a better understanding the facts of the case, and then what those prove, you can't have a winner." And given that the facts of the case have not been laid out in a court of law yet, in fact, Tyler Robinson has not even entered a plea yet, this debate can't happen yet. So we can have this debate down the road, once the trial has played out, and now it's like, we've all heard the argumentation. This has been a broadcast trial, we've all seen the evidence, we've seen the claims. Now that all of that's laid out, including the fact that all of the things that Candace, because I think Candace has said, like, "I've sent information

• 29:09Speaker 00

  to the defense." And none of those sayings were brought up. So if I'm debating this against her, I say, "The defense attorneys looked at your evidence and decided not to bring it up in trial." So that's an indictment of the quality of your evidence, full stop. But that, that we have paid $300,000 to have this debate now? Like, what are we talking about? So, yeah, this is going to be a very interesting debate when the trial is over, but doing this now and paying $300,000, oh my God.

• 29:44Speaker 02

  But I think that's why he did it now, though, because one, it's at its height, one, he could juice it out, and one, he wants to push clicks to the crucible in his own platform and things like that.

• 29:53Speaker 00

  All true, but don't you think he actually thought he was gonna mop the floor with her?

• 29:56Speaker 02

  Because he underestimated her.

• 29:58Speaker 00

  Yeah. That, my thing is like, for all the reasons that I hope he reflects upon, that this did not go well, he could have and should have seen them coming a mile off. And he should not have thought, "Oh, this is gonna be another person that I'm gonna trap inside my frame, and then she's just gonna look stupid." So, yeah, wild. I don't understand how he could convince himself this is a good idea at this point, where there's no facts to actually be arguing.

• 30:26Speaker 02

  Yeah. And just to ground everybody, because some people are asking like what the claim itself was. The claim was, "There's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk."

• 30:37Speaker 00

  Yes, and both of them, including Andrew, were like, "I believe it to be so." What? What? What are you talking about? Overwhelming evidence is like factual, grounded, these things are true, these are the undisputed facts.

• 30:49Speaker 02

  And that's where I think he set himself up, because she was like, "Overwhelming? Like, what is overwhelming?" And then now it was an attack on him, it was from his perspective of attacking her on all the claims that she put out, poking holes into it. And they paved the road the next day, the van was stripped for parts and sold. All these things, he was like, "Yeah, but, like, but your feelings, but the French Legion, but you think people are trying to assassinate you?" And it's like- Yeah.

• 31:13Speaker 04

  Just goes to show that if you're confident enough, you can just go be wrong on camera and still win a debate.

• 31:17Speaker 02

  You could pay $300,000 to be wrong on camera.

• 31:20Speaker 04

  Yeah, yeah. No, not even that. I mean, like her. I mean Candace Owens is, I mean, we all know she is just wrong on all of this. Like she has some like, oh, there's some weird things, but what do you mean Francis in this now? You know what I mean? So it's like.

• 31:33Speaker 00

  So really fast, don't make the same mistake that Andrew's making. We don't know that Candace is wrong. What we, that's, that's what I want everyone to understand. What I think you may mean is that when I look at this, I believe that all this conspiracy brain stuff is a disease of the internet and Candace is like the ringleader of the conspiracy brain uh wing of the internet. And so the very fact that she reasons through the world in that way, uh, you can just say off top that, that she's wrong. And what Candace is showing is right now, you can't do that.

• 32:14Speaker 00

  And so she is just going to do to you what she did to Andrew Wilson, which is completely reject your frame, throw up a list of things that can't be answered yet because the facts of the case haven't been laid out. And so the, the, if I were to predict, and I would need to see all of this play out in the fullness of time to know if this is actually a wise strategy or not. But this is my prediction right now, that what's going to happen in the trial is Candace has put forward evidence that she claims, I believe this is true, that she claims that she sent that to the defense.

• 32:42Speaker 02

  She hasn't directly sent it to the defense.

• 32:43Speaker 00

  Like she's not involved. Are you sure about that?

• 32:44Speaker 02

  She's not involved in the case.

• 32:45Speaker 00

  Oh, okay.

• 32:46Speaker 02

  She has her own style of investigation.

• 32:49Speaker 00

  So let's do this. Okay. Let's say she has things that she has said very, very, very, very publicly. And if the defense doesn't bring any of those things up, you have to assume they're aware of the assertions. And the fact that they do not use them to get Tyler Robinson off tells you that they either don't believe that they're compelling or they don't believe that they're real. My instinct is, and trust me when I don't, I don't overestimate my instinct on this, but my instinct is they're going to lay out a bunch of facts. Those facts will not include many of the more conspiratorial things that Candace has put forward. And the trial I think is, and this is literally just emotion because I've not looked at this closely enough.

• 33:35Speaker 00

  But I think that Tyler is just going to be self-evident. Yep, he shot him. He was on the roof. Parents are going to be like, yeah, there's a lot of damning evidence here. I've heard the boyfriend relationship, whatever we're calling it, uh, in his own words, I thought it was pretty damning against Tyler. And so it's like, my gut instinct is, yep, he's going to be convicted and, and it will end up being a more or less shut and open and shut case and, and we move forward. And then you'll be able to go after Candace and have the argumentation of if this were credible, hard hitting evidence, then the defense would have used this. The fact that they didn't is in and of itself an indictment of the quality of the evidence. Now, I don't think it's going to cause Candace to lose an audience because she's going to take the approach of

• 34:20Speaker 00

  there are a lot of unanswered questions. The government has lied to us before. There's no reason to believe that they're not lying to us now. And I think that people will, people that are prone to um, agree with her on an emotional level will be completely convinced that that is enough, that that is right and true. Uh, so that is my instinct about how this is going to play out. But to say that we know right now that Candace is wrong, I, what, what evidence do we have? A frame of reference, sure, but evidence? We don't have the evidence. Now, do you disagree with that, Ryan? Do you think we have evidence?

• 34:54Speaker 04

  I think giving any level of credence to anything Candace Owens has said on the Charlie Kirk's case is a little bit conspiratory. That's just my take on it, I feel like.

• 35:05Speaker 00

  And listen, that's very fair, but that's just frame of reference.

• 35:08Speaker 02

  That's, that's, yeah, that's interesting because I didn't realize that Candace was like everything she's like, she's Alex Jones in your head.

• 35:15Speaker 04

  Right. She is, she's basically Alex Jonesing this whole thing to me. Like I don't think Candace is a dumb person by any means. I think she's just trapped in this delusion that, like, because she kept adding things on. First it was like, oh, now there's two killers. Just kidding. Actually, it might be Israel. Actually, I just got in an argument with the French uh leader's wife, and now I'm going to throw that in there too, that the French were involved. And it's like, she can, she can think all these things for sure. Like I'm not saying there's, there's not science to where you could like connect a bunch of dots. I just feel like he walks into this with the easiest layup in the world, like what you just said, that Tyler Robinson did this. And it's like, you could, you could just prepare, know the seven charges and sweep the floor with Candace on this because facts are on his side.

• 35:58Speaker 00

  I want to be very clear. We don't know the facts yet. This is where I think everybody, it continues to derail. Uh, we don't know the facts. The case has not been argued. And that's why by definition, having this debate now was a suicide run for Andrew Wilson. Because it, it is by definition going to be one frame of reference versus another frame of reference. And so if it's, it's the exact approach that Candace is taking, but just from the opposite angle, which is precisely what I think Andrew is doing, which is that it is self-evident that she is conspiracy brained, that this, none of this makes any sense. And it's like, well, what's your positive evidence for the fact that this is all fake? He's not going to have positive evidence because it hasn't been tried yet.

• 36:39Speaker 00

  So that's where I'm just like, dude, that same thing can be wielded back against you. Wait until all of this comes out and then you can litigate it. Keep in mind, when you see Israel and Palestine collide, even though the facts have been like documented to high heaven, you still can't get people to agree. They, they will argue that until the end of time. So if something that is well documented, that is theoretically based on facts, still can't be like, oh, this is obviously one because humans interpret facts.

• 37:11Speaker 00

  Then you're, you're already adrift. This is why you have to, the debate has to break down along the lines of what are the facts? And then what is the framework by which we assess and value the facts? And then people can go after that. But when you see hotly contested things like this, if there isn't a, a very clear framework by which we're going to adjudicate, like who won or lost this thing, it, it is just going to be the collision of two worldviews with nothing to anchor other than I vibe with team A or team B. And that's where we're at here. And that's why people will say this is like self-evidently obvious.

• 37:51Speaker 00

  It's not. And listen, she sits so far outside of my worldview that, yeah, I am very much of the mind that, okay, she, she overestimates emotion. Uh, she takes intuition as like a, a this means something, um, which to me is just all ridiculous. But because the facts of the case are not out yet, anybody who says, oh, I've got all the facts is, that's crazy.

• 38:14Speaker 02

  Just to ground everybody, shout out to Kit Moon in the chat. The preliminary hearing was approved if the prosecution had enough evidence to go to trial. Tyler Robinson hasn't been convicted of anything. He hasn't been, he's been charged with things. This is what the prosecution is building their case against. He hasn't entered his plea deal. So this is the part before they can even ask for a mistrial because technically they haven't even started a trial yet. So this is very early. We haven't even got to the point where the jury hasn't been fully selected. Like there's still a lot more steps we need to go. So we have time before we're going to get the true facts of the case. But yes, he's not, he hasn't sat in front of the jury. He's not in court. He hasn't done his time yet.

