The Iced Coffee Hour - "The End Of Donald Trump!" Exposing The Lies, Greed, and Fraud Of 2024 | David Pakman

Episode Date: April 9, 2024

Shopify: Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at https://shopify.com/ich Streamyard: Start creating high-quality content easily with https://clickurl.ca/ICH-StreamYard https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag - Follow David Pakman Here NEW: Join us at http://www.icedcoffeehour.club for premium content - Enjoy! Add us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jlsselby https://www.instagram.com/gpstephan Official Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeBQ24VfikOriqSdKtomh0w For sponsorships or business inquiries reach out to: [e-mail] For Podcast Inquiries, please DM @icedcoffeehour on Instagram! Time Stamps: 0:00 - Intro 0:41 - David On Going To The White House, Kamala Harris, & Trump 7:44 - Is Biden On Drugs? 14:06 - David’s Background & Starting ‘The David Pakman Show’ 20:34 - What Is A Social Democrat? 31:17 - Should The Government Spend More Than They Get In Taxes? 33:42 - Liberalism vs Conservatism 45:42 - “Wokeness” In Schools 52:17 - Why David Doesn't Like Debates 57:18 - The Most Influential Figures On The Left & The Right 1:10:25 - Conservative Policies That David Likes 1:13:57 - Blue States VS Red States 1:19:26 - Trump VS Biden: The 2024 Election 1:26:17 - Cognitive Decline: Are Trump & Biden Fit To Be President? 1:32:30 - Will There Be Election Fraud In 2024? 1:34:53 - Nancy Pelosi’s CONCERNING Investment Trades 1:39:23 - David’s Thoughts On Border Control 1:48:57 - Should We Have A Wall On The Southern Border? 1:51:58 - David On Google’s ‘Woke Ai’ Gemini 1:54:38 - Has Elon Musk Done Well Running Twitter? 1:56:49 - David On Transgender Women Competing In Women’s Sports 2:01:44 - David’s Thoughts On Squatters 2:05:51 - Is The American Dream Dead? 2:09:31 - David’s Thoughts On Tipping Culture In The United States 2:12:19 - Rapid Fire Questions 2:17:45 - Political Figure Tier List 2:27:45 - Closing Thoughts *Some of the links and other products that appear on this video are from companies which Graham Stephan will earn an affiliate commission or referral bonus. Graham Stephan is part of an affiliate network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites. The content in this video is accurate as of the posting date. Some of the offers mentioned may no longer be available. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Want to go electric without sacrificing fun? That's the Volkswagen ID4. All-electric and thoughtfully designed to elevate your modern lifestyle. The Volkswagen ID4 is fun to drive with instant acceleration that makes city streets feel like open roads. Plus a refined interior with innovative technology always at your fingertips. The all-electric ID4, you deserve more fun. Visit vw.ca to learn more. SUVW, German engineered for all.

Amazon presents, Laura versus fruit flies. Swarming your fruit and terrorizing your kitchen, these little freaks multiply at a rate that would make a rabbit say, yo. Chill. But Laura shopped on Amazon and saved on cleaning spray, countertop wipes, and fly traps. Hey, fruit flies, your baby boom ends here. Save the Everyday with Amazon. They're imposing a left-wing agenda.

Biden exercises Trump's obese. Let's start there. I don't think it's fair to call that imposing an agenda when it's just what the data demonstrates. You've got to go beyond the headlines. We have to make decisions of principle versus practicality. Trump's gone too far. He's humiliated us on the world stage. It may keep him out of prison to become president.

It sort of has to be Biden. David Packman, thank you so much for coming on the iced coffee hour. We really appreciate it. The pleasure is all on this side of the table, gentlemen. Cool. Thank you, man. You have debated Patrick Bet David, Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles. You've appeared on Joe Rogan and on Lex Friedman. You have a YouTube channel with millions of subscribers. You have plenty of viral clips. You have a super popular daily podcast. Thank you so much. It's so good to be here. Just recently, I saw you were actually invited to the White House from Kamala Harris, which is not just something that the average person gets invited to. I mean, that's pretty incredible. Yeah, it was interesting just to see what are they thinking about for the next year up until the election. And it was like, like an off-the-record conversation with some other content creators. It was super interesting. You know, I expected that I would show up and it would be basically like some kind of propaganda

meeting. Here's 10 talking points. This is what we want you to kind of go out and repeat. And this is the message that we want. This is what we think will be useful for the upcoming election. It was super informal. Just ask her whatever you're curious about. And it was really interesting to see how the vice president's office operates. I didn't come away with any talking points, but it was a super interesting experience. It's confidential, though? Well, you know, off the record has a specific meaning which real journalists would be able to define much more clearly. But it's basically, I can kind of talk in general about their perspective. But the idea, I think, is that you don't quote specific things. Not that there was

anything that would be mind-blowingly controversial. So the Super Bowl was not a setup between Taylor Swift and Biden. You know, it didn't come up. But I feel like if we had had 10 more minutes with her, it was imminently about to be asked. And then she would have had to answer it. Yeah. How do they reach out to you to begin with? Email. Really? What was the email like? So a lot of people may not know that the Biden-Harris administration have digital teams where usually it would just be like we have a print journalism liaison team and like a corporate media liaison team.

They actually have a digital. So they have people both in the president's office and the VP's office that just work with digital content creators. And they send out information or offer people for interviews. I interviewed the secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg a little while. So they helped to set that up. So they already knew me to some degree. So they said for the state of the union, do you want to come out and do this? And I said, sure, that sounds interesting. So what were the general talking points? Well, it was whatever we wanted to ask about. So what I was interested in talk, there was no agenda. What I asked about was what's the perspective of the administration as we

approach the election with regard to what's happening in Michigan with the uncommitted vote that's essentially saying we're not voting Trump, but we're not thrilled with Joe Biden. I'm hearing from a lot of these people, people from the left who call me and they say, I'm not a Trump person, but I'm angry that Biden hasn't done enough on this or that or I disagree with him. And I just wanted to know how aware of this are they? Are they taking it seriously? What's the sort of conversation that they're looking to have? Just to see, you know, what I hear every day on my show on Reddit, social media, are they even aware that this is a conversation that's going on, and they seem to be very much aware. Yeah.

So when I see someone like Kamala Harris or someone like, you know, currently in the administration posting a tweet and then like, let's just say on some random tweet, hundreds of hate comments or hundreds of support comments are all responded to 100%. Like I always wonder, okay, if 99% of the responses are hate comments, how do they not see that and then delete the tweet or write the tweet and realize that, hey, maybe I said something very unpopular. But my guess is that they're privy to all of it. The vice president seemed acutely aware of everything that's going on in terms of this kind of blowback that's happening in some circles on the left.

I still think it's relatively small and maybe we'll get into that. But no, they're tracking everything that's going on. They know what's going on. Did they only invite liberals or Democrats to this? Yeah. I mean, that's typical. You know, when these, there's sort of two groups. There's the establishment corporate media who are often officially apolitical.

And then there's some of these other smaller off the record groups. And as far as I know, every administration essentially invites people that are generally on their side. Now, that being said, of the 10 people in the room, I'd say half or more of the questions were at least to some degree adversarial or pointed. So there was no litmus test as far as you can ask about anything you want. But I think generally, Democratic administrations invite people that are more or less on the left. And same with Republican administrations. It would be interesting to have a lot of adversaries there. Yeah, I think it would.

To invite people from a wide spectrum and just see what people are saying. If they're trying to gauge the response, especially on social media. Yeah, I was asked if would I have gone to something like this if Trump were president? Because doesn't it legitimize someone that I don't think is legit? I would go and I would ask my questions. I mean, sure. I don't think I'm endorsing anyone in particular if I just go and get to ask any questions I want to ask. I would have absolutely accepted that under Trump.

If you could ask Trump one question right now, what would be? How afraid is he and how seriously is he taking the trouble that he's in? Because there are really mixed reports about it. You know, I think normal people, if you had hundreds of millions of dollars you had to come up with, facing 91 felony counts and four criminal trials, where effectively you're talking about what is a life sentence, right? I mean, he's obese, doesn't exercise. He's a terrible diet and is almost 80 years old.

