The Adam Mockler Show - Pete EXPOSES Elon Live... His Friends Go SILENT!

Episode Date: November 1, 2025

Shop Adam's new merch collection ➡️ https://shop.adammockler.com/ Click below for premium Adam Mockler content 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@adammockler/join 👉 https://adammockler.com Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network breaks down JOIN THE COMMUNITY: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.com/ Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@adammockler Contact: [e-mail] Business inquiries: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - Mockler Media LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Boarding for flight 246 to Toronto is delayed 50 minutes. Ugh, what? Sounds like Ojo time. Play Ojo? Great idea. Feel the fun with all the latest slots in live casino games and with no wagering requirements. What you win is yours to keep groovy. Hey, I won! Boarding will begin when passenger fisher is done celebrating.

19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close, you call 1866-3-3-1-2-60 or visit comixonterio.ca. a third of the time. When I look at it, I just can't understand how the Democratic Party hates us so much, hates entrepreneurs. And that's how they feel. But that's how Silicon Valley feels. So whether you want to deny it or not, but it feels like this, there's, like, all right, let's jump into a debate breakdown. They tried to trap my boy, Secretary Pete Buttigieg. He went on the All In podcast, which is a more tech bro podcast. They have people like Elon Musk. They also regularly have David Sacks, who's a part of the O.G. crew, that's Trump's Crypto-Zar. So it's not necessarily

a right-wing podcast. It's more about tech, but they selectively cover stories that are bad for the left culturally while never talking about Epstein, for example. I watched this for the past few months. They never brought up Epstein throughout all of this, despite Elon Musk being pretty involved with that whole saga. But in this case, Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Hopsin, with Chimoth polyopedia and with Jason on the top left. My read of it is that Jason was very, very good faith. Mayor Pete, or Secretary Pete, was very, very good faith. Chimov was trying to be, but he had this aura of smugness throughout the entire thing.

He's sitting there like a viper waiting to strike with some question when Secretary Pete is just trying to explain his overall philosophy. So when this clip starts or before this clip starts, Jason is essentially, asking, hey, Secretary Pete, you went on Bill Moore recently, and you said that tech bros and rich men switched from the Democratic Party to the Republicans just for money, that rich men like Republicans, Republicans help rich men. Don't you think that's a bit simplistic? That's what Jason's saying.

Do you think there could be other reasons why this is happening? And just keep in mind, this is a tech pro podcast. So this question is like framed. This is about them. This is about them. They took personal offense to this. Secretary Pete jumps in, and I'll play his answer. He's got a very, very nuanced answer.

He says, no, it's not just one thing. But I do think that is a big reason. Now, a lot of people wonder why podcasts like this, why Secretary Pete should go on these? They say, Adam, why do you go on these random podcasts with Jesse Lee Peterson? It's because we need to strengthen. We need to sell our ideas. Liberals or people on the left, progressives, whatever you call yourself, we need to sell our ideas and package them better because, spoiler alert,

We're losing right now. We lost a lot throughout the election. So drop a like, subscribe. This is how we win. Let's watch this. Well, I don't think you can reduce it to any one thing, but I certainly think that's part of the story. Look, it's no secret that Republican policies tend to favor people who are wealthier. And a lot of the people who drifted away from the Democratic Party, at least the ones who were getting a lot of attention, like how could these business figures, investors, billionaires have gotten away from Democrats and gone.

to Republicans might be kind of a, you know, dog bites man story, like not something that's wildly complicated if you look at the fact that, you know, Democrats have been extremely concerned about wealth and income inequality. And, you know, you got a lot of very, very wealthy people. I don't think it was just that. I mean, I think there are a lot of things that kind of combined at once. But, you know, for a lot of my friends who are scratching their heads saying, wait a minute, these are folks who are from the tech and science world. How could they back a president or administration that's been deleting references to science and kind of censoring science, at least any time that climate is concerned?

A lot of the guys are libertarian. How could they be on board with the administration that is sending troops into streets and has really let it crack down on freedom that's kind of something out of the fever dreams of my conservative and libertarian friends? Okay, so these are very, very valid concerns. that Secretary Pete is raising, and I'm very glad that he is pushing them in these spaces. But of course, what you're going to see is Chimov hops in and tries to immediately bring it back to the most, I don't know, simplistic conservative talking points.

It's like he got this from Truth Social. He says, but what about the Biden admin censoring science during the COVID era? By science, he means the Biden admin was like, hey, can we please not spread disinformation about an active ongoing pandemic en masse on social media. A lot of this happened under Trump as well. I mean, it's just the administration reaching out and requesting, just asking, hey, is there a way that you can limit the amount of disinformation? There was no actual threat.