• 38:48Speaker 00

  All true. And don't get sucked into debates if there isn't a frame of reference for adjudicating the debate. And damn, know the facts before you go in and know the best arguments of the other side. Otherwise, toast of cheese.

• 39:03Speaker 00

  We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead. So don't go anywhere. Let's talk about how much you're paying to stay safe online. Counter it up. A VPN, a password manager, something to block ads and trackers? The service to scrub your data off of broker lists, a tool to flag scam emails? That's five. Five subscriptions, apps, logins, and most people still have gaps. That's the problem Surfshark solves. It's not a VPN. It's an all-in-one security suite, one tool that protects your connection, your personal info and your devices all at the same time. Go to surfshark.com/tomb or use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark,

• 39:48Speaker 00

  backed by a 30-day money-back guarantee. That's S U R F S H A R K dot com slash TOMB. Surfshark.com/tomb. Use code TOMB for four extra months of Surfshark.

• 40:09Speaker 00

  Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

• 40:13Speaker 02

  Cool. Um, let's jump over to that JD Vance clip. He said something really interesting.

• 40:19Speaker 02

  I'll read the tweet and then we'll play the clip out. JD Vance wants to, wants to end the US's dollar position as the global reserve currency because it thinks it allows Americans to consume too much and do so too cheaply. Keep in mind the next time you order a $20 burrito on DoorDash.

• 40:33Speaker 05

  That's, yeah, that's exactly right. And by the way, you know, I'm a, this is like maybe super heterodox. I am not sure that I think the reserve currency is actually good for the United States of America. I think there is a good argument that reserve currency status is akin to coal in Appalachia. It's a resource curse, right? It allows your consumers to consume very cheaply, right? That's been the story of the American economy for the last 15 or so years, even before that, is we can just borrow basically in an unlimited way because we have the reserve currency. That's, yeah, that's exactly right.

• 41:07Speaker 00

  Okay, so here's the bad news. JD Vance is right about the fact that what ends up happening is you get in a position where you can make all of your debts and deficits go away by printing money because you can export so much of that inflation to the rest of the world because everybody the world over is transacting in dollars, which means that there is always a desire for dollars, which means that people are going to be saving in dollars, which means they are likely to soak up your debt for a very long time, although this changed recently, for a very long time. The reserve asset held the world over by central banks in the vast majority of countries around the world. They held US debt like it was gold. Okay?

• 41:49Speaker 00

  So people had US debt and that was like, look, I'm solvent precisely because the assets that I own are US debt. So that lets the US run a $2 trillion per year deficit. That lets everybody in the US live inside of this bubble of things are just very easy. And that lets people begin to believe that socialism is the way out of this because we have this infinite money glitch that's going to allow us to pay for everything we want. And so why wouldn't we just pay for everything? Make housing free. Make healthcare free. Just make it all free. Daycare, buses, all of it. Free, free, free. Because we're going to be able to print until the end of

• 42:30Speaker 00

  time. However, if you look at the way that every empire dies and you look at exactly the graphs of central banks holding the US debt as reserve currency versus gold, it is going down as gold purchases skyrocket. They, they are terrifyingly rapid curves. People realize, hold on a second. By me using US debt as a reserve asset, I am simply allowing you guys to abuse all of us by decreasing the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation so that you guys can have the most reckless economy ever because you're not even being efficient with the dollars that

• 43:14Speaker 00

  you spend. So you deficit spend largely to fund fraud. And so now you have this absolutely chaotic system that makes no sense and mirrors all of the failed empires before you because you get so indebted that you end up having to default on that debt or go to war to avoid defaulting on that debt. And so, yeah, this, we're going to get out from under this. And so now what ends up happening is the purchasing power of the dollar erodes even faster because there's no more appetite for the debt or certainly not enough appetite for the debt. And so you end up in this death spiral. So I get the response, especially if you already hate Republicans,

• 43:56Speaker 00

  you're going to look at JD Vance saying this and you're going to say, well, this is just somebody that wants to see things get more expensive. Now, at some point, we're going to have to really have a come to Jesus about, we have made certain things in America too expensive, very important things. Housing has become too expensive. Healthcare is a separate debate, but I get why anybody under the weight of medical debt is really going to have a problem with that. But the burrito thing is where this is really people getting completely divorced from reality. If you are having trouble making ends meet and you're not going to the grocery store and buying ingredients and using your own labor as a way to get ahead in life, that,

• 44:39Speaker 00

  that is asinine. You're shooting yourself in the foot. So both things are true. Things that shouldn't be as expensive as they are were made expensive through terrible policy. And at the same time, you are doing very stupid economic things, partly because of this bubble that you've lived in where you're exporting a ton of your inflation, trying to give everything away for free, importing cheap labor, trying to mask the decline of your economy by making everything cheaper, by importing it from China, hollowing out your manufacturing base, bringing in immigrants who will then work for much lower wages so that you can have the option of buying everything on

• 45:18Speaker 00

  DoorDash. Now, when I grew up, it was crazy to think that somebody in the middle class would have a housekeeper. Crazy. And I remember being in my mid twenties and thinking, I, we ended up setting a call center up in the Philippines because this is the, the beginning, the early innings of globalization. And I thought, oh my God, this is amazing. Create opportunities for people in foreign countries and you can get things so much cheaper. Yay. So I go to the Philippines and I meet people and everyone has like in-home care, a live-in nannies. And I was like, whoa, how much are you making? And they were making what by my standards was very little. And so I was like, wait, are you wealthy here or middle class, middle class? And you can afford like

• 46:03Speaker 00

  that? You can afford like people to live in your house and look after your kids? You can afford housekeepers? Yeah. And I was like, whoa, like this is, this is a huge, I wouldn't have known to call it a K-shaped economy, but wow, that is like real disparity. That's crazy. I couldn't wrap my head around that. Now, flash forward to the US and we have the same thing happening because of all the things that I just laid out, but most importantly, because of cheap immigrant labor that you're bringing in and you'll get a gazillion people that are willing to drive for Uber because they don't have the qualifications, they don't speak English well enough. And so that's a job that they can get that pays reasonably well. And you train everybody. Oh yeah, this is how life should be. I should be able to get my burrito delivered to my door via DoorDash.

• 46:48Speaker 00

  But all of that stuff makes it more expensive. And so getting back to the fundamentals of the eighties and nineties where everybody just expected, if you were in the middle class, you were going to grocery shop, you were going to buy ingredients, you were going to make your stuff. And that was how you kept your costs low. And so we've completely given up on that. Through that lens, we look back at a very true thing that JD Vance is saying, which is this is one of the things that has allowed us to be just completely reckless with the way that we spend money, continue to drive ourselves into a desperate fiscal situation, which then pushes us to rely even more on financializing rather than getting back to a manufacturing base in the

• 47:31Speaker 00

  US that actually takes care of middle-class workers. But that means that you can't mask the stupid decisions that we have made by importing cheap labor. And so we are stuck in this very weird position where you're going to see a ton of vitriol thrown at JD Vance. Now, he may be wrong about that. And I think it would at this point be extraordinarily unwise to just be like, all right, let's stop being the reserve currency. I think we should be defending our position because we stupidly put ourselves in this position. But now that we're in it, we can't pretend like you can just be like, all right, let's not be the reserve currency anymore. I'm sure it will be fine. It will not be fine. That will create massive problems. But it is a very sound argument for him to put it out there and say, hey, there is a downside

• 48:14Speaker 00

  to this that we need to think through. And I think that's true.

• 48:19Speaker 02

  You know, like when you like are at like a party or a bar or something and you see like a pretty girl walk by and you'd be like, hey, girl, can I take you out tonight? And she's like, no, ew. And like, well, I didn't want you either. I feel like that's what JD Vance just did right now. I feel like it was cool that we had a global reserve currency when it was in the nineties and everybody was buying cheap stuff and everybody bought their first, second, third houses. And now that the economy is a bit unaffordable and we need to start cutting back and we need austerity and we need to start increasing taxes and we need to start redistributing some stuff. Now, it's, do we really need to be the global? We don't really need cheap things anymore, right? Like,

• 48:51Speaker 00

  The funny thing is, I, so the way that I take this, let's use that analogy. JD Vance is sitting at the bar and he, hey, want to come back to my place? Ew, no. And he's like, I've got to go to the gym. And I have let my wealth make me think that women are going to find me attractive. But there's actually a lot of rich guys that are in better shape than me. I can't be fat anymore. I've got to hit the gym. I've got to get buff. And it's like, yes, that is correct. And instead, people go, that's fat shaming. You shouldn't tell this guy that he needs to get in the gym. Uh, like he should be accepted the way that he is. Nope. He should get his ass in the gym. He should get fit. He needs to understand that life isn't just about money. Like sometimes you also

• 49:33Speaker 00

  have to be disciplined. You've got to do the hard shit. And the reality is, if you look into our future and really answer the question, what do we need to do to get back on being the strongest country in the world? It would be, we have to be fiscally disciplined. The bad news is that we are almost certainly on the England train. England used to be the most powerful empire in the world and they completely lost faith in themselves. For a minute, it looked like they were about to get back on track. You had Margaret Thatcher who just absolutely insisted that they get disciplined, be ruthless with austerity and build their way back from that position of strength. And it worked while she was in power. And then as soon as she went out of power,

• 50:17Speaker 00

  left-leaning governments came back and just started pushing in that same direction because you had the US providing military cover for everybody in Europe. And they were at the beginning of globalization. And so they have Tony Blair doing very similar things to what,

• 50:33Speaker 00

  God, I can picture him so clearly, plays the saxophone. His name is

• 50:38Speaker 02

  Kenny G?