Statistically speaking, anything other than a life sentence. a very, very light sentence could be a life sentence for him. How afraid are you? I am not exaggerating when I say, I would need to be medicated for anxiety if I was in his position. And there's reports that he is really that stressed out about it. And there's reports that he doesn't seem to understand how serious this is. And there's report that he just thinks he's going to prevail ultimately, that he'll just win and he's going to be fine. So I'd want to know where his head is at right now. So how was Kamala Harris? Does anything surprise you about her or did anything surprise you about the White House? I've covered how in.

corporate media interviews and speeches, she doesn't necessarily come off super likable. And she was extremely likable, personable behind the scenes and also had a facility with every topic that came up, everything from AI, which was a topic of conversation, in a bunch of different ways to foreign policy, just extremely knowledgeable and comfortable talking about all of these issues. And it was not my impression of her going in. Why do you think she comes off so poorly with maybe more formal interviews? I don't have a definitive answer to that. I think it's a couple different things. There's so many people around the president and the vice president that oftentimes, this is my opinion, obviously, the way they go into an interview is based on how they've been briefed and prepared. And for

anything that's on the record, I think there's probably a feeling of higher stakes and maybe a more buttoned up tone or attitude that doesn't allow them to really be kind of like who they really are. I think there's a big difference between sitting in a room off the record with, you know, 10 people like me and an NBC News interview or a speech that you're reading off of a teleprompter where every word is scripted and calculated. So I think naturally it's harder to, come off as positively in a more formal setting. I think that's the big pick part of it. Do you know where Joe Biden was at the time of this meeting? My understanding is that he, this was the day of the state of the union. So my understanding is that around the same time or a little earlier than my meeting with the

VP, he was doing a luncheon with corporate media and then was just preparing for the state of the union. Do you think during the state of the union he had any medication in him that was allowing him to be a little bit more excited or I love doing it. I love the excited terminology. So I recently interviewed Dr. Harry Siegel and I asked him about this specifically. You know, we talked about Trump and Biden cognitive state. Who's Harry Siegel? He's a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Cornell and the core. I'm not going to get the name exactly right. Cornell Wilde Department of Psychiatry or something along those lines. My question to him was because if you turned on Fox that night, Hannity was saying, you know, he's jacked up. And then the next day it was he's on drugs. He's on some type of drug. And I couldn't help

but laugh because my very, you know, my dad's a psychiatrist, but I'm no expert in in drugs of this kind. So I went to people who know more about this stuff. But my instinct was, I don't know that there's anything that will hide cognitive decline in the way that was being alleged. So I asked Dr. Harry Siegel about it and informally some other people. Their impression was in terms of energy, you're basically talking about caffeine. Right. And lots of people would have a cup of coffee or two before a big speech. That's not going to hide the cognitive decline. You know, he doesn't know what day it is. You drink coffee. Now you know what day it is. What about like ADHD medication? So let me get to that. Yeah. So then I said to Dr. Siegel, what about ADHD medication. Is there is something like that? And he said that ADHD medication. So first of all, we have no reason to believe Joe Biden has ADHD. So then what we're talking about is a sort of off label or almost recreation. type use of those medications. And he said there's no evidence in the literature he's familiar with that if you're suffering from the sort of cognitive decline that some are alleging, that that would

actually help you. So I don't, I'm not an expert in this, right? So I had to go and ask people. What I was told by people who know about this stuff is, other than just getting some energy from caffeine, which so many people do, there's really not a drug that would mask the sort of cognitive decline that some are attributing to him. Now, what do you say to all the people who say, But no, that's just because they're hiding it. And there's these elite-level drugs that only people in the upper echelon of society have access to. And it's something that you don't know about. What do you say to those people?

Well, then it's also something they don't know about. And then so what are we really talking about? Now we're talking about feelings and not facts. And I would say, you can feel whatever you want. You can feel that there's drugs we don't know about that work in ways that we don't, the public has not been notified about and doctors seem to know nothing about. we're kind of operating in the how do I know there's not an invisible tiger on the table right now between us. I don't know. The thing that I guess I've had a realization recently of is that you can find data to really support anything. And I feel like this was confirmed recently with Elon Musk's interview with Don Lemon. And we'll get on to this later in this podcast. But they had a very contentious section of the debate. I should call it a debate more than an interview where Elon was just like, well, where are you getting this data from? Don says like, well, there's plenty of. different sources. Okay, well, what are the sources? And I can find data that actually goes one to one

against the data that you're citing. And I think, like, I'm sure that we can find plenty of different psychologists and professors and this and that experts that would say he probably was on something, which doesn't necessarily, like, completely, obviously deny whatever claim that you just made. But I think that it's a, it's a really challenging path to go down to try to figure out whether or not he is using. So I disagree with you in a couple different ways. I think it is, it's generally true. So Sam Harris talks about the setting of small fires that can be hard to put out. And this, the analogy is, you know, let's say there's a debate about climate change or whatever. And you can sort of prepare for most of the known arguments that a climate science denier might present, but then you get to a

table like this and they say, well, but did you see that small study from the Philippines? And then what about the Liberian whatever study. And if you don't know about it, all of a sudden, there's been a number of small fire set that you can't necessarily put out because you're not familiar with them. And as we know, those sorts of debates are more about who's more articulate or can sort of score these emotional points rather than about who's necessarily correct. I think with the example you're bringing up of we can also find psychologists or psychiatrist that would say whatever. I have no doubt that you could find mental health professionals that would have a different opinion about Trump Biden on cognitive decline, but we either have studies that tell us,

here's what sort of drug could work in that way, or we don't. And while you could definitely find opinions, I have no reason to believe that there would be specific drugs that some psychiatrists could come up with and say, here's the drug that if you gave it to Joe Biden, his serious cognitive decline would evaporate for 90 minutes during a speech. I just don't think that exists. If it does, I would say, let's find it. Let's cite it. Although really quick, are you running a business and you want to hear this sound a lot more often? Well, if that's the case, our sponsor, Shopify, is there to help. For those are aware, Shopify is the global e-commerce platform

that's already helped transform millions of businesses worldwide. For example, Shopify is an endless list of integrations, third-party apps, and flexible templates to customize your online store exactly the way you want to. And what sets Shopify apart from their competitors is their ability to turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout that's 36% better on average than other leading e-commerce platforms.

Shopify actually powers 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, supporting brands like Auburds, Rothes, and Brooklyn, and in over 175 countries. In fact, my coffee company, bankroll coffee.com, runs exclusively through Shopify, and when it came time to actually set up the business, there was no other competition. It was just Shopify. They're that good that we wouldn't even consider using anybody else.

Plus, they've got an award-winning support team to help you every step of the way. So if you want to get started and check it out yourself, you could sign up with a $1 a month trial period, when you go to Shopify.com slash ICH all lowercase. Once again, guys, all it takes is $1. We have had so many entrepreneurs on this podcast that have made millions of dollars with Shopify. So check them out, Shopify.com slash ICH, all lowercase.

What's your background? And how did you get these beliefs that you had today? Because I listened to a few of your things. I was most impressed by you making $75,000 a year at Circuit City. That was the one bit that stood out to me. Someday I will do a podcast about my experiences at Circuit City. I would love the big thing. I mean, my background, essentially my background is really business and not politics, nor broadcasting.

So I studied economics and communication undergrad. And then I got an MBA. And that's really my official background. All of the broadcast stuff has been learned by doing. And then politics, I'm from Argentina. And Argentina, every politics at every table, dinner table, breakfast table, school, every, politics. is so central that I just grew up in a family that talked about politics all the time. So I think that's where I generated an interest in having opinions.

But really, my background is in business. So why did you make the switch from business to politics? Because it sounded like you did really well on sales. I actually credit working at Circuit City with sort of setting up my success in everything that I've done because at 16 being told you're going to sell laptops and desktop computers and digital cameras now to people that. that you've never met. You learn so much about quickly building rapport with people,

reading people, understanding how to have conversations, make small talk, influence, all these different sort of soft skills that are super useful in doing stuff in front of the camera. I did fine in that, I did well doing that. I think I never really went into business. It's not that I abandoned business. I never really went into business other than the business of my show.

I mean, that's really, you know, I own the business and it's very entrepreneurial. As I was doing my MBA, saw colleagues become financial advisors or bankers and analysts and things that did not appeal to me. The schedule didn't appeal to me. The lack of flexibility didn't appeal. And so I was fortunate enough to be in a position where I could sort of just let's give this show a year and see if it can become financially viable. And it did and I haven't had to get a real job fortunately. Now, why not just work full time at Circuit City? I'm going back to this. 75 grand a year,

part time selling computers. Why not do full time? So actually two things happened at Circuit City. Yeah. When I was a freshman in college, We used to be on commission at Circuit City. So you really wrote your own paycheck, you know. And Circuit City was spending too much money on payroll. They decided to go the Best Buy model. So they converted people over from commission to hourly. If you were making under $10 an hour, obviously at the time, you know, inflation is very different at this point.

If you were making under $10 an hour, you were laid off because you just weren't a good enough salesperson. If you were making over $22 an hour, you were laid off because they didn't want to offer you such a high hourly rate. There were two people at my store, myself and one other who were above that threshold. So I was actually laid off by Circuit City. I would have stayed while I was in college and just kept selling laptops while I got my education, but they laid me off when they made that transition. Within a couple years, they were bankrupt. Turns out laying off the top salespeople was not the best business decision they could have made

and they went out of business. How shifting from that into politics, though? It just started as a podcast when I was an undergrad. Let me just start a podcast in a community. radio show once every two weeks. And then as it slowly grew and it became easier to put a couple cameras in a room and film yourself and start uploading the stuff to more platforms, it was growing fast enough that I could justify giving it another six months, giving it another six months and seeing can we make any money, can we make enough money to hire some people, how far can it go? So it was

just blending my interest in entrepreneurship and my interest in talking about politics. It was basically that simple. So how were you growing in the beginning and what that revenue look like for the first few years? Zero. There was zero revenue. And I tell a lot of people this. You know, our revenue curve at some point went way almost vertical. There were years during this show made zero. And at the time, I had recruited my little brother and one of my childhood best friends. And we all were kind of like, this is a fun thing to do. It's a hobby. Let's just try it. But I think for four years, we had zero revenue. And it was okay because I was getting my undergrad degree. then started working on my MBA. Did you have listeners?