There was no consequence if they didn't do this. A threat requires a consequence. So you're going to see that happen. Later on in the podcast, I don't know if I clip this part up, but later on the podcast, they ask why Elon wasn't invited to the 24th. 2021 EV summit. And they list a bunch of Elon's accomplishments. So it's essentially, this is just a tech glaze fest. And Secretary Pete does a great job maneuvering. Back when we were, you know, arguing about politics over beers that I never thought I would see happen. Do you think that there

was censorship under the Biden administration for things like scientific truth? Let's just focus on COVID for a second. And the backdoors that it seemed that the Biden administration had to places like Facebook and places like Twitter to just suppress scientific thought and debate, as you just talked about. So this is an amazing example of some of the false equivalencies that I've seen thrown around out there. So, yeah, I would acknowledge. I think a lot of folks would say that, you know, it came really close to the stove some of the times when the administration was trying to make sure that, you know, bad information

or misinformation wasn't being pushed into the kind of public health conversation and was engaging social media companies that were trying to, you know, be responsible and do the right thing. And there might be moments that, you know, they got that wrong or went too far. Right now we're in a moment, right, where the president of the United States doesn't like being criticized by a comedian and has the head of the FCC, which regulates corporations that are trying to buy TV networks, go out and threaten them and say, you know, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.

I mean, that is a whole different level of censorship, not to mention just the way they've gone through like every government website, right, and deleted anything that could accidentally be a reference to climate change. So, you know, I'm worried about the false equivalencies here. You could definitely say there were moments under the last administration or any administration where we could argue that having fidelity to free speech, you know, you should have done this way instead of that way or these edge cases should have been different. But I am nervous that anybody would equate a president in trying to direct the destruction,

not only of journalists, but of comedians that he doesn't like, with public health authorities in a public health emergency that killed a million Americans doing their best to try to make sure that people got good public health in it. Thank you. Thank you. It is so nice to have somebody in these spaces saying, listen, these are false equivalencies. These are double standards. The health officials, during the peak of the COVID pandemic, reaching out and saying,

hey, we just request that you take down some disinformation. You don't have to. You don't have to do this. And then some companies choosing to remove some disinformation at times. Sometimes they didn't about the COVID pandemic and about the vaccines and about election fraud as well. I mean, it's different. It's different than what Trump is doing right now for many, many reasons. Let's continue.

They then press Secretary Pete for a while on waste, fraud, and abuse on his role as the Secretary of Transportation. And honestly, it's fair game. If you served in a government position, you can be pressed on your spot. I'm not opposed to that. Some of the questions do feel a little bit gotcha-e, like they're going back and forth a lot. But Secretary Pete really holds his own. He's definitely not someone who's, it's hard to describe. In these spaces, we benefit from doing these debates a lot going on TV debating.

It doesn't seem like he's somebody who's a super like, I want to debate the hell out of you, but he still knows policy better than anybody in the space. And his calm demeanor really does help as well. Let's take a listen to this clip. Folks putting out their charge point, et cetera. When it comes to putting fiber into rural areas, which the FTC was trying to do, they were going to spend $5,000 to $25,000 per home, and now we have Starlink and their competitors, again, back to Elon, which your party decided under Biden, you wouldn't even invite the guy to the EV summit. So let me talk about that, but we'll, I want to park that to the side because we should probably talk about what happened there.

Because by the way, let's forget that because I want to, I want to mention that up. Because when you, when, you know, I'm a, I'm a moderate, but voted Democrat about 65% of the time in Republican. Oh, we're getting into the justice. testifying voting record part of it. By the way, I'm glad I clipped this part up. They're basically trying to jump Secretary Pete on this podcast on Elon Musk's behalf because he wasn't invited to an EV summit four to five years ago. I mean, come on. Let's take a listen. A third of their time. When I look at it, I just can't understand how the Democratic Party hates us so much, hates entrepreneurs. And that's how they feel. But that's how Silicon Valley feels. So whether you want to deny it or

not. But it feels like this. I hate entrepreneurs. Like, I don't think most Democrats do. But I know what you mean about the vibes. And we should get to the piece about Elon particularly. But but but on the piece you're on the substance of the question you're raising. Yeah. I think it's really important to think of this as not like should it be government or should it be the private sector, but like which parts should government do and which parts should the private sector do. So to me, like the classic example is just the smartphone, right? I cannot imagine. that a smartphone designed by the federal government would be a pretty thing or that an app designed by it.

As a matter of fact, having been in the military and dealt with, I guess you could call them apps like some of the kind of software that you have to deal with, even if it's done by contractors, it's kind of done in a way that you can tell is designed by the government and it's not pretty. On the other hand, when you talk about capital allocation, the federal government literally invented the internet, right? So there's things, there's certain trillion-dollar ideas that the private sector just won't do because it doesn't pencil or because of whatever market failure is there.