• 50:38Speaker 00

  No, get out of here, the president.

• 50:40Speaker 02

  Oh, Bill Clinton.

• 50:41Speaker 00

  Bill Clinton, thank you. So, very similar mentalities and we just start globalizing. And in globalizing, we don't realize that we're shooting our own middle class in the face. And then by getting terrible immigration policies, we further exacerbate that. But we do hide that we are making things worse and worse slowly but surely by trying to bring in cheap, cheap, cheap labor, which then exacerbates the same middle class problem. But it does make things cheaper for those that can afford it. And so you get the bifurcation. You kill the middle class. You send a bunch of people in the middle class into the upper class. But you also get people stuck in the lower class. So, yeah, this is, it is the path that every empire takes.

• 51:25Speaker 00

  You end up bringing on debt in the beginning by having the power of being the world's reserve currency. It's extraordinary at letting you build infrastructure and getting things moving in the right direction. You become incredibly powerful. You then financialize everything. You export things to countries that will do things cheaper. You hollow out your middle class. It is a terrifying tale as old as time. Now, England says you're not going to be able to back your way out of this. And so, and also PS, every empire before that, they're just the most recent. So, you've really got to have a vision for what is America going to become? I'm committed to painting a picture for what America needs to be that is positive, that shows we can really do something extraordinary. But unfortunately for all of us, it does start with, we've got to be fiscally responsible.

• 52:10Speaker 00

  Now, for people that think fiscal just means money, fiscal specifically means government spending. So, we need to be disciplined at the government level of what money we spend. And right now, we do not do that. We are absolutely awash in fraud. We are awash in boondoggles. We've got to stop doing all of that. And we've got to decide, we can have anything we want, but we cannot have everything we want. So, what are we going to pay for? And we absolutely must chase out of politics, anybody that would break the engine of prosperity. So, that, take the entire DSA and you can literally just eject them. Take Ro Khanna, you can literally just eject him. And I feel bad, he's such a lovely person and I really enjoyed my time with him. But he's just gone full off the deep end, DSA-style policies,

• 52:55Speaker 00

  even though he's going to call himself a progressive capitalist, I believe that's his own phrase. Unfortunately, he is not. This is hyper regressive. Seeing the back and forth between him and Mark Cuban was awesome. Mark absolutely bodies this kid. It was beautiful.

• 53:14Speaker 02

  Okay. I'll jump to that. I had the Iran War memorandum queued up, but the back and forth

• 53:20Speaker 00

  We'll get to it.

• 53:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, the back and forth from Mark Cuban seems more pressing right here.

• 53:23Speaker 00

  Yeah, this is crazy. You gotta let me read Mark's tweets because these are dope. So, you've got Ro Khanna laying out, like, hey, we gotta tax this wealth, man. We gotta tax these billionaires. Like, this stuff is crazy. We gotta get that money. We gotta redistribute it. I don't even understand why people are pushing back. Mark, if you came with me on a tour of America, you would see that people really do hate business leaders. They hate billionaires. Cool. Hey, I'm willing to agree that people hate business leaders, but that does not mean that that's actually going to solve the problem. So, you can hate these people all you want, but if you Luigi Mangione them and shoot them, this does not solve the problem. If you have misidentified the solution to the correct problem,

• 54:07Speaker 00

  you still are going to be worse off than you were before. You've got to identify the correct problem and you've got to identify the correct solution. And that is the very thing that we're not doing. So, we have, Ro has identified, hey, people really feel like the system is not working for them. Yes, the system is not working for them. We're pushing everybody into college, getting them insanely indebted. Then, we are driving them with that debt on top of them into a housing market that is just absolutely abusive for a whole host of reasons. And then, we are making it impossible for them to save because we're inflating the currency away. And all of this, under cultural changes that people aren't being honest about.

• 54:51Speaker 00

  And so, you have all this energy where people used to be raising families. All of that energy now is going into political causes that are completely unhinged and just absolutely going to make things infinitely worse. But nonetheless, here we are. And so, you're building up all of this resentment inside of a system that has both psychological problems, going back to the burrito issue, and real systemic problems, housing, healthcare, debt, et cetera. So, okay, here's what Mark Cuban had to say about all of that. Ro, I like you, you know that, but you need to read the state of the state. The number of DECA unicorns, so 10 billion plus unicorns, unicorn is a startup.

• 55:34Speaker 00

  Traditionally, the unicorn means that it was self-funded in the beginning. So, anyway, the number of DECA unicorns in Cali is growing by the day as investors chase amazing startups. A unique feature of these $10 billion startups is that even if they raise a billion, a billion, little, if any of that money goes to the founders, which is very important, by the way. The vast, vast, vast majority of money that people raise goes to the company. So, the people giving you the money are like, I'm not giving this to you, the founder. I don't care about you. I expect you to run this thing. And if I win, then you can win. But you've got to get us to an IPO, you've got to get us to a sale. If you don't get us to an IPO or a sale, I don't want you taking any money.

• 56:18Speaker 00

  I don't want to see you driving fancy cars. I want to make sure that you get this thing to increase in value, okay? So, the money's going into the company. Now, it does make the company more valuable. And so, on paper, this person running the company who might still be largely broke is now being considered a billionaire themselves. And this is where the trouble begins, people not understanding wealth. Okay, so, so if, and little, if any of the money goes to the founders, who are now worth billions of dollars overnight. They are the definition of cash poor, stock rich. How are you going to tax them? Make them borrow money against their shares if they can?

• 56:59Speaker 00

  They just raised money to grow their company and a bank will come along and loan them money? A company that has been in business maybe less than a year, lol. Will you take their stock if they can't? Do you really think each of multiple founders who started an amazing company in Cali and is now a billionaire can each just pull out $250 million per billion of net worth for their raise? You know they can't. If this passes, and it doesn't directly impact me at all, he's saying himself, I won't be a Cali resident, but you can bet if I'm investing in a multi-billion dollar startup, I'm asking them to move from Cali first.

• 57:42Speaker 00

  In my opinion, if this passes, meaning the wealth tax, only idiot startup founders stay in Cali. I've done it before and I will do it again. Dallas, Pittsburgh, Indiana, I will make not being in California a prerequisite for an investment. Ideology is not a strategy, Ro. So, here you have one of the most visible investors in the world telling you, hey, if you guys do this, I will not invest in a company that's in Cali. Now, I might invest in them, but I'm going to make them leave California first. He's already done it before. People act like it's a myth that if you do this stuff, people will leave California.

• 58:25Speaker 00

  They will leave California for sure. And many of them, you won't even realize they've left California because of things like this. They will make them leave first, then they will invest, then they will become the DECA billion dollar company. And so, you won't have a sense that we lost a DECA billion dollar company because you didn't. They first moved to Indiana, Pittsburgh, Florida, Dallas, wherever. And then, they got the investment that they were seeking. And if you think that Mark Cuban is the only one who understands this, you are out of your mind. So, there are going to be a ton of investors that are going to do the same thing. And by the way, California has a direction of travel. And that direction of travel is worse over time, not better.

• 59:08Speaker 00

  So, you see them continuing to ratchet things up. So, anybody paying attention knows, this is not going to be a one-time fee. Remember, my big beef with Bernie Sanders is that he keeps saying that, oh, with that, however much billions he's saying that day that we're going to raise, you could feed this many kids, secure healthcare for this many people, et cetera, et cetera. And we have another one from Cuban that I want to pull up where he addresses this exactly. But if you can't find it, I'll just shorthand it. But basically, yeah, you could do all of that stuff, but you can only do it once. And that assumes that you actually are able to get that much money, which odds are that you're not going to be able to

• 59:49Speaker 00

  because the act of trying to sell those shares to raise that money will be destructive itself. And like Cuban already pointed out, these guys are probably not going to be able to borrow the money because it's so speculative that they're actually worth that money. So, anyway, absolutely crazy. All right, go back.

• 1:00:10Speaker 00

  Okay, so this is in reference to what I was saying earlier. So Ro was like, Mark, listen, just come with me. You're gonna see that people all over America hate business leaders. And so Mark says, when you talk to voters in Cali and you propose Prop 40, the wealth tax, do you tell each voter how they will benefit? The estimates that it could generate $100 billion, which will be paid over the five-year term, or $20 billion a year, give or take. The state lost about $30 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which means even if you took 100% of the Prop 40 funds each year, and by the way, I'll add this, assuming that you can actually raise those funds, which I will say you will not be able to, certainly

• 1:00:52Speaker 00

  not 100% of them, but if you took 100% of the Prop 40 funds each year to subsidize the loss in funding, it doesn't cover it. The good news would be that, okay, I'm sorry, that was me fixing his grammar. He actually said, the good news is that a few million people who lost coverage could get it back, and people working at providers that accept Medi-Cal could keep their jobs. That's great. But it also means that only a few million Californians will benefit. Great. The rest get no benefit, none at all, zero. Anyone you talk to that didn't lose Medicaid won't get shit. Affordability, nope. Lower healthcare costs, nope. Lower gas prices, nope. Lower home insurance, nope.