We had listeners. Yeah. There was just no, you know, this was the beginning of monetization of a lot of these things. Before we got on YouTube, there was no revenue. Initially, when you would get on YouTube, you couldn't earn any money until you were accepted into the partner program. It wasn't automatic the way I think it is now, although I'm not totally sure about that. And how do you pick if you're going to take more of the stance of the left or the right?

There's no calculation. My show is exclusively just what's my opinion? What do I feel like talking about today? There's no, oh, you know, how would my audience react to this, that, or the other thing? If I, what if I fabricate a position on an issue that's not really mine? It's really just, do I feel like talking about this and my honest, genuine positions? There's no calculation or character that I play. It seems as though, especially online, people like you to take a very hard stance.

I'm either really over here or really over here. And you stick with that because that becomes the core audience. It's less of a market per se in the middle. Have you found that to be the case? I can't say if there's a market in the middle. That's an interesting question. I think my understanding is maybe there are people who claim to be in the middle. I don't know how well they do or if they're really in the middle sort of thing.

What I can tell you is if we look at the left-right spectrum, I'm very far from the far left in the sense that the far left is very clearly delineated often as being socialist or in some cases Marxist, in some cases. Leninist communist really well, well, well to my left. I'm a social Democrat, which is a form of capitalism. It's well-regulated capitalism. It's similar to the models that are in Scandinavia and some other northern European countries. So there's no doubt that I'm very far from the far left. What I hear from my audience, I do think that your audience will start to mirror your views over time. And so in my audience, the views that I have are mirrored by a lot of people in my audience. Obviously, the right wing really doesn't like me because they see me as a socialist, even though I'm very much not. The actual socialists don't like me because I'm not actually a socialist. So to some degree,

we're all kind of carving out an audience for ourselves. Sure. Let's define some of these terms. So you said you're a social Democrat. Right. How would your policy look different than what we have currently United States. And then maybe if we could define like liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism is tough because whether it's capital L or lowercase L and whether you're talking about the global definition or the one that's been adopted in the U.S. Let's talk about the modern definition. Yeah. So here's the way I would kind of lay it out. I'm somewhere to the left of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and to the right of socialists. And so the differences between what we have, at least in theory, I would argue that what we have in theory isn't.

actually being executed on. But as I talked to Patrick Bet David about when he started talking to me about socialism, you know, I asked him, are you okay socializing the military? Or would you want various for-profit mercenary groups and depending on which war we want to fight, we hire one or the other? He essentially has, no, no, no, the military, it should be government run, et cetera. Okay. What about the VA? What about all these things? The difference between someone like Patrick Bet David and Social Democrats is we want to look at socializing a few more things. So I think we should figure out a way to get everybody health care and I'm okay with government being involved there. In education, I'm okay with government being involved there. What social Democrats generally want to do

is we want to put some kind of floor that no one has to drop below in terms of standard of living. And the way we do that is with progressively higher taxes on the wealthiest people. And that's really what we see in places like Sweden and Denmark. They still have good business environments, you still can make a lot of money. I believe Bernie Sanders says there really shouldn't be billionaires. I'm kind of agnostic as to whether there should or shouldn't be billionaires, but I want to make sure that as we get to the top, top, top of those income ranges, we're just appropriately taxing just that we can make sure no one's homeless or hungry or lacks health care. These are like really basic things that a lot of countries have figured out. So the topic of whether

there should or shouldn't be billionaires is an interesting one because you said that with the specification of income when a lot of these billionaires of course a lot of them make a lot of money maybe on the record they don't but a lot of their wealth is just an assets or whatever stock they hold in their own company what do you think as to that type of billionaire then yeah so it's you're sort of getting at the concept of a wealth tax i've said that i believe the wealth tax conversation is barely worth a discussion for two different reasons number one it's not even remotely politically viable even among democracy You're saying it won't pass.

It just isn't going to pass. And number two, it's not obvious to me that it would be legal slash constitutional. Now, I'm not a legal scholar or constitutional scholar. So much like with the new tropic medications, I'm going by what I read from experts about this stuff. It seems it would be you're getting at a really good point, which is if you're earned income is low and you're either earning through capital gains or you have assets of high value, including assets that can be difficult to value. real estate, not so difficult to value, fine art, more difficult to value, right? I just don't really know that the practicalities of a wealth tax make it the super interesting, compelling way to me to approach this problem.

What is the answer? I'm not totally sure. You probably want to tax capital gains at the same rate as income. Now, I'm not saying... A lot of people don't sell. I'm not saying I advocate for every single one of these things. I'm just kind of laying out a framework that some people would put in. If you don't sell, you can't capture the gains.

That absolutely makes sense. So I think it's a complicated question with a lot of different possible solutions. But we're not really at a point where this is super politically viable. And part of my approach to this is I don't think we can cut our way to prosperity. So the right-wing idea of we simply need to reduce spending, I don't think that that's really going to be the big economic boon that some think it is. But there are areas, including military and defense spending, where I think we really could significantly shrink and reallocate to some of the social programs that I'd like to see. My understanding with a lot of government spending is that they give budgets. And if the budgets are utilized in full, they don't get the same budget for the next quarter or the next year.

To me, that seems like a problem. It's a major problem. It's just incentivizes spending. Yes, there's no doubt about that. So it seems like there's a lot that can be cut down purely because they just optimize for waste. Yes. And one of the other things about this is you often will hear people say, hey, instead of money for X in the military, what about money for Y for whatever? And you're hearing it a lot right now where people say, instead of gift cards for undocumented immigrants, what about housing homeless veterans? Great idea to house homeless veterans. A lot of the people talking about this don't actually want to spend the money to house the homeless veterans. They're using it politically opportunistically now. But the way a lot of these budgets are done are vertically, departmentally. You can't just move the money from one to the other after the fact in a way many people are just

Why do we have that? Those boundaries? Yeah, why do we have that method for government spending of just like, here's your budget. If you don't use all of it, you can't get more of it. Lots of corporations have the same thing. So I don't think it's unique to government. I mean, there's, you know, large corporations. You know, they're marketing budgets.

Yes. And if you don't use the whole budget, you probably didn't need it. And next year, we're going to cut it. I don't think that this is you. I think this is a function of large organizations. be the governmental or corporate or nonprofit. I don't think it's unique to government. Do you think that's just because it's simpler that way, just like this is our easiest way to get the job done and if we waste some money and it's just a cost of doing business? I think it's a

shortcut to try to simplify rather than a situation where we go back to the drawing board, you know, Vivek Ramoswamy, who I'm not a fan of, was talking about zero-based budgeting for every department. Now, he was using it as an excuse to do things I don't agree with, which is like eliminate a whole bunch of departments. Doesn't matter though. The point is doing that rather than just saying, okay, what was the budget last year? Did you use all of it? Great, it goes up 1%. You didn't use all of it. We're cutting it. It's a shorthand to simplify what is really complicated stuff. I always had an idea that if the government just allocated, even if it's like $10 billion every single year for a team of like the best possible accountants, a thousand accountants, however many

thousands of accountants just to internally audit the entire like all of the money that is distributed by the federal government yeah and then provided like a very succinct and concise letter to everybody to read and everyone can have opinions on it like why is that not being implemented i feel like that would actually put some scrutiny into these wasteful organizations who would make the final say though is it like one accountant responsible at least it would like bring some of the stuff to like because i remember back and when i was in high school like i was hearing about $22 muffins that were sold to like you know what i mean Or like a one point, a $500,000 refrigerator installed in Air Force One or a $1.6 million

public bathroom. You know, it's like, so there's like three different things here. One, sometimes these anecdotes are used to make broader points that aren't necessarily that useful in figuring out like the big picture. So I know about, you know, the $400 urinal dividers or whatever. Okay, we can look into that. I don't know how big how bigger picture necessarily that fits into what we're talking about. It's a symbol.

It's a symbol of something. We can debate of what? The idea of hiring 10,000 accountants, I mean, so the idea of a full comprehensive audit of the federal budget is a great idea in theory. Couple problems with it are number one. A lot of the people who want to cut the budget dramatically would never go along with hiring 10,000 accountants. They actually want to close entire departments, lay off 20 or 50% of federal workers.

So you'll never get them to actually go for it. And then number three, as you're kind of pointing out, is, who has the final say and what are the political biases? And it would be unfortunately, and I hate that we have to be this kind of cynical. Unfortunately, it would lead to a lot of the same partisan political infighting that causes the gridlock we already have. So it's an interesting idea in principle, but when you get into the practicalities of how unfortunately government is working right now in the hyper-partisanship, I would be kind of naive to say, oh, that'll absolutely, that'll solve. Do you think it sounds good in theory? I think the idea of such an audit does sound good in theory,

if we can't even agree on what the facts are or what government should be actually involved in, which are two things that Democrats and Republicans often don't agree about, what's the point of bringing in the accountants until we know what the target is? But I feel like there is a majority population that thinks the government does not spend money appropriately. I think that's a majority opinion. For completely different reasons. Right. I know. And then we can we can figure out these reasons when we actually have some transparency with how they're spending our money. And I also think on an ethical perspective, it makes sense if someone is taking your money. And then they are using it in areas you have no idea where it's going. I agree with that. You have an idea where it's going.