That's where you need government. That's things like basic research. That's things like filling in gaps, especially on network effects like, you know, broadband, EV charging networks, that sort of thing where the bulk of it can be done quite well by the private sector, but there are pieces that just don't click unless you have federal involvement. Or an example of correcting inefficiency is the fact that a lot of large corporations, will pollute the air a lot and really F up climate change. Now, the private sector doesn't have any, like, limitations,

but the government can step in and essentially say, hey, let's correct this, let's set caps on this or this. That's an example of the government stepping in to correct an inefficiency that the market itself likely won't correct because there's no incentive there. I never thought that we were going to, you know, create a government EV or that you even needed the government to make sure that a transition to electric happen, but we did believe that for it to be made in America, for it to happen as

quickly as we wanted, and for it to reach people who maybe couldn't afford those initial buy-in costs who we really wanted to help out. That's where there's a role for policy. That's where there's a role for funding. What I get confused, though, Pete, is like on the one hand, you're saying the government should set up these clear moonshot objectives that advance America for itself and relative to other countries. But then the other side is that if you do too well, achieving those objectives, we want to go and take a bunch of that away from you? How do you reconcile that? And how do you think it impacts the motivations of young men and women who want to learn and excel and put themselves at risk, but also want to believe that if they put themselves

at risk and then they're rewarded that they've earned those rewards? Look, I love people being entrepreneurial, creating something and doing well by it. I mean, that's the basic idea. Only to a certain level. Like beyond a certain point of entrepreneurial success. If you create, If you create a monopoly, I might not like it. If you create a monopoly, I might not like it. If you hurt other people, I might not like it. If you concentrate power into your hands to an extreme extent, I might not like it because that's just not American. But in general, if we're talking about taxation, I just want to make sure people who are really well off do their part to pay into a system that has helped them to thrive. Because, you know, that's what it takes for the next generation to do well. And that's what it took for all of us to do well. I mean, let's just assume you're a president. You get. trillions of dollars of receipts. I'm going to guess the party line that you have to take as Doge was bad. Okay, fine. What is the version of Doge that you would implement so that we could figure out what

percentage of that dollar that we're giving you is wasted and stop it? It's a good question. It's a fair question. It's a good conversation. But this is really just a tech bro grilling, man. You hop in. You have to defend the Elon EV summit. You have to try to attack Doge and defend your honor.

I mean, it's fine. I think it's actually all fair game, but it's just funny that the subject matter. So I would love, in theory, a department of government efficiency that was actually about government efficiency. I think that would make tons of sense. It's what I tried to do again when I was mayor. We took apart the small government that I was in charge of. It was about a $300 million operation and put it back together and found that it could be

radically more efficient in many ways. And we need to do that at the federal level. How much money did you take out from that $300? We used it better, I would put it. it that way. So, you know, we didn't, I mean, there were areas where we were able to kind of have a certain budget line item shrink, but in a city where the average per capita income was $18,000 or $19,000 per person when I came in. We weren't handing that over in tax breaks to wealthy residents. We were putting into other use on public safety and fundamentals like that.

But look, again, I agreed that the Doge we could have could do a lot of really good work. It could find duplicative regulations. It could find cases where, we could move from input-based to output-based evaluation of our programs. In other words, not what's happening, though. It's just, it's all, it was terrible. Instead of saying, like, this is a meaningful program because how many billions went into it, figure out how much value came out of it. But the doge we got was one that couldn't even count that put information, sometimes it was wrong by three orders of magnitude on its own website, then erased its own information because they didn't believe in the transparency. The

Doge We Got sent an email to every air traffic controller in the country during an air traffic controller shortage and suggested they quit being an air traffic controller and get something, quote, more productive to do in the private sector, only later on to be told, actually, that was a mistake. The Doge we got apparently wasn't supposed to send that information all the air traffic controllers. Whoops. The Doge we got fired people in charge of making sure our nuclear weapons were safe and in charge of making sure that bird flu didn't spread.

And then, whoops, you know, tried to hire them back in a hurry. So, yeah, there's a huge difference between the doge we got and the doge we could have had. But if you're talking about in principle, should we unleash like really smart, talented people with an outside in perspective and a free hand to evaluate what is working and where we're not getting value for our money in government, like you and I would be in violent agreement that that's a good idea and there's no better place to find some of those opportunities, then the things that the federal government does, because it just does. Really rational, pragmatic, kind of old-school Democrat. I really like the way Secretary Pete approaches these issues, especially because this was not an easy situation to be in. And he really does stick the landing at the end there

by differentiating between having smart, talented young individuals, like the hypothetical Doge engineers. I mean, like on paper, having some geniuses come in and help save it. It sounds like it's out of a movie, but that's not the doge we got. everyone was well okay i'm not going to say everyone Elon Musk was on ketamine who the hell knows what these teenagers were on other than racism they were tweeting a bunch of shit about indians i remember actually when this happened jady vans also refused to stick up for his wife usha refused to condemn indian hatred and now he's done it again and again and again it just continues to happen and that's why we're

saying provide some moral clarity man but i'm gonna i'm gonna leave it there if you appreciate these videos drop a like subscribe if you made it this far comment high adam i love you all. I'll see in the next one. Peace out.