• 1:01:36Speaker 00

  Wildfire protections, nope. Here is the math as I see it, and feel free to correct me. Right now, Cali collects 13.3% on any income above $1 million a year. You also collect 8.8% on Cali corporate earnings. Which would you rather have? 13.3% and 8.8% that people have been paying annually? Or a one-time 5% tax, which probably equates to about $20 billion a year, plus some unknown number of wealthy people leaving and taking their companies and jobs with them? It's a math problem, not an easy one. Now, if you were, if you went to those same voters and told them you were going to cut

• 1:02:18Speaker 00

  their healthcare, food, housing, home renters insurance, and more, which do you think they would prefer? A billionaire tax or lower costs at home? But that would actually, but that would require actually doing things outside your comfort zone. So what Cuban is trying to get, I would say, anybody with these absurd tax policies to understand, is when you kill the goose that lays the golden egg, you, you may get that one golden egg, but it stops laying golden eggs in the future. These guys keep acting like a one-time wealth tax, first of all, will work, which it won't, and then second, that even if it did work, that that somehow carries them forward forever. It does not.

• 1:03:01Speaker 00

  So they're not even contemplating anything beyond 10-year timeframes. So how do you keep this train rolling? And the answer is, you keep taxing the billionaires. Now, if it worked the first time, of course, they will go back to that well. But the odds are, it won't work the first time, and whatever amount it does work, it causes more people to leave, and it just makes the next Silicon Valley guaranteed to be built somewhere else, because smart founders realize, I want to go somewhere when I have nothing, where if I build something, then I'm going to be able to capture the upside. That's how people are incentivized. So they're gonna go elsewhere, and when they go elsewhere, slowly over time, that state just ends up declining in its ability to generate tax revenue. And so if people actually understood, you should want to be the place that business

• 1:03:45Speaker 00

  flocks to, which is precisely why California has the economy that it has, that Newsom keeps trying to take credit for, but the reality is, this is something that started, I think, back in the 60s. You had guys leave Bell Laboratories, which was on the East Coast, and they end up going to the West Coast and building what is now Silicon Valley, and all of that infrastructure built up around it. As this generation gets taxed into oblivion, the next generation is just gonna build somewhere else. This is so self-evident. And so they, instead of thinking long-term, how do we make sure that we are the place that people want to be, we're going to be like the film industry? And we are going to tax it to death. And so the film industry, if you guys know how this played out, the film industry went anywhere other than California.

• 1:04:28Speaker 00

  I think it was Mark Wahlberg that said, in his entire career as an actor, he's only filmed, I think, two movies in Los Angeles. Think about how many movies Mark Wahlberg has been in. Two of them were in LA? That's crazy. That's because everybody else realized, oh, to get this film business dollars, we're gonna provide tax incentives rather than tax the life out of people. California took the opposite strategy. They taxed everybody. When you tax something, you get less of it. So if you tax billionaires, guess who you're gonna get less of? Billionaires. Now, I get it, people hate billionaires, and they think they want fewer billionaires, but the reality is, when you're a billionaire on paper, you become a billionaire because you've created a company that's adding value to the world, and that company is incredibly

• 1:05:10Speaker 00

  valuable, and that person that owns that company may one day be valuable if they're ever able to go public or sell. Okay. If you get less of those companies being founded in your area because you have taxed the life out of it, then one day, 10, 20 years down the road, you become the film industry, which basically doesn't exist in LA anymore. It is crazy. And yet, California is gonna run that same experiment on Silicon Valley. It didn't work. It never works. And yet, people keep doing it, because in the short term, it may generate some money, and in the short term, it may placate the people who have misunderstood who's actually

• 1:05:52Speaker 00

  creating their problem, which is bankers and politicians have created the problem that they're in, and nonetheless, all they see is, well, this guy is winning in the game that's being played right now, and so that makes me very angry. It will make their problem worse, not better.

• 1:06:09Speaker 02

  Where do you think this disconnect comes from? Where politicians are pushing something that they think their constituents want, but ultimately, like, I think with Ro Khanna, he's hopping on the wave of what's popular right now, because I feel like he sees that the DSA wave, and he's trying to split that between the establishment Democrats, like, he has no aid to Israel in his bio, like, all of a sudden, he's an Israel hawk. But I do feel like the Senate in general, completely Republican-controlled the last two years, they passed like two bills, and I think that the things that they have passed, their constituents haven't felt it. Democrats are now going through their thing. What, why is it that they're not listening to us? Like, is it, do we need to flip the power dynamics? What is the thing that would make our politicians more effective at what they do?

• 1:06:50Speaker 00

  Well, you'd have to get money out of politics. So part of this is that the game is working really well for one part of the K, and they are funding people that are gonna be pro their agenda. Then you've got things that are just so important to the psychology of the cycle of youth to adulthood, namely, the ability to buy a house, raise a family, and we've damaged that at a cultural level and at a policy level. So housing is just insanely expensive, and kids are coming out of college with so much debt, and we've hollowed out the middle class by sending jobs overseas.

• 1:07:34Speaker 00

  So you would have to do several things. You would have to be fiscally disciplined so that we stop taking on debt, so that servicing the debt can start reducing over time. You have to grow the real economy. So rather than just growing the part of the economy that's financialized, you've got to start building things here. You've got to build things that the world wants. So you're gonna have to take on China from a manufacturing perspective. You've got to bring back middle, middle-class jobs, so making things. You've got to stop sending everybody to college. Not everybody's gonna be able to make that debt back. You've got to let students discharge that debt. So if you come out, they should be able to declare bankruptcy, so that that will force discipline on the banks, who will stop lending money to people that they shouldn't have

• 1:08:17Speaker 00

  lent money to, which will put those people in a position where they have to go, well, I can't get a loan to go to college, so what am I going to do? I'm gonna go into a trade and do something that is actually beneficial that the world wants. You need to make sure that you stop bringing in low-wage workers, so that we find out what the real appetite for things is in terms of, yes, I want my burrito delivered to me, but I don't want a $60 burrito, which would maybe like what it would have to be if you were going to say, this is a job that is taken by somebody who's treating it like a career. Also,

• 1:08:56Speaker 00

  This is pure intuition. One should never trust their intuition. Use it as a starting point for research, don't trust it. I just went to D23. D23 is like a comic book convention for Disney.

• 1:09:07Speaker 02

  You went?

• 1:09:07Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:09:08Speaker 02

  Oh, that was selfish. You ain't telling nobody?

• 1:09:10Speaker 00

  Uh, well, I did it to spend time with my mom and sister. So otherwise, I wouldn't have gone.

• 1:09:13Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:09:14Speaker 00

  Uh, but I find myself there. And I was struck. Okay, it was a Friday, so this is not the weekend. But Drew, when I say, but it's a Friday in the summer. Anyway, it was, I'm gonna say, 3% under the age of 25.

• 1:09:33Speaker 02

  Jeez.

• 1:09:34Speaker 00

  3%. This is Disney.

• 1:09:36Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:09:37Speaker 00

  3%? I was like, what is happening?

• 1:09:39Speaker 02

  To Disney adults.

• 1:09:40Speaker 00

  Now, the far more terrifying thing, because that's just bad news for Disney. The more terrifying thing is that there were no teenage employees at a convention for Disney. Which tells me either kids just don't care about Disney, so they don't even think to apply for a job there. Uh, or teenagers aren't getting jobs like that anymore. And when you walk into a cheap thing, a thing that is meant to be inexpensive, which fast food was meant to be inexpensive, okay? When I was broke, uh, you would just time the dollar menu. So you would go and McDonald's had something where it was like three burgers for 99 cents, you would go there because you couldn't afford other things. So you could get a full meal

• 1:10:22Speaker 00

  for like $3. And so you would go and you would time that. I did these things called Tina's Burritos. I don't even know if they exist anymore, but they were three for 99 cents, but you actually had to go to the grocery store. Uh, and terrible ingredients, for sure, but they were cheap and they kept me alive. Uh, so anyway, you're, when you go to an establishment that's meant to be cheap, you should see teenagers. And what we're seeing now are middle-aged people to old people. And so it's like, what? What are kids doing for jobs? They're either not getting jobs at all, and their parents are just shoveling them into the college pipeline. So it's like during the summer, just take it to play during the summer, study or whatever. Uh, at least in my age group where I grew

• 1:11:05Speaker 00

  up, I, from the time I was 13, technically, I started when I was 12, but from the time I was 13, I had to have a job. I took the one when I was 12, so I could buy a Nintendo. But from 13 up, it was a requirement in the bill you household that you had a summer job. So that just doesn't exist. Now, me doing that labor meant that somebody got me very cheap. They got labor who was dumb. I didn't know what I was doing, but you could get me to do menial tasks. So, um, I worked in a door factory, a paint factory, a paint warehouse, a paint store. Uh, I worked in like this guy had some weird thing where he sold clothes like to all these random places. I did that. Um, I broke concrete

• 1:11:47Speaker 00

  and like laid paving stones one summer. All, all kinds of things that you pay somebody just because, hey, you're physical, you can go do a thing. Uh, and so they got extraordinarily cheap labor. And, uh, I got a job so I can make some money to be a little bit less of a burden to my parents. Apparently, we don't do that anymore. So there, there's like a, my intuition is I need to research it more. But my feeling is that there, there's a breakdown in how we think about the pipeline from youth to adulthood that's causing, that is a part of a feedback loop of distortions in the economy. And I think those distortions are the things that I already laid out. College, the expense, the debt, all of that. And just

• 1:12:29Speaker 00

  this cultural belief that everything should be cheap and free. Uh, and, but we're doing it now with immigrant adults rather than teenage citizen kids. Uh, so yeah, we, we have created a very strange feedback loop that is causing all kinds of problems.