I agree 110% with that. I think the problem is. So there's more transparency. Some people just assume we have no transparency. A lot of them haven't looked it up. I mean, you can look up how money is spent. I understand that it's not sub-catamized. Sometimes money goes missing or it's not as fine. Was it for urinals or toilets? You know, right? And so some of these details are not always fully transparent, but a lot more information than some people assume is out there. But the real problem is, is even my guess is 80 or 90% of Americans would disagree with how their tax money is being spent for a hundred different reasons and in a hundred different ways. And getting the consensus is what's really difficult. The ways I think my tax money is being misspent are very different from the

ways that other people think my tax money is being misspent. Although you know what? Before we go to that, we have spent a lot of money here in the podcast to bring you the best episodes possible from traveling to different people to hiring audio engineers to filming and four. But you know what? You don't have to spend a lot of money if you want to be successful with video content. And to our sponsor, StreamYard is there to make that a reality. For those unaware, Streamyard is a live streaming studio platform that allows you to create high quality content with just the click of a button. All you need is a camera and an internet connection. And then from there, you can stream directly from your browser.

So my favorite thing about Streamyard is their multi-stream feature that allows you to stream to multiple different platforms all at the same time. And when we got on Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, it absolutely. exploded our growth, and with Streamyard, they just make it so easy. Streamyard is really the best way to begin creating high-quality content with no money out of pocket. Like, they even have a free feature, which means it's free. You don't have to spend any money to get started with the link down below in the description. So guys, check it out with the link down below in the description.

It would mean so much. They've also just supported our podcast for a very long time, so it would help tremendously. Thank you so much, Streamyard, and back to the episode. Do you think that we should spend more than what the country gets in taxes? I have two answers to this. Okay. Number one, if we really cut in the areas that I don't think we should be spending as much on, I don't think that we would have to.

So that's number one. That's if you give me the pen to start crossing off or circling. That's number one. Number two, the deficit spending question, we know that depending on the economic multiplier of what we're spending on, deficit spending can be economically stimulative or not. So, for example, and I know based on the guests you've had, this idea has been discussing, Stadnosium, tax cuts for the very rich for money that they don't need has a very low marginal propensity to consume. It'll often just get stuck in a bank account, which is low economic multiplier.

Food stamps, on the other hand, have a very high economic multiplier because, number one, people who receive food stamps really need that money, so it's not going to sit in a bank. And number two, it's often spent in local communities. So now this is not my opinion, and you can tell me why you disagree. I would like to know if you could just define for those viewers economic multiply. Yeah, so it's basically the recurring impact of a dollar in the community. So if you take a dollar and stick it in a bank account, it can be fractionally lent through the fractional banking system and then generated as a loan. And then those loans are used for a whole bunch of different things. So we might assign an economic multiplier to it of 1.1. On the other, I'm making these numbers up, but it's just

for illustrative purposes. On the other hand, you could say, well, food stamps are all spent. It's fully re-inserted back into the economy. It then goes to the wages that are earned by the workers of the grocery store, which they spend in their community. So that might have an economic multiplier of 1.8, for example. So it generates a different amount of economic activity. It's sort of like But there's a delayed effect. That depends with the velocity of the area in which you're putting the money. But the best example that really illustrates this is if you imagine someone making $15,000 a year and someone making $15 million a year. year. If I give the person making 15K a thousand bucks, you can be very sure that thousand's going

right back into the economy because they need that thousand dollars. If I give someone making $15 million a thousand bucks, it's a rounding error. It's much less likely to be re-injected into the economy. So that thousand dollars will have much more economic stimulus being given to the person who makes 15K. Could we get a basic understanding of each predominant political party that exists today. So we talked a little bit about liberalism. We didn't really discuss conservatism, and then any other main thing that should be defined before we continue. Lower case L. liberalism generally encompasses everything up to and including social democracy on the left. And I would say center-rightism of the style of like a Mitt Romney. That's all small L. liberalism, which is based on

the idea that capitalism and markets are generally the best way to just, direct resources. We do have a progressive system of taxation, which is used for some welfare programs, kind of the status quo of most Western lowercase L liberal democracies. That would be liberalism, big picture. There's conservative and progressivism within liberalism. So it's important to understand that. Capital L liberalism for a while in the United States was used to to mean like Democrats or maybe now term progressives is used. Now we're moving more in the direction of social Democrats. When I was on with Lex Friedman, we spent a lot of time on this stuff. And a lot of people responded saying defining the labels is not as useful right now because they're shifting so

quickly. And so often looking at issues or specific ideology can be more useful. But in a sense, in my mind, social democracy and progressivism mostly exist on the left of low. lowercase L liberalism, some moderate conservatism does too. Then you get out to the further left and the further right and they're kind of different things. What type of person is usually found under those main labels? Honestly, I don't think I'm as up to date on these numbers enough to say super confidently where I would draw the lines. I mean, I think very big picture.

Women tend to be slightly more left than men in the United States, not by a major margin, but by a few points. Jews and black Americans are two of the most democratic leaning groups. Evangelical whites are one of the more right leaning groups that tend to vote for Republicans. I mean, you can really slice and dice this in a lot of different ways. Younger folks in general tend to be more likely to vote for Democrats than older folks, although there's some degree to which there was a little bit of a change to that in 2020, where you had a contingent of older folks that were very much not impressed with Trump and voted for Biden.

It's really hard to give one answer to this because it evolves. It's very regionalized. And you can also get into trouble by kind of like stigmatizing or putting certain groups into corners as if they are just like a mass of people. Like for example, even though Jewish Americans, a group I'm a part of are one of the overwhelmingly left-wing groups in the country, there are also prominent right-wing Jews, sometimes can confuse the story. You know, there's examples of everything in a country of this many people. One thing that I find really interesting is that liberalism and conservatism or left and right is a representation of a fundamental difference in belief about human nature. Or at least that's the way that I like to think about it. Because you have very smart people on both sides.

They can boil these topics down all the way until these types of people generally believe this philosophically about humans and this type of people generally believe this. What's an example of that? Personal liberties. You know what I mean? Are people better off when given, you know, as much information as possible to lead their own life and be as free as possible versus no people need pressures from their culture, from their society, from government, from their families to be able to be guided into, you know, being a productive member of society or something like that. Would be an issue on which someone was advocating for less information to be given? Well, this is the question that I have for you now that you're questioning me.

is that what do you think are the fundamental differences in philosophy between the right and the left? I don't think there's one answer to that. I wish I could give like super pithy and black-white answers on this, but there's different wings of left and right. So let's take the freedom thing as an example. Sometimes there's the idea that the Republican Party or the conservative movement are the movements of freedom and that the left wants to restrict freedom. But when you really analyze it, a lot of times what you actually have is that the right wants everyone to have the freedom to mostly choose the things that they've decided are within the acceptable Overton window of what can be chosen. So an example would be pro-choice versus anti-choice. It's not that the left is going around saying, oh, people should be having abortions.

But it's give, take government out of it. Let let people decide with their family, their loved ones, whatever. medical professionals, what is right for them. That's a freedom that the right wants to take away. And they'll give you a lot of different justifications for why, either because they believe that abortion is murder or for all sorts of different reasons. But fundamentally, that's not a freedom. But freedom, as long as it is within the bounds that we've decided is acceptable. I'll give you another example. When it comes to military spending and defense spending, my view is that we're We should really have a much more direct way if we don't like the way that the military is being deployed. And I don't mean like the big story, headline story wars like the Iraq war, which was a major thing. I mean, do we need 50 military bases in Germany or might we be okay with 25?

This sort of thing, which is really one layer removed, I would want more freedom and mechanisms to say that's not the way we want to do it. Whereas defense spending to much of the right is sacrosanct. It's not a freedom that they want to provide. So the point I'm trying to make is even a lot of these top line things we hear, freedom is valued more on the right than the left. And certainly I see more Republicans wearing the freedom t-shirt that's now very popular. It's overwhelmingly Republicans who are wearing these t-shirts and espousing this, at least in theory. But when it really comes down to it, there's a lot of ways in which it's the left that really wants to give people choice and freedom.

Don't miss the devil wears Prada too in theaters. Merrill Street, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci are back. In light of the recent scandal, I'm sure. To restore your credibility. I did not hire you, and all I need to do is find my time until you fail. On May 1st, icons. I'm going to make something of this job. Rain.