• 1:12:45Speaker 02

  Yep, that is very true. Uh, I have noticed that as, as well, especially at amusement parks. Cause when I grew up, I have worked at Six Flags. That was the high school job. And now you go to amusement park and it's a bunch of adults there. Uh, all right, let's jump over to the Iran war. And the 60-day ceasefire was said to run out today. Some early reports are saying that they extended it. Uh, just to remind everybody, today is day 170 of the Iran war. That'll be over in a couple of weeks.

• 1:13:14Speaker 00

  Yeah. Uh, the reality is, I don't think that this is really nice. Uh, I don't think this is ever gonna be over. Uh, not in anything the way that we expect it to be, but just to lay this all out. So the 60-day window that Trump signed back in June, uh, expires today. So 60 days to end the war and settle the nuclear question has now drug way on. Uh, two months later, the two sides are honestly further apart at this point than when we started. But that's based on messaging. The reality is, I think that we were always that far apart. I think that this was always going to be the strategy that Iran was gonna run. Um, six ships have transited the Strait of Hormuz, um, yesterday during the, the

• 1:13:54Speaker 00

  yesterday period. Before the war, the average was over 130. Uh, the blockade put on by the US is still in force. So nothing is in or out of any Iranian port without their say so. Iran's answer has been to just keep blowing things up. Uh, two Adnok tankers were hit on Thursday, a third Friday night, Saturday. Um, they had one log projectile through the hull of a bulk carrier. Abu Dhabi is calling, uh, all of this piracy by the Revolutionary Guard. So there's not even agreement among the GCC nations. Um, there have been 16 of the 18 strikes, uh, recorded since July 6th happened on the southern route. Uh, the one CENTCOM that, uh, keeps insisting is open, of course. So basically, they're

• 1:14:39Speaker 00

  hugging the Amman coast, and that's exactly what Iran is looking out for because they wanna force everybody to go through the approved channels. And by the way, you've got the Houthi problem in the Red Sea. They put three ballistic missiles into Yemeni, uh, a Yemeni vessel last week. They, that killed six people, by the way. Um, these are the first shipping deaths off of Yemeni, uh, off of Yemen, excuse me, uh, in a year. So all of this is such a big mess. Now, what I don't expect to happen, even though this has run out, would be a return to the February bombing campaign. Trump told Fox News, he has no timeline, he isn't in a hurry. He's trying to get on the other side of the midterms. He's betting

• 1:15:20Speaker 00

  that the blockade is gonna break Tehran before Tehran is able to break him politically. Um, though he's also threatened, uh, this morning to bomb Oman if it gets in the way, which I mean, that is the most Trump thing ever. Uh, I know you used to do nice things for me, but what have you done for me lately? I'm gonna hit you with some bombs, just keep you in line. This is obviously a longstanding shit show at this point. Now, what I do expect to happen is that Iran is going to make a play as we get towards the midterms. So control of the Senate, uh, and the House is on the ballot in November, and Democrats are running on gas prices, on DSA-style stuff, uh, and this war. And so if they can really

• 1:16:03Speaker 00

  create problems for Trump right as the midterms are going, take it to a fever pitch, make him get out over his skis, um, then the odds that he loses control of the House and the Senate go up. Will it necessarily happen? No, of course not. But the odds of it go up. And you had a Revolutionary Guard advisor already floating the idea of prolonging the fight until Trump is just out of office. So they've been saying, yeah, this is gonna keep going until Trump is out of office in 2029, at the beginning of 29. Uh, so that's basically their play. So I'd be very surprised if something like that doesn't happen. But we'll see if the US can actually, uh, break the blockade. Now, as, um, luck would have

• 1:16:46Speaker 00

  it, uh, one of my former employees is Iranian, and he ended up of several years ago, he moved back to Iran, but has now escaped. I'll use the word escape. I haven't clarified from him yet if it was really an escape or if he was just allowed to leave. Um, but the vibe is that countries are divided, so you've gotta take this with a grain of salt. This is one person. But he was saying, yeah, people really are more afraid of the regime than they are afraid of the US bombs. And I was like, damn. So anyway, take it with a grain of salt. That's one person. But, uh, I did find that to be an interesting factoid. So I'm hoping I can speak to him more and get a clearer sense. Cause he was like, listen, you're being propagandized hardcore. Uh, only people that are actually

• 1:17:28Speaker 00

  living there can give you a real count of what's going on. And of course, they're constant. Cause I was like, dude, I tried to reach out to you. And he's like, bro, our internet was shut down. Uh, so, um, yeah, it very hard to get a true sense of how close the Iranians are to actually breaking. So we'll see.

• 1:17:44Speaker 02

  And did he re-immigrate to America? Or is he like?

• 1:17:48Speaker 00

  Yeah, no, he's back. He's back here in LA. I've invited him into the office. So hopefully we'll get a chance to sit down with him. He's not really a guy that probably wants to be on camera, but I'll certainly offer the invitation. Uh, be very cool to be able to ask him what's really going on. I do think also he has security reasons not, uh, to go on camera. So, um, yeah, we'll see.

• 1:18:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's, there's a lot of propaganda. Of course, everybody's saying what they think is gonna happen next. And it's their fault, it's our fault, we need to take over, things like that. But at the very surface level, whether it's Saudi's fault, Iran's fault, whoever. It seems like we're stuck. Like, we don't have a solution out. We don't have a clear path out there. We don't know what the necessary next steps are. Is that to oversimplify?

• 1:18:33Speaker 00

  No. This, you live in a world of force. If you can't force someone to do what you want, whether that is violent force, whether that's economic force, if you can't force them to do what you want, then odds are that they won't do what you want. And this is a thing that we see repeat all throughout history. You can conquer people, you can even take them over, but that doesn't stop them from starting to undermine you, become terroristic, making ruling over them near impossible. Look at England and what happened in India. Ultimately, they're able to boot the British out of India. So even if you are there and you've got the monopoly on violence, there are ways that people can make it absolutely impossible to govern them.

• 1:19:16Speaker 00

  And so, I mean, that's a really interesting thing with the Palestinians, man. Look at Egypt. Egypt's like, nope, hard pass.

• 1:19:24Speaker 00

  Anyway, fascinating thing that people can become impossible to govern. And so if you are unable to truly defeat somebody militarily, if you're able to defeat them militarily, but you can't rule them in a way that they're willing to accept, then you're going to be perpetually in these big quagmires. This is a big part of the reason that you didn't see Genghis Khan take over the territory and then it stay. Alexander the Great, you know, conquers the known world, but he can't keep it. Obviously, he dies, but I'm saying that these things always just break apart because people don't agree. This is the thing that I come back to with the DSA over and over and over and over and over is ultimately,

• 1:20:06Speaker 00

  the reason I know that the DSA policies are never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to work is communism will fail forever because you can't get everybody to agree to working hard and then distributing that to people who aren't working hard. They will start speaking up and then that will threaten your system. And when they threaten your system, then you have to use violence to keep them in line. And so now you have a system that is worse in terms of the outcomes that it delivers, and you have to use force. At least capitalism makes life better for, I mean, when you look at it as a totality, it makes life better for everybody. It does not create equality, but it makes life better for everybody. And so that's why it becomes easier to govern people in a capitalist system because you have to use much less force. It's not that you don't have to use any force,

• 1:20:50Speaker 00

  but you have to use much less force. And so whenever you have a system where you can just look at it and go, the human mind is going to reject that. So I know you're going to have to use extreme force. Therefore, this is not going to work in the fullness of time because people do everything they can to undermine you. There was a famous saying back in Russia. They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. And so that ends up stalling out your economy because nobody's going to do the extra thing, push, go the extra mile. It becomes this predictable doom loop based on just human psychology. So that's a position that Trump should have been able to predict that, well, if you can't beat them militarily and then govern them in a way that they want to be governed or get them to rise up themselves, you're going to end up in a quagmire where they're just going to keep

• 1:21:35Speaker 00

  hitting enough ships that try to transit that now nobody wants to go through the strait. And so you have to keep your blockade to try to pressure them to hope that you can break them, but they're willing to endure a whole lot of economic suffering. And they've got a lot of guns and their citizens don't have guns. So they will shoot their citizens in the face of they have, as they have already proven, to keep them in line. And so it just becomes a losing proposition where diplomatic solutions won't work with the theocratic regime and you don't have enough munitions to break them militarily. And do you even have the moral authority to do it? Will your country back you? And so you're stuck in this position where the war games that they ran leading up to this should have asked one question,

• 1:22:20Speaker 00

  which is what will you do if the sanctions and the, their ability to hit the ships going through the strait lasts for three or four years? What will you do? And if you don't have a compelling answer to that, don't go into it. And so as we now look at it, it just becomes clear we should not have entered this. And I get the impulse, like if you grant that the real impulse, and trust me, I know there are reasons to not believe this, but if you grant that the real impulse was to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, it is clear that whenever they started burying things, and I don't know if Trump one would have been early enough to go after them, but once they started burying things,

• 1:23:03Speaker 00

  it made it impossible to completely disarm them without a ground invasion. And we're clearly not going to do that, which means the game was already over. So the time to play this stop them from getting a nuclear weapon was when they started burying things. And we didn't make that move. And so it's just one of those, well, we should have done it then, but we didn't. And so here we are. Now, if he breaks them and survives politically, then people will look back at this and be like, ooh, they saved us from a nuclear Iran. But right now it just looks quagmirey.