If you could purchase, I burn, light my way. Forever. I just love my job. Get tickets now. The devil wears prodig too. Indeed is May 1st. Directed by David Frankel. When a country's productivity cycle is broken,

people feel it in their paychecks, their communities, their futures. What does this mean for individuals, communities, and businesses across, the country, join business leaders, policymakers, and influencers for CGs national series on the Canadian Standard of Living, productivity, and innovation. Learn what's driving Canada's productivity decline and discover actionable solutions to reverse it. Right, but that's based off of interpretation of data. And my point is, I think that's how it all is, unfortunately. So you think that there is no fundamental difference in beliefs about human nature that exist, generally speaking, on people on the right and generally speaking people on the left. And it's just a misinterpretation

of data that exists that causes people to scoot to one side or the other. No, I think there's a lot to this. I think that there are, there's a bunch of different categories here. There are some studies that suggest that there are different things going on in the brains of those predisposed to be on the left versus the right and the idea that, for example, fear centers are more developed or larger. I doubt larger is the right term, but that are more prominent or active in the right and that a lot of right-wing ideology is fear-based in a sense. I mean, think about when we talk about immigration, why has the claim that dangerous, documented and or undocumented immigrants are committing high levels of crime and we need to stop them from coming into this country? Why has that been so salient with one group of

people in the U.S., but less with another. My view follows what I believe is the irrefutable data. If you have different data to present to me, I'll look at it. But the data is documented and undocumented immigrants have lower violent crime and all crime rates than natural-born citizens. That's what the data show. So if you really want to make the country safer by this data, it's the natural-born citizens that we've got to be keeping an eye on. Is that by percentage or by the number of incidents? Prime rate. Yes. So it accounts for population size. Yeah. I know why that's right. I know why that's relevant than it is based on rate. So when I look at that, my fear center is not activated,

but there are lots of folks who got behind Trump's travel ban, who got behind a lot of the immigration policy based on the false notion that not only are crime rates going up, but that immigrants documented and undocumented are more likely to commit crime. So that's a fundamental difference. The fear-based politics is resonating more with the right than the left. See, that's what I'm interested in because I don't think that it is just only a different interpretation of the same data that exists to every single person. I think obviously there are spins on that data so people interpret it differently, but also a fundamental difference in maybe brain activity on people on the right and people on the left.

Or a lot of the times what I can do is I can stereotype somebody. Like, for example, I meet somebody. I talk to them for 10 minutes. I'm like, okay, this person's probably conservative or this person's probably liberal. We haven't talked to politics at all. I've just got to know their personality. And that's what I'm interested in is like, what are these differences? And maybe you don't have any like, you know, personal anecdotal experiences or data on that.

But that was that fear. I don't necessarily disagree with. I think that's actually pretty interesting. A couple things. One, I think we don't have to get into this, but I want to mention just to like get on record. I reject the notion that everything is just down to interpretation of data. I believe there are empirical realities. It's often a criticism right now levied against the political left from the political right that we on the left are.

postmodernists who believe that every every interpretation is equally valid and there's no empirical reality. I certainly don't believe that. And I don't believe that every issue is just subject to an interpretation of the fact. I think there are real empirical realities. To build on top of the fear example, I think culture is a big part of it. I've spent time in rural northern Indiana, for example. All that there is are evangelical churches and shooting ranges. it's logical to me that you end up with way more conservative people there than if you grow up, for example, in New York City or in San Francisco. It's logical to me because of the environment and because of the culture. People's politics also in general tend to follow the politics of their parents, although, of course, there's people who kind of rebel and end up with different political views. But family upbringing is a big part of it. There are a lot of different layers to this. And it's a sociology question. It's a political. psychology question. It's a lot of different things. That's the hard part is that there's so many different sciences that all would be involved in this. Like, are humans naturally selfish or selfless?

How much are humans affected by their environment versus how are they not? Does power corrupt when it gets to a certain size or does it not? And I feel like these things, if you map them out, just general fundamental philosophical questions about human nature could probably be differentiated amongst both sides. I think so. And I think it's important to note that there are large swaths of the Republican Party that think that a lot of the disciplines you're talking about and saying are so important here are even worthy of study. And they say these are worthless things to study in college, liberal arts in general and a lot of sociology, anthropology, et cetera. There's a large contingent of this country that thinks these are worthless disciplines. But I agree with you. I mean,

if I understand you correctly, that they're very valuable. No, I 100% agree with you. And I think like if we're talking about its core, yes, they're very valuable in theory. But I think probably if you ask a lot of the conservatives how they're being taught in school, that's what they'd probably disagree with. Maybe the fact that there are those disciplines that exist in the first hand, you'd find some conservatives that agree that, okay, you know, that shouldn't be taught in school because they're seeing it more as a marketplace and what kind of job are you going to get with this degree, et cetera, et cetera. But I think most conservatives would probably just disagree with the hidden agenda that usually comes with those sorts of studies. Well, we're opening up quite a can of worms here. And I've heard some of your,

I call them rants, not pejoratively, but some of your spirited comments about college that you've had with others with my friend Destiny and with others. I don't consider myself, you know, like a wokester or whatever. People who watch my show know that I've been very critical of when woke and DEI go too far. By the way, I use woke as if we all know what it means, but it's been so perverted that what would, but the DEI stuff, when it goes to too far, I think the left shouldn't defend it. We should. actually just say, oh yeah, that goes too far. When academic stuff is going on that I disagree with, when I see identity politics used in a way that I think just doesn't make sense, doesn't add to the conversation, but actually limits or takes away, I call that stuff out. So to the extent that I'm sure we wouldn't agree about every instance of what's happening at higher learning institutions, that's a problem, I have no shortage of issues and problems with that wing of the left. And when I see that I call it out. I just noticed because I was at

public school all the way up until high school, obviously, and then I went to college UCSB, and I noticed basically with every single class. There was a hidden agenda that they were always trying to teach you some certain things about human nature, about policy, or this or that. And I think that's probably what most conservatives are going against when they're... I never noticed that. Maybe it was different about... I had a couple... I had a couple of classes where I picked up on that, and I went to some pretty, you know, liberal institutions. But I think it's a important not to confuse. There's two different things here. There's the concept of a hidden agenda

being crowbarred into an academic discipline. And there's also sometimes just empirical realities that sometimes just reality has what if overlaid on politics would be a left-wing bias. But sometimes it's just reality. There are certain policies, for example, like I'll give you an example. If you house, feed, and give health care to homeless people, the total cost to the economy is lower than from having folks living on the street, the crime that it can generate when desperation takes hold, using emergency rooms as primary care because they don't have health care. That's a math. Let me finish though. That's a mathematical reality. And if you taught that in a college class, you would have folks who go, they're imposing a left.

agenda well come up with a different explanation for the data that we have and then maybe we'll come to different conclusions but that's just sort of like an empirical reality i don't think it's fair to call that imposing an agenda when it's just what the data demonstrates i don't disagree and i think that with instances like that like obviously if that's what the data shows that's what the data shows yeah but in in other ways which is more of like the wokeness yeah give me an example that's the other stuff like reparations and stuff like that was talked about by the teacher and a very positive way, which didn't even actually have anything to do with the class. And obviously, it seemed like, like for me, I shouldn't say obviously, but it seemed like there wasn't any room

for any other dialogue. And as a student, you feel a little bit threatened to speak out against something like this. And I'm sure, once again, a lot of people can attest to this because your grade's on the line. Sure. I'm with you. So here, to the extent that that's going on, I'm with you 100%. I had a class or two in college where it felt to me as though your grade was dependent on agreeing with certain opinions of the teacher that were under dispute potentially or not totally obvious and I think that that's a problem

I'm with you on that. To the extent that that exists, I think we're on the same page. So for another one, and this could have just been my interpretation. We'll move past this really quickly. But for example, we were forced to read Handmaid's Tale.

We who? A class. So this was the class reading. Can I take a little bit of issue with the term forced? It was part of the curriculum, right? You just mean it was part of the curriculum. Yeah, okay.

So it wasn't any more forced than you're forced to study algebra or, you know, Attica's study algebra. There were books that were assigned, which I chose not to read and it just affected my grade. I think the choice of the word forced in some cases, but not others, is maybe a little problematic. Okay, so they were not, they were not grabbing the back of our head and putting up against. It was part of the curriculum. It was part of the curriculum.

It was assigned to us. If we didn't do it, we would have failed out of the class. So it wasn't forced. It was just assigned. A requirement of the class. A requirement of the class. Yes. And when I was writing my complete analysis on this book, I knew that I had to skew whatever my interpretation was of this book to a certain ideology.