• 1:23:36Speaker 02

  Yeah, very quagmirey. But you brought it up, the DSA. Let's jump over to the newest primary seat holder of the Democratic Party in Michigan, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. He was sat down with CNN.

• 1:23:50Speaker 06

  Democratic voters are frustrated, as I don't need to tell you. They don't think that your party's doing enough to fight Donald Trump on these issues especially, like affordability. If you're elected as a Democratic Senator with a Republican President in November, what can you actually do about that?

• 1:24:08Speaker 07

  Well, look, let me just tell you the picture from my state. We've been up and down the state now. I've been at this for 15 months, been to 110 cities, over 500 public events. Everywhere I go, people say the same thing. It just shouldn't be this hard. It shouldn't be this hard to afford your groceries or fill up your tank or worry about getting sick without having to worry about losing everything too. And we ran this campaign to do three things. Get money out of politics, put money in your pocket, pass Medicare for all. When I'm elected to the US Senate, the first thing we need to do is start holding the Trump administration accountable. You know, when we win, God willing, I will take my seat as a member of a Senate majority. That gives us subpoena power to be able to investigate all of the ways that this administration has used their power for their gain and enrichment and against ours.

• 1:24:52Speaker 07

  And I think that means hauling them up to really understand all the conversations that were had about who got to get refunds after this terrible tariff policy? Who got to get excluded from those refunds? It means hauling up people like RFK Jr. and holding them accountable for the dozing of our public health apparatus for which we now need to be dodging lettuce across the state of Michigan for fear of getting explosive diarrhea, which nobody ever thought would be a consequence of electing Donald Trump. But here we are. So it's those powers and then the ability to set up, to build the runway for a president in 2028, who can come in and start doing the things to hold the big corporations accountable, to start enforcing antitrust policy, to start rethinking our tax system so it's less burdensome on everyday people

• 1:25:36Speaker 07

  and we're taxing billionaires their wealth, and to stand up for unions who have been critical to winning fair wages.

• 1:25:43Speaker 00

  Okay, so this is one of those things where he's got some good points. You absolutely should hold government accountable. Governments should have to answer for themselves. So I love anybody that's saying that. Subpoena them, get them there, find out what's really going on. All of that I love. Once you start talking about we have to tax billionaires their wealth, that, that obviously is the one for me that's just completely discrediting. And I remember when my initial reaction to Kamala Harris saying that she wanted to do these top-down grocery stores where we were going to control prices. And I was like, hold on, do you guys understand where this goes? It was like, oh, Tom's overreacting, like she's, I can't remember if people were saying she's just spitballing or whatever. I was like, no, no, no, hold on. If you can even make that suggestion, you are so economically illiterate.

• 1:26:28Speaker 00

  We cannot have you in the White House. The level of danger that that poses to the American economy, if you want everything to get worse, fuck up the economy. And so now we've got so much energy on the left for breaking the economy at the most fundamental level. It is completely disqualifying. Now, this guy has said a whole host of other crazy shit that you can certainly pin him down on. But I'm telling you, when somebody is that economically illiterate, when they are coming from a populist vibes perspective, people hate billionaires and so we're going to tax these guys their wealth, which I assure, if he understands the first layer of, okay, yes, I understand the difference between wealth and money. He certainly does not understand the knock-on consequences

• 1:27:13Speaker 00

  of what that's going to mean to the economy. And boy, would I love to hear, what exactly is your plan to make the economy better? Because if you can't lay that out from a cause and effect perspective, which of course he will not be able to, he will fall back on communist talking points, which will all be emotional vibes and be absolutely ruinous to the actual functioning of the everyday economy. Then this is somebody, this guy and everybody that talks about taxing wealth has got to be kept as far away from the halls of power as humanly possible. If you want the middle class to thrive, period, end of story. If you want the middle class to thrive, I better hear all kinds of talk about you're going to tighten up the border.

• 1:27:56Speaker 00

  I better hear all kinds of talk about we're not going to keep importing cheap labor. I better hear all kinds of talk about we need to be fiscally disciplined. I better hear all kinds of talk about we've got to get rid of fraud in the government. We cannot have people fleecing us simply because we are the world's reserve currency and we can run these insane deficits. And now people are just taking insane advantage of that. I better hear, what is the plan? Do you understand why Hamilton had the thesis that he had about when you're in a position where you don't have good manufacturing, you're going to have to protect yourself from other countries that are. You have to build up your own internal manufacturing base. You're going to have to temporarily use a minor amount of debt.

• 1:28:39Speaker 00

  But then you've got to cut that off and let the engine of prosperity do what the engine of prosperity does. Like if you don't understand why that was true then, why you have to reverse course on so many things to get us back to something that looks more like that today. If you don't understand, we're already, he was saying to stop taxing everyday Americans. But who will these guys ask us to say, I'm not a communist as the DSA. I'm like the Nordic countries. Who do the Nordic countries tax the life out of? The middle class, the working class, the wealthy, everybody, they all get taxed to death. It is the only way to have a broad based tax enough that you can actually support these policies. So there is no way, if you're just, and just as a reminder,

• 1:29:24Speaker 00

  the corporate tax rate is lower in the Nordic countries than it is here in the US. The US has a problem of having this weird hybrid mix of socialism and capitalism, where we end up guaranteeing payments to the corporations through the government. That is so dumb. You have to let corporations die that don't know what they're doing. If you don't let corporations die, if you start taking stakes in companies like Trump is doing, which is suicidal, absolutely stupid, immediately stop. If you are trying to make everything in the world free by breaking the engine of prosperity and trying to tax the very people who create the jobs and create the industry and the innovation, like you're going to reduce the tax base, as has been proven over and over throughout history.

• 1:30:09Speaker 00

  So we have a set of very difficult things that we must do before us that require discipline, that require a focus on the middle class, that requires to get the cost of housing down, that requires to make it possible to save your way to prosperity, instead of gambling your way to prosperity. They are knowable things, they're straightforward, they're not going to be politically easy, but they are the real things. And so anybody that is beating the populist drum, if we vote them into office, we are unfortunately going to get what we deserve, which is an economy that slides ever more into socialism, which will be worse, taking less tax dollars, which will require us to print more money, which will cause the banks, the central banks, the world over,

• 1:30:54Speaker 00

  that are already running away from our debt and into gold to do so faster. Then it will cause people that actually understand the economy to start buying gold, to get out of US debt, which then puts you in this insane spiral.

• 1:31:06Speaker 02

  Tom, I don't understand how you said all that and you just haven't described the economy right now. We are increasingly more socialist, we are collecting less than tax revenue. We are increasing the deficits, we are losing our spot as the global reserve currency. We are having the central banks print right that. All that is happening today, right now, currently.

• 1:31:24Speaker 00

  Yes, I did explain why it's happening today. So what do you mean I'm not explaining the economy?

• 1:31:28Speaker 02

  Because you're saying if we elect these people, we're just going to have an economy that's increasingly more socialist. So you're saying you want somebody to break the current trajectory that we're already on?

• 1:31:35Speaker 00

  Yeah, so let me, I'll give you an analogy. Let's say that you are a couples therapist and there's two couples therapists, couples in trouble. And part of the reason that the couple's in trouble is that the husband's beating the wife.

• 1:31:52Speaker 02

  We need to have less domestic violence.

• 1:31:54Speaker 00

  No, no, because this cuts through all the bullshit. And I'm going to keep using this example because there's nowhere to hide, because this is what's happening. So in this, the politicians are the husband, the wife is the middle class. And you've got a husband, let's call him a Republican or Trump, and he's clearly beating the wife. This is a bad idea. And he's going, okay, but hold on, I want my wife to be happy and healthy. I need to beat her a little bit so that I can get everything moving in the right direction. I can tariff, I can do all that stuff, I can get things back. I'm going to buy some of these companies like therapists like, hold on. That is, that's beating your wife when you hit her like that, that's bad, we don't want to do that. Oh, even with just with my open hand?

• 1:32:39Speaker 00

  Yes, yes, even with your open hand. Then the other husband that she's considering marrying, which is better than saying the other therapist, the other husband that she's considering getting in a relationship with is like, I have a rubber mallet. And it's not wood, Drew, it's a rubber mallet. But I am admittedly going to put her hand on the table and smash it with a rubber mallet. And it's like, wait, that's worse.

• 1:33:03Speaker 02

  Is that the Democrat party or is that the DSA?

• 1:33:05Speaker 00

  That is anybody who wants to tax wealth. Anybody who wants to control the economy from the top down. These are a level of abuse that is so much higher that it's like, what the fuck? I'm not, if anybody thinks they hear me defending Trump, that person is full retard. You can do a super clip of me saying all the dastardly things that Trump is doing. You will not find a super clip of me being like, he's amazing. So that's where I'm like, I'm not defending Trump. I'm saying the bad things that he does are bad, but they are not as bad as the proposals.