Because if I went against it, I had fear that it would impact my grade in a negative way. And that's not something I'm there to get good grades. That's, you know, why I was going to college. It's just kind of life, right? Like anything you want. If you want to get a job, you're going to appease to the boss. If you want to get a client, you got to appease to the client. Yeah, but it seemed like there wasn't room for it.

any other dialogue and when education exists to teach you how to think, how to learn, rather than what to think and what to learn, I think that's when water start getting muddy. I think Graham is making one really good point, which, so there's two, there's two things here. There's your perception of whether there was space for dissent. I've had situations where I was aware of the professor's opinion, but I felt that there was room for dissent. And as long as I backed up, I mean, really, what should, the ideal situation in a class like that to me would be that the opinion, of the professor maybe does come through. Maybe it's unavoidable in some areas for the professor's opinion to come through. But it should be an environment where the students know that as long as you can

defend a dissenting opinion, you're not going to be punished in terms of your grade. I think that's okay. I think in those situations, being aware of the professor's opinion is not necessarily a major problem. But to your point, Graham, I think there's a great degree to which much of life is about reading social cues and situations. And sometimes we have to make decisions of principle versus practicality. And in terms of jobs, in terms of friendships, in terms of relationships, I think it's a really great skill to have. I'm not advocating for dissent to be punished in school. But to your point, I think it is a reality that we do have to evaluate, okay, here's what I really think about this project that my company is undertaking. If I tell my immediate supervisor this, I'm almost certainly

going to be denied a promotion or they're going to say we're not finding that there's a cultural fit, et cetera. So to some degree, you might have to suck it up and kind of go along with the project and whatever needs to be done. I think that that's a reality in a lot of life. And I think that that's a really good point. And people should understand that separate from, I don't think if you have the wrong opinion, you should fail a class. I think that's a problem. I think we're in agreement on principle. And it's the example, what we each think about examples. Is it where I would leave it, where there would be examples that you may find problematic and I don't or vice versa. You're a man that's done plenty of different debates.

What has been your favorite debate? I actually hate doing debates. And a lot of the reason why is the amount of prep required to try to avoid embarrassing yourself is absolutely staggering. And no matter how much prep you do, like I said, someone can set a couple of small fires and you end up looking kind of stupid. And debates really are not a referendum on what is accurate. It's a referendum on being articulate. You see these four, five hour debates now. Four to five hours is so long for the kind of modern world that I struggle to think people

really glean some bigger picture sense other than moments where someone looked stupid or was very aggressive and appeared successful. And that doesn't really, in my view, determine what is correct and based on the facts. And then on the other hand, the other thing I struggle with with these debates is sometimes that are way too short to even really get out there and be able to explore an idea. So I don't really love the format. What I really like doing is researching a topic,

looking at the pros and cons, steel manning arguments against and kind of coming to some conclusion and presenting it to my audience. And then we can follow up on that and people can call me and question things I got wrong. I like that format better. And I don't watch a lot of these long-form debates

for the same reason. Okay. So how do you think, aside from doing your own research, maybe like talking to a very articulate and intelligent dissenter of whatever opinion, do you think that can still be productive? I do. In a sense. Okay.

So a conversation for, you know, just to ascribe a word to it rather than debate. So what do you think has been your favorite contentious conversation? You know, one of the ones that sticks out in my mind is when I interviewed the white nationalist Richard Spencer. This was years and years ago. I don't know if you know who that is. He was sucker punched. somewhere. I don't remember by someone who disagreed with him. And shortly after that, he still had a

black eye, if I remember. I mean, this was this, this was very fresh. And the conversation was so interesting because in talking a little bit about his upbringing and how he came to, to believe the things he believed, it really opened up a path for me to talk to more extremists and started realizing a lot of their backgrounds and upbringings share commonalities and that people often get to extremism through similar sorts of backgrounds and things that happen. So I find his views deplorable and some in my audience questioned even having him on. I've explained why I have people like that on, but I think it was extremely interesting to just start really figuring out, because this was years ago, I think seven years ago or longer, how did he come to the conclusion? Because these, these are

such extreme foreign things to believe that Jews and white people fundamentally are so different that we can't get along and kind of live side by side productively in society beyond just polite superficialities. It really opened my eyes a lot. What did you notice from that? Going back to their childhood and upbringing, what led them to that? With a lot of these guys, it's often men, not always, there's usually some history of being lonely and ostracized and then finding some kind of community that often happens to have these hateful beliefs. Now, with Spencer specifically, I don't know that he has this kind of isolated trauma background necessarily. So I'm trying to think back to it. But with a lot of other, this guy Frank Mink, who I've spoken about is a former

neo-Nazi and others, there's often crazy family situation, isolated, sometimes violence, being alone, ostracized, physical violence sometimes, and then all of a sudden an explanation for why the world is tough, which is often point at this group or point at that group, combined with a pseudo community or community that says, hey, come join us. And by the way, here's all the stuff we believe. That is really, really common. How do you change those beliefs? Do you make any effort to try to do that? Or is it more so about understanding where this person is coming from?

I don't go in. I mean, in a 20 or 30 or 40 minute interview, you're not going to be able to change these beliefs. From what I've spoken to in terms of cult experts and psychologists, you sometimes need months, if not years, of empathetically probing where beliefs come from, creating an environment where people would be comfortable saying,

hey, you know, I'm kind of starting to question this thing that I believe. This is a really long problem. So for me, those interviews are mostly seek to understand, but also expose that a lot of these beliefs are not rooted in fact. They're rooted in bias and bigoture. So you're hoping that maybe someone of his audience watches you and then can reflect on themselves and maybe work on themselves. Or even people in my audience who may be considering some of these beliefs or finding them compelling in some way. Who would you say is the most influential person on the left and the right right now? I think on the right, it's Trump. Still by the numbers in 40% of Republican primary voters did not vote for him but 60% still did he's taken over the Republican National Committee He didn't debate or participate in the mainstream Republican conversation about who should be their nominee It did not affect his polling whatever whatsoever or whatever Facing 91 felony counts in four criminal trials not affecting his popularity

So I think on the right it's Trump I think the left is a little bit fragmented right now. So it really depends on who you talk to and who you ask. But here's the key difference I would say. In my experience, and I can speak for myself, I'll speak for myself. I don't really care so much about the individuals. I care about the ideas. And sometimes you'll hear from Trumpists. It's very obvious Biden couldn't have one 2020 because you don't see any of the boaters with the big flags. You don't see people wearing Biden hats or t-shirts or the bumper stickers or the lawn signs. And as I've said before, we on the left don't really deify the individuals. There was a little bit of deification of Bernie Sanders years back. It was a small portion of the left. I don't believe Obama was deified. In fact, very quickly, some of the people who were disillusioned that he was not functioning

as progressively as they had hoped very quickly said, I actually disappointed with Obama. I think there was a little bit of a cult of personality around Bernie. There was a little bit of a cult of personality around Tulsi Gabbard, although I don't even really think she's on the left. And she's now a Trumpist and speaking at Mara Lago and whatever. So it is true that I would never put a bumper sticker on my car or wear a hat about a candidate. I'm more concerned with, is this the best option in November? And so I'll go out and vote and then go back to running my business and living my life. So I think the left isn't looking for figures in the same way that the right is at this point in time.

Do you recommend people listen to other political commentators? And if so, who on the right and who on the left? I don't listen to any other political commentators with the exception of if I'm preparing to address something on my show. It's number one, because I just don't have the time. And number two, I really try to sort of isolate myself from what other people who do what I do are saying and inform myself by reading history and economics, long form books and then straight reporting stuff from the Associated Press or Reuters or investigative stuff.

So I don't have the time and I try to isolate myself from it. So I really hesitate to recommend pundits per se. What I will tell you is that if, and this is dangerous because there are people who are going to hear me saying this and say, David, are you endorsing these right wingers? And what I'm answering is who do I think on the right is worth listening to in terms of they're not screaming at the top of their lungs, bad faith actors? They're just conservative and have things to say that I think can be valuable. It's folks like David Brooks, Brett Stevens, Thomas Sowell. It's not that I cheerlead these folks and say they have my ideology. They don't.

Those are the sorts of folks, not pundits, but those are the types of people that I think it's worth seeing what they have to say. William F. Buckley, who a lot of people found insufferable, did very interesting interviews from a right-wing perspective. He was brilliant. You don't have to agree with everything he said. but looking at his content on YouTube could be interesting for people on the left who want to hear a different perspective.

That's the sort of thing I tend to recommend. Do you think it could be worthwhile spending a little bit of time each day seeing what the other side is saying? I see what the other side is saying. I'm just not... How are you seeing it? In news reports, elected officials,

what is official policy that's being said? What is being said at campaign events? What I mean more is I don't spend time watching stuff like Ben Shapiro or Michael Knowles, but I have a number of different newsletters I subscribe to and clip services where I can look at a glance and say, okay, so here's their take on. They're all going with Biden was on drugs at the state of the union. Got it.

Okay. So I'm aware of that, but I don't sit and watch an hour of Hannity and that sort of thing. Clip services, I feel I can do it injustice to the surrounding context of what's being said. Sure. You've got to seek out the context. There was recently one. And what I've been doing recently and I absolutely love this. So I go on a walk a day and it's a long, long walk.

And I listen to your episode and I listen to Ben's episode. Oh, God. And I do them back to back. Yeah. And it's really interesting because you guys both talk about different things. So the interpretation of data that's different, but also just what is covered is very much different. And so I found it really advantage to see what both sides are saying. Yeah.

But as on the clip thing, since I was listening to Ben recently, he had this whole thing about retirement age and how he thinks retirement people shouldn't even retire. And people clipped that. And I thought it got wildly out of context. Really? Yes. I didn't follow that story, so I don't know what was said. I didn't see it. Yeah.