• 1:33:47Speaker 00

  And so the ideas that people are putting forth are so economically violent that it's like, guys, you've got to cut through the bullshit and understand how bad this is. So this isn't about going, oh, one of them is good and one of them is bad. They're both bad, but oh my God, one of them is much worse. So Trump is trying to profit off of a functioning economy. The DSA, out of resentment and absolute economic illiteracy

• 1:34:23Speaker 00

  and a hunger for power and a deep reliance on feminized, weaponized compassion, want to take control of everything and run it from the top down. And that leads to mass starvation. I know people don't like this, but it leads to mass starvation. So your best case scenario is Soviet style breadlines. I am always going to be more animated by that because the level of destruction is so much worse.

• 1:35:03Speaker 02

  As we played this clip, were you reacting to the clip or reacting to him as a representative of the DSA?

• 1:35:09Speaker 00

  I'm reacting to the clip. He says to tax billionaires their wealth.

• 1:35:15Speaker 02

  Okay, because I want to break a couple of things down. Because in the clip, he talks about holding the Trump administration accountable.

• 1:35:25Speaker 00

  Which I said I liked.

• 1:35:26Speaker 02

  Yep, cool. Then he talked about the tariff refund policy. We haven't talked about tariffs on the show in a while. How do you feel about the tariff refund policy and how certain corporations got it, certain didn't?

• 1:35:35Speaker 00

  It's almost certainly true that what the government should be doing is passing laws so that Trump doesn't have to do this outside of the system thing that he's doing. So he's going about the right thing in the wrong way. So did the Supreme Court do the right thing by the letter of the law? I haven't looked closely enough at the law to know the answer to that. So I'll just assume that they did. Now, let's talk about fundamentally, what does a country have to do? I was in the UK recently and I saw BYD as a car company now more frequently than I saw traditional British car companies. It's not this anecdotal, could have been the neighborhood, whatever. But the fact that they let BYD into the UK.

• 1:36:23Speaker 00

  Is one example, I would imagine, among many of where they're letting China undermine their ability to manufacture. That is a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea back in the 90s, but we couldn't see it clearly. And so we ran the experiment of what does it look like when you go, the whole world is going to hold hands forever? And since the whole world's going to hold hands forever, there's no reason for us to be the manufacturer. Let's go where the labor is cheaper and then we'll teach them how to manufacture. So we send over a couple of smart people, they teach them how to do it. And then we bring our smart people back and we, we let them do their thing and then we all get a much cheaper iPhone.

• 1:37:07Speaker 00

  And the fact that people try to commit suicide at Foxconn, let them put up the nets. So we don't have to deal with that. Uh, we'll let them do that. And then we all benefit from the things that are cheap, but over time you begin to realize, oh, our middle class is weakening. And our middle class is weakening very, for a very specific reason. That very specific reason is, um, they don't have good jobs that match their desire and their skillset. And we're forcing everybody into an elite pipeline, meaning highly educated, um, academic pursuits. So they are not moving electrons in the real world. They are ideation. And so there's not enough jobs for people to ideate. So then those people become revolutionaries.

• 1:37:51Speaker 00

  And the middle class suffers ever the more because you get things like, um, the woman Tracy Rosenthal, who ends up, um, doing everything she can to bankrupt her landlord, uh, who almost certainly was not, if my understanding of the story is correct, he's an immigrant trying to make ends meet, owns a building. I don't know if he owns multiple, but the odds that he's like some wealthy billionaire are effectively zero. Uh, and so in terms of take home pay, on paper, he might be worth more money because he owns the building. But in terms of like actual, um, equity in the building, like how much does he own there? Anyway, uh, you, you get that and a whole bunch of other things that end up eviscerating the middle class. Too much debt for them because of college, can't afford a house because of things we talked about a thousand times before.

• 1:38:33Speaker 00

  And so all of this has to do with this globalized view of what the world should be. And when you hear somebody like El Said, he didn't in this clip, but when you hear him talk about, um, borders, immigration and all that, that's somebody who, through what I'll call weaponized compassion, is undermining the middle class further. Because now, instead of outsourcing it to China, you just bring cheap labor into the US. But you saw of American citizens now that either can't get a job or they can't get a job that pays enough for them to actually feed a family. And so all of these economic perturbations are racing in the wrong direction from El Said personally.

• 1:39:16Speaker 00

  He is very clear to say he's not the DSA, but they have overlapping, violently overlapping ideologies and policies. So to me, that is a distinction without a difference. But he, he is putting forward very specific policies that you can point to and say, this will be worse for workers. This will be worse for the middle class. And to me, it's, you can just take them literally policy by policy to show how this is nonsensical.

• 1:39:42Speaker 02

  Onto the next one was, um, holding RFK responsible for dozing the FDA through his leadership at the HHS. That's where he had the explosive diarrhea with the lettuce and stuff like that. We've had, had an increase in outbreaks. Taylor Farms has been the proponent of a lot of these things. They are Trump donors.

• 1:39:58Speaker 00

  I haven't looked at the data closely enough. And so if we look at the data and we see, ooh, under RFK, like bad things really are ticking up, uh, then fair enough. But if you look at even just what he's done from the food pyramid perspective, that's revolutionary. And so we have a government that has a history from the 60s or 70s of abusing the populace so horrifically that to say that he's like some unique evil, it is a, a claim I will not tolerate. So this is somebody, now again, he's either evil or ignorant. I don't care which, but he's one of them. And he knows, he knows or he's ignorant to the fact that the American government has put forward that you should be eating glucose, sugar as like the base of the pyramid.

• 1:40:44Speaker 00

  That, that is a, I'm not joking. That is a crime against humanity. And every administration, Republican, Democrat alike, have had the opportunity to unwind that and they haven't. Now, have they not because of lobbies? Almost certainly. So back to money and politics and how, um, corporations are leveraging that to get at people, which is why I say, uh, breakup monopolies, I've championed that a gazillion times. Get money out of politics. I've championed that a gazillion times. I am not for, um, corporations should just be able to do what the hell they want. But to make out like, oh, the government is who needs to be in control. Uh, and we've got this rogue agent over here that's come in and he's like fucking everything up because

• 1:41:26Speaker 00

  there's a parasite in the lettuce when my entire life, there have been outbreaks of different things. Again, maybe there's a trend here that I'm unaware of, but I remember living through the E. coli outbreak. So food is very hard. And the fact that we have gotten as far as we have by scaling this stuff up as far as we have is breathtaking already. So I'm gonna need to look at the evidence again. Maybe it's there and I just haven't seen it, but I don't see any evidence of that. The rates of, um, autism are sky high. It's crazy. There is a problem somewhere. We need to figure out what that is. Now, JFK may be wrong about what that is. That's entirely possible. Let's have that debate in public.

• 1:42:07Speaker 00

  But before RFK, it was shut up. You're going to be erased from society because you have views that we consider to be false. So people are acting as if everything was normal. We weren't being abused by government policy before RFK. Now we've got a lunatic in there and we are being abused. Hard, hard pass, hard pass. So, um, this is not me saying RFK is right about everything. I don't know if vaccines have anything to do with autism whatsoever. Uh, but that is certainly an area where having somebody that has a heterodox view, I'm all for. Give me more heterodox views.

• 1:42:43Speaker 02

  So do we use this analogy though, the open hand versus the rubber mallet again of, in this current administration where we have had an increase in outbreaks, this is a rubber mallet in this specific situation.

• 1:42:53Speaker 00

  If that really is true, I would be all for that. And if people are saying, listen, RFK is provably doing bad things, great. Like go after it. But when somebody de facto says that, listen, what we finally need is, because keep in mind, he wants bigger government, not smaller. So a guy who's like, we need more government, bigger government, more tax dollars, wealth, give us everything. Now we're going to go implement these policies and we've got to hold this guy to account because insert bad thing happened here. It's like, you should always want politicians that have the conviction of their beliefs. If RFK really believes that he, the things that he's saying, yeah, great. Then that's exactly what you should see. You should get somebody that believes it, pushes the agenda of the thing that they believe is true.

• 1:43:36Speaker 00

  If you have somebody that's lying, Fauci, and they are actually taking you down a path and you can prove that they're lying, go after that motherfucker all day. If that's RFK, if RFK is knowingly fucking kids up for some reason because he's in the pocket of Big Pharma or whatever, fuck that kid. Put him in jail. Love it. But if you have somebody who sincerely is saying, I see a problem. And that person goes through all the confirmation hearings and all of that, uh, and they're acting sincerely, that's as the system should work. So again, I'm not saying that RFK is right about everything. I don't know. I haven't looked at all of that stuff. But I will tell you that we have been abused by the government so aggressively that you have a population where life expectancy is going down, morbid obesity has set in.

• 1:44:22Speaker 00

  The way that they've told us to live, the, um, ways that we have abused the food supply, all of that have been absolutely horrific. And it has been on the back of science that was blatant manipulation. That fat became the enemy, again, is a crime against humanity because I believe the people were knowingly lying. And that the problem was obviously and known to be sugar and they buried it. And so that, that to me is unconscionable. And so the fact that RFK has spoken for that, the fact that the Trump administration has actually at a minimum gotten that changed? Great. Now, are they fucking up vaccines? Maybe. And maybe that's a real problem.

• 1:45:06Speaker 00

  And maybe we're going to see huge consequences. Maybe this is rubber mallet and people need to go in, get these fucking guys out. Very possible, but show me. Show me that that's real.

• 1:45:14Speaker 02

  Got you. All right. We got a story time with AI and how it got a court case thrown out.