So he said people should not retire. He thinks the idea of retirement is stupid. There's a lot of data that shows after you retire, your mental health goes down, your physical health goes down, you're likely to die afterwards. Jobs give people purpose. And then a lot of people were saying, oh, well, I've been a plumber my entire life. You know, I'm a bricklayer. I carry bricks.

I can't do that when I'm, you know, 80 years old, which is what Ben is advocating for. Oh, it's so easy for you to say this since you just sit in a chair and read and talk. But he provided all of those examples. in his in his original is the source clip which was just like hey obviously granted some of these types of jobs it's not really feasible sure the idea of just like you work your entire life and then all of a sudden you hit 65 and then you can go and you're free to do whatever you want that that will be a happy existence he doesn't believe it's true based on his audience that that's the thing like i hear that and i understand what he's saying but i believe most people they're working terrible jobs they absolutely hate and the weekends like friday at six p.m comes around that's the moment they look forward to so ben's saying you shouldn't retires them saying, no, I never get a weekend. We hear that and we think, oh yeah, you know, you get to a place of financial independence and you could, you know, keep a job, keep that social interaction. I agree with Ben. But I think it's poorly worded, poorly landed and you have to give so much context. No, I agree. I agree with that because a lot of people obviously don't have

the, like they don't have those types of jobs. But I do think what is important is that you continue working towards something and not just give up and think that if you abandon all responsibility and abandon being a productive member of society when you become 65 that you're going to be happy because they could replace that which is be productive yeah yeah yeah yeah i mean listen i i don't know if you're asking me for my opinion on the the contextualizing of it or on the content of it but on the content of it i think that you've got to know your audience i think the the context is critical i do think that there are lots of really good substitutes for jobs for different people including volunteering including raising kids or grandkids include there's all sorts of different things depending on what you

you value. I do think, I mean, listen, I can speak from a position of great privilege on this where at this point, you know, I am financially independent and I love what I'm doing and I want to continue doing it. And it's a very different situation to say, I don't know how long I'll continue doing this, but I'm enjoying it and it might be a long time or it might not. And I don't know. That is not the situation for, I mean, it's got to be 90 plus percent of the country, at least, if not 95 or more. And so I do think that sometimes the context or not, it's not sounding like a super in touch thing to say,

even with some of the context that you're providing. I think the context was very important. I mean, he was citing data that showed that, like, after you retire, all of these other things start drastically getting worse in your life. I don't know enough about it to comment on the data. I'm curious. I've heard the same thing.

So, I mean, what Jack is saying is correct. It's just when you're telling someone who's working at a factory. But that's the thing. That's the thing is when it was clipped out of context, which he provided that context in the source content. Then everyone started attacking him. And that's why I'm saying like, well, maybe just seeing.

People are just so quick to anger online. That's the problem. Everyone just wants to get angry online of something. Yes. Yeah. And it's easier with clipped content. Yes. Which is what I'm saying, which is maybe you got to seek out the context.

100%. I use the clip services. How many people care to seek out the context? Like something like that. Well, those people are doing on the internet. You see that. I don't care about Conner. See that real nasty comment, feel good, and then just, you know, just go back.

As a creator, as a creator, I care. I do think that sometimes this was out of context is incorrectly asserted and used as a defense of the indefensible. And sometimes I'll joke with my audience. I'll say, you know, here's the clip and here's an extra minute before it and here's an extra two minutes before it. The only context that could change the meaning is if in the five seconds before the clip, the person said, I'm about to make a joke and I don't mean what I'm like sometimes that's the only context we and destiny recently did this I think and he got clipped and he even said it's something about the Israeli Palestinian conflict something like he gets paid by Israel he said I'm going to say something that's not true if I remember correctly let's see if it gets clipped out of context and then he said I got paid by Israel 30,000 of millions of views and it got millions of views yeah that happened that happened to us too recently actually yeah we made a joke to Sam and Colby you were on the podcast and we said that Mr. B sold his channel for $5 billion to Disney. They're like, what, no way.

And they were like, yeah, I just sold it. He's not going to appear on his channel anymore. It's crazy. End of clip right there. But like a second afterwards, we were like, no, just joking. No, he didn't do that. It was a joke. And we all laughed.

Yeah, we all laughed. We're like, oh, you got us. You're like, all right, done. But then we saw it on Twitter, getting millions of views. And Jimmy even responded to it saying, no, I did not have to sell my channel to Disney. And then he posted another tweet later that day. And he said, people are making up lies about me or whatever.

First, I did this. And then second, I saw. sold my channel to Disney. What's going on with this information? It got out of context. But it was, you know, it could happen. That's the only thing. Anything you want to.

I feel like just seeing some clips and maybe seeing like even what the people are voting for on the opposition. I feel like listening to a huge pundit on the other side, whether that's Tucker, whether that's been, could be beneficial. Yeah. No, listen. I have to do, I have to fit a lot of prep into a short period of time. So the only practical way for me to do my show, I can. can't, I just can't watch all that stuff. That makes sense.

It's, you know, I figure out, here's a group of clip services I follow. Here's some newsletters. Here's the, you know, five sources I'll look at. And I'll look at what people email me and see what's trending on my subreddit. And then, okay, let me pick seven to eight things to talk about today. And then once I've chosen them, now I'll go in and do the deeper dive. So, like, as an example, if I see on a clip, I think recently on a clip service, I saw a clip. What is a clip service?

There's different newsletters that people write that include sort of like a here's what happened. There's like, for example, decoding Fox News is one who she's on X and she does Fox News follows what's being discussed on Fox News specifically. Is she leaning to a certain side? Leans left. Yeah. I mean, I think anybody who's critically clipping Fox News is going to be on the left at this point in time. So I might see one clip from her and then I'll say, this is interesting. let me research more.

And then I'll go and I'll find, oh, actually, there's four different things with context that would be interested in talking about. The clip gives me the idea to then go and see what was the full context of the thing. Is it a good topic or not? That's kind of more my approach. So what clip services do you use or what research do you do on a daily basis to give you the opinion of the people on the right? So it's topic dependent.

Okay. So for example, the Biden's on drugs thing, right? I decided enough people are talking about Biden's on drugs that I want to talk. about it the day after State of the Union. So then I went and found what did Hannity say about it, what did Fox and Friends say about it, what was on real America's voice, all these different channels. What about writing? Are more serious conservative pundits writing seriously about Biden's on drugs? Not that I could find. So that's interesting. It's interesting that it's a story that's playing really well in audiovisual media and in rapid response, but you aren't seeing written stuff

about Biden was clearly on some kind of upper or whatever the case may be. Then I'll go on Reddit on like the conservative forum. I'll look for posts about what do you guys think? Biden's clearly hopped up. I'll look at the comment. Is there dissent among those on the right or are they all like Biden's obviously on drugs to try to get a sense of what are we? Local news is in decline across Canada.

And this is bad news for all of us. With less local news, noise, rumors and misinformation fill the void. and it gets harder to separate truth from fiction. That's why CBC News is putting more journalists in more places across Canada, reporting on the ground from where you live, telling the stories that matter to all of us, because local news is big news. Choose news, not noise.

CBC News. Okay, when I sell my business, I want the best tax and investment advice. I want to help my kids, and I want to give back to the community. Ooh, then... It's the vacation of a lifetime. I wonder if my out of office has a forever setting. An IG Private Wealth Advisor creates the clarity you need with plans that harmonize your business,

your family, and your dreams. Get financial advice that puts you at the center. Find your advisor at IGPrivatewealth.com. Seeing from different people about this. One of my favorite things that Ben does on his daily show is he provides, with context, a lot of different material from people on the last. and then immediately talks about it. And he does that for a long time.

And I know you use some similar stuff on your show, but I think that that is one of the most effective things that he does. And I feel like that could be an interesting thing to consider. I think I do that pretty regularly. I don't know. I see a lot more on Ben's show. Okay. I think he has a much longer show than I do also.

Yeah. So what policies do you like that are more conservative? I mean, listen, this is, I, every time I bring this up, I get people writing to me saying, that's your opinion now because you're more successful and stand to benefit from it. But actually, this has been my position since I was 18. And I started thinking about some of this stuff.

I don't love the idea of just raise taxes, raise taxes, raised taxes, endlessly create higher and higher tax brackets with higher and higher marginal tax rates. I want to first look at how can we more efficiently use the money that we're already collecting from taxpayers. And I don't have the same reflexive just jack up tax rates that some people on the left have. I find that there's a lot of other stops on the trip, so to speak, before just cranking up tax rates. Now, when I look at the big discussion in the United States right now among the majority of the country is like should the top tax rate be 35 or 38 as reasonable as is possible and make sense. And also we need to make sure that the basic public services and safety nets are properly funded that I think we should have, which are good for everybody, right? I mean, listen, I am able to, you know, when people threaten me, there are resources where if I have a serious threat, a specific threat, I can send those threats to.