• 1:45:20Speaker 08

  I was at the shops yesterday and I overheard two girls talking and one of them was talking about how she had jury duty and it had gotten canceled and the whole jury had been dismissed because some guy decided, one of the other jurors had decided to go home and put all of the information from the trial that the jury had received into chat GPT to try to solve the case. And they had to dismiss the whole jury. So.

• 1:45:55Speaker 08

  Yep.

• 1:45:56Speaker 00

  Okay, first, let's be very clear. This is anecdotal. This is overheard. We don't have the first hand thing, but it's a wonderful thought experiment in terms of what's really going on? What are we gonna have to get to through all of this? There is some weird assessment that people have about AI that AI is like worse than Wikipedia, which is what? Like, this is crazy. Now, AI is very fallible, so you should be using it to put together what is actually happening. So if you dump in the, here's the information from the trial, who do you think is guilty? That's insane. But if you're using AI to figure something out, like, hey, I need to understand, is this thing true? Doing your own research, but using AI

• 1:46:38Speaker 00

  to do research, AI is the single most profound research tool that has ever existed in humanity. And by the way, it is only going to get better. And so we have to be very cognizant that the different makers of AI are coding in biases. So you cannot take it as just like, oh, whatever it tells me is going to be true, because it's riddled with the human bias. However, dude, when I look at, okay, my goal is to get to cause and effect. And so I need a quick way to find out what's going on, even just as having a resource that will go out into the universe and pull in sources and say, here are the, you know, 14 reports and studies that you should be looking at. Cool, give me those. Okay, that was way faster than it would have been historically.

• 1:47:23Speaker 00

  So also, everything on the internet right now, which I don't think anybody's saying, don't use the internet to do research. So everything on the internet carries the same bias. Wikipedia is ridiculously biased. Social media is obviously ridiculously biased. And so people are now saying, as if somehow AI is like this unique thing. Again, I've said this before, and I will keep saying this, all of people's anti-AI sentiment, I think, is detached from what it is actually like to engage with AI, and is based on anxieties that AI is going to eliminate their jobs. The reality is, AI has wild limitations. They become very easy to see the more you interact with AI. But AI is an extraordinary tool for going out and bringing information

• 1:48:04Speaker 00

  back, by being able to then go through that information, ask questions based on the information, to have a debate partner. So you can say, okay, here's what I think, prove me wrong. And then it will give you arguments, and then you argue back those points. You can get AI to go, you're right, I was wrong about that. Here's why I was thinking that. Here is the juxtaposition that I did that I shouldn't have done. It will even tell you why it now believes that it's wrong. And so there are ways that you can use AI as a debate partner to sharpen your own thinking. Now, whenever you're saying something where you can't enumerate the cause and effect steps of why you believe that you're right, what the consequences are going to be, then I'm not going to take your information anyway. I need to understand, what are you actually saying? Like, what is the cause and

• 1:48:49Speaker 00

  effect? What is the first principles from which you were building up from? But if you use AI to help you build first principles thinking, holy shit. Drew, because I use AI every day in different disciplines, so I'll use it on Kaizen, I will use it on preparing for what's going on in the Iran War, all of that stuff. But I'm not just like, tell me what it is, and then I run with it. It's like, you're debating it back and forth, you're trying to figure out, okay, what's this, what's, you know, not that. Like, we're going to be talking shortly about what's going on in China, how their housing crisis intersects with this lending crisis that they're going through. And so it's like, okay, you're taking a gigantic topic. And like, how does it interface with the US? So

• 1:49:31Speaker 00

  it is absolutely staggeringly large. And so there are going to be facts as you go through, you're going to need to be like, wait, does that work like that in the US? And then it's like, okay, here's the information, here's the data that I'm pulling this from. It's like, that is a miracle of being able to do it. Though, what I liken it to is, you have, your best friend is the smartest person in the world on every topic, and you can just ask some questions. But he's still a fucking human, like, he's gonna have biases, he's gonna be dumb to something, right? And so it's like, if what your friend tells you doesn't make sense, ask more questions. And then your friend might be like, yeah, actually, I don't know a lot about that. Okay, fine, cool, now I know. So when we march into the future, there will come a day where I will consider it

• 1:50:16Speaker 00

  a miscarriage of justice if my jury isn't forced to dialogue with AI. Where I'll be like, wait, you let 12 people that don't know anything about whatever, insert a thing that I'm being accused of here.

• 1:50:31Speaker 02

  Thirty odd six, uh, bullet ballistics?

• 1:50:34Speaker 00

  Perfect, I'm not sure why, but okay. So bullet ballistics, blood splatter, whatever. And so now, it's like, hold on. I want to make sure, first of all, the attorneys are trying to manipulate you, so that's already a thing. And then second, the jury, if you've ever watched 12 Angry Men, you see how one powerful voice on a jury can sway other people. So now that person gets sort of mind control over the jury. And so eventually, this obviously is not ready for this today, I'm not saying today, but eventually, just like the attorneys battle for what jury members are we gonna select, they're gonna battle over what AI becomes the like dialogue partner with the jury.

• 1:51:17Speaker 00

  And so, yeah, like, this is, we're going to get to a point where AI is the closest thing to an arbiter of truth that we're going to get. Now, I don't think any of us ever want to fully remove humans from the equation, because that's just not how human life works. But having AI there to be able to help parse information or say what something means, I think will be very important. And then for people to know that they can argue back.

• 1:51:46Speaker 02

  Yeah, we'll see the future of the adoption of AI in different industries and how it becomes normalized in different sects of society. So this was just really interesting.

• 1:51:55Speaker 00

  Yes, and the future of AI is going to be very surprising, very weird, and it is going to touch areas of our lives that we are not yet thinking about. Up to and including, right now, this gets a jury dismissed. In the future, I think there will be other things related to AI, either not using AI, AI goes rogue, AI pulls information from some crazy site, and people disagree with it. Like, all of that is going to get in the mix. And there will be a day where it will be considered a hot topic of debate that they're not allowing AI in the courtroom. So get ready for that.

• 1:52:32Speaker 02

  Um, yeah, there's been a litany of stories about crime offenses this week, starting with the New Mexico House Leader Cheryl Williams Stapleton convicted of diverting public education funds to her friends and getting kickbacks. Massachusetts Mayor Brian DeBena charged for stealing COVID relief funds. NJ Councilwoman Gina La Pasha charged for faking signatures to qualify for the ballot. Georgia Rep. Sharon Henderson pleaded guilty to stealing COVID funds. Missouri City Executive Philip Levoda indicted for bribery charges. Vice Mayor Columbus, Mississippi, Josh Joseph Miken charged for rigging a city contract bid to be awarded to his own company. That last one's funny. The party of fraud and corruption.

• 1:53:14Speaker 00

  Yeah, so I hate the last little bit, because this is obviously, they're being selective about pointing out the things that Democrats have done, broaden it out. It's just right now, man, this is really heartbreaking to see Americans just absolutely mired in a level of corruption that as a kid, I just could not have believed. You heard in other countries that this kind of thing was always happening. But man, to see it happening as much as it's happening now, and I think a big part of this is because we're in a populist moment where everybody thinks the other side is so wrong, that it's right to, if you're stealing money, to empower your side, like, the guy from Black Eyed Peas, uh, no, sorry, not Black Eyed Peas, the Fujis, he ended up getting

• 1:53:57Speaker 00

  convicted and sentenced to 14 years, I think, in prison for illegally funneling foreign dollars into Obama's election campaign. And so he just reported to prison. And it's like, dude, that is when, and I have no reason to believe that Obama was in on that, just to be very clear, but he faced a trial and got sentenced. So I will assume he legitimately did it. He failed to declare himself an actor of a foreign state. When you believe that it is so right and so just that my side win, that I will do whatever it takes, I will violate whatever law I need to, to get this across the finish line, that's when people derail. And for me, this is happening on

• 1:54:42Speaker 00

  both sides, man. But what we need are people absolutely obsessed with bipartisan uncovering of fraud, uncovering of waste, like, that should be the single thing that everybody can come together on, and we're not able to come together on that. And we as taxpayers are just being milked, like, this is so crazy. So I am admittedly very happy to see that people are going to jail over this. I'm very happy to see that people are being pursued legally over this. I'm very happy to see that it's just being brought to the surface so that people are more paranoid about their leaders. And man, this is never gonna happen, but I really wish that both sides were looking at their own

• 1:55:22Speaker 00

  team and being like, hey, what is my own team doing here? Because I want my own team playing from a place of honor, honor and integrity. And Warren Buffett talked about this in a really interesting way. And he said, when you're hiring somebody, you should look for integrity, intelligence, and energy. But he said, if they don't have integrity, you really hope that they're stupid and lazy. And I was like, yes, that is absolutely true. But unfortunately, certainly right now, politics is attracting these like Machiavellian types that are dark triad, that are smart, but just completely unprincipled, and high energy motivated to get their side to win. It is,

• 1:56:05Speaker 00

  that is one of the things that's most scary about a populist moment, is people are just win at all costs. And that will erode the moral fabric of our country very fast. All right, boys and girls, thank you so much for joining us once again. Much appreciated. We've got a new masterclass coming out, and it is Thursday, September 10th, at 1:00 PM Pacific Time, for free. It's all free, free, free, free. I will show you how to build a business using AI. Link is in the description sign up now, and I will see you guys on Wednesday. Until then, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens.

• 1:56:47Speaker 00

  We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break, and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements, and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription.

• 1:57:27Speaker 00

  You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2, and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.