These are taxpayer-funded law enforcement organizations that are going to investigate and are going to try to figure out, is this person an legitimate threat? and we've had situations like that and the FBI has shown up at people's doors, I benefit from that. So it makes sense that we collect tax money for that. My team drives to work on roads that are taxpayer-funded. They had public educations on which they learned to write and think in ways that are now beneficial to me as an employer, right? So my point here is I don't fetishize just cranking up taxes. My instinct is, hey, let's figure out how to better use the taxes. were collecting. So I think there's some on the left. On nuclear energy, I'm not going around advocating for nuclear energy, but my view on it has changed dramatically because a lot of the fearmongering on the dangers of nuclear is based on 50-year-old technology, where if we were to

start building new nuclear, the technology has changed completely. And on a per kilowatt basis is the safest high production energy that there is. Now, I'm not going around going raw, raw, let's build nuclear, but I think that some on the left who just go, oh, nuclear disaster, most dangerous thing. I just don't think that the science bears that out. GMO Foods is another example. Again, I don't think this is conservative, but I think that there are some on the left who hear me say what I'm about to say, and they go, you sold out to big agriculture. I've researched extensively and interviewed multiple experts on this. I found no evidence that eating GMO food is unhealthy. It is true that some foods are genetically modified such that they can

tolerate the use of pesticides, the pesticides, which are apparently very unhealthy for human health. But just the nature of food being GMO, I've not found that the concerns from some on the left about that are warranted. And there are people who hear me say that and they're like, oh, you sold out to big agriculture. So those are a few things that come to mind. Well, let's talk about taxes for a moment. I tend to agree with you on a lot of those stances in terms of tax rates. Why does it seem, though, that a lot of the democratically run states are failing more so than the Republican states? Because California is a great example of taxing at the highest level. I think they just raised it to 14.4% this year, the top tax rate.

In what sense is California failing? Homeless. Okay. Prices. Roads. Quality of life. congestion. How's crime in California? Crime is down nationally significantly. And you can always find specific places where a certain type of crime is up. I don't know if you guys have looked at the

crime rates. They are down significantly from the Trump era. But this is bigger than Biden and Trump. I'm not even saying it's because of anything they've done. Crime rates have been declining for 30 years. So they're down significantly. How is it in California? In which I don't know specifically in which part. What I've seen firsthand is San Francisco and Los Angeles, which have been horrible. So here's my thought on this. In terms of makers versus takers, the blue states are the makers that are disproportionately paying in federal funds to the federal government and the red states are the takers, meaning that they are subsidized by the blue states. Why is this? A bunch of different reasons. In general, the blue states have significantly more dynamic economies that tend to have

multiple industries rather than red states, which often depend on one or two industries. So that makes the red states less dynamic. Per capita incomes are higher in blue states. It is true that cost of living is higher in a lot of blue states. Cost of living generally is a function of demand. A lot of people want to live in California. That's why they're willing to pay what it costs to live there, because it's worth it to them for one reason or another. Now, I think the exception to this is housing policy in a lot of states really limits the amount of new housing that can be built. And one of the best ways that we could reduce the cost of housing would be building

way more units. Unfortunately, a lot of the zoning and other housing regulations that many right-wingers favor limit the amount of housing that can be built. So I would love to see a lot of these conservatives who say that the blue states are too expensive kind of put their money where their mouth is and not block initiatives to make it easier to build more housing units. So that's one thing. If you look at California, I don't know 2023, but in the last few years, California actually had a surplus. Number two, California on a per capita basis has some of the highest levels of innovation by patents. in the world. If California were a country, it would be one of the most dynamic economies in the world. So this isn't about, I've never lived in California. I have no particular reason to defend California. But California gets a really bad rap. And a lot of the realities about California, like, why are there a lot of homeless people in California? The weather is really good. And to some degree, people go where they perceive that they are going to be treated better to some degree. I don't have any problem with treating homeless. people well, I think it's being bungled to a great degree, right? I mean, I think that there's a much better way to do as, as I said, if we just pay to house feed and for medical care, what we would save in terms of policing and medical expenses and all these different things would be

dramatic. But a lot of the reasons that California is expensive is because it's in demand. I don't see how California can be in demand. Could you elaborate how it is in demand? Haven't they had a net migration loss over the last couple of years? Yeah, like the surplus I think you alluded to, And I remember seeing this. I don't have the specifics, but I believed it was mostly people earning under a certain amount we're moving to California and people earning over an amount were leaving. So the surplus was defined as people who weren't contributing as much tax-wise as California lost.

Okay. That was my understanding of that. Well, I think we would still agree that a surplus is a sign of more economic health than a deficit, right? I mean, for whatever reason it's happening. Who those people are. Like, I think Elon Musk would be equivalent to how many tens of thousands of people in terms of economic prosperity. Yeah.

Okay. I think we're getting a little bit in the weeds, though. Okay. But so I think where I kind of zoom out to on this continues to be in terms of top educational attainment in institutions, mostly blue states, per capita income, higher in blue states, paying in more, being the subsidizers. I mean, if you split the country into blue and red states, the red state country would not be viable. It would be too dependent on a small number of industries. It would be running at a deficit. So I don't see the truth of the argument that the blue states are failing.

Now, when it comes to crime, I'm open to figuring out, well, where, you know, Oklahoma City has a higher violent crime rate than New York City. These are per capita rates, obviously, adjusted to the population. You don't hear too much about that. But what's going on in Oklahoma City? What's what's the problem in Oklahoma City that they have a higher crime rate than New York City? Doesn't really make super hot headlines for Fox to talk about Oklahoma City. Instead, they talk about New York City. But I think with a lot of this stuff, you got to go beyond the headlines. All right. Let's talk about Trump versus Biden. What is a MAGA Republican? Someone who votes Trump. I mean, let's start there, right? I mean, a MAGA Republican is a Republican unlike Mitt Romney, who has said, I'm for low taxes. low regulation, the things that conservative Republicans traditionally stood for, but Trump's gone too far. He's humiliated us on the world stage. The things he has said and done, the inciting of January 6th. His glamorizing about authoritarian dictators, these things just, you know, you can't do it. Full assault, civilly liable for rape, et cetera.

So if you're a Republican that's supporting Trump, not at all like what I just described. is Mitt Romney, you're a MAGA Republican. I think that's where I'd start. If you vote for Trump, you are a MAGA Republican. Well, I don't think there's any, I mean, this is just my opinion. I don't think there's any particular definition. Right. Sure, based off your idea. I think there are probably some reluctant Trump voters who maybe would say, listen, I'm not MAGA. I just think Biden's worse. And maybe to some degree reluctantly, they're voting for Trump. It seems that there's fewer of those now than there were in 2016 and 2020, given that Biden's been president, all. almost four years and everything's more or less okay. We can, you know, get into details if you

guys disagree. But I think that for the most part, MAGA Republican means you're voting, you're voting Trump. What do you think is going to change, if anything, if Biden remains in office? Policy-wise, I expect more of the same. I mean, hopefully he'll tackle cannabis if he gets a second term. I would love to see him tackle it now, but doesn't seem to be a priority. We're talking about legalizing it, taxing it. At minimum decriminal. From what I've read, I don't think that he could issue a federal dictate to legalize recreationally in all states. I don't think he could do that, but decriminalize and reschedule certainly at minimum. I would expect more of the same, which I think is pretty okay. But I think the other aspect to this would be if Trump

does lose in 2024, he'll claim he won almost certainly. He's already saying the only way he'll lose is if it's rigged. You'd be the judge as to whether that's true. But it may be. finally put the nail in the coffin of Maga-Trumpism. So it's possible that Biden will be, I mean, obviously if Democrats win the House and retain the Senate, then there will really be a mandate, especially if Maga-Trumpism is kind of beaten back. But you may even have more Republicans that are kind of willing to say, yeah, I reluctantly went along with it, but there are things that have been not done, not achieved, which we're willing to work with Biden on. So I'm kind of cautiously optimistic. And what's interesting is this is very much counter. I,

continue to tell my audience, Trump winning would be way better for my show. Like financially for me, Trump winning and the interest that is generated when you have such a radical, you know, comical, in the worst sense of the word person in the White House, it generates so much interest for the type of work I do. It'll be worse for me as an individual in the sense of my show, but I think it would be by far the better thing for the country. Why do you think Trump has a personal interest in being president if you're putting yourself in trump's shoes why does he want to be president versus biden i think this time around trump is very much motivated by the perception that it may keep him out of prison to become president i think also it's ego driven which is he he took a loss in 2020

and he doesn't want that to be his legacy so he sees this as the way to uh redeem himself in some way so i think it's ego ego driven narcissism and the belief that it may keep him out of prison. And then what about Joe Biden? I think Biden does not really want to do this. And he's even said, I didn't necessarily think I was going to run for re-election. But now that it looks like Trump is the nominee and he could win, it seems that Biden recognizes if he quits now, Trump probably wins. Because at this point, replacing a candidate would be very chaotic.

But back, let's say, a year or so ago, eight months ago, I mean, we still knew Trump was going to run again. Yeah. Do you think that a different person on the left would have been a more formidable opponent against Trump, or do you think Joe Biden is the best option? I talked about this in a spirited way with Jen Guger from the Young Turks recently. My view is that it sort of has to be Biden. Now, this is different than I think Biden is the most electrifying candidate I could imagine. He's not. And if it were up to me back in 2020, I would have gone with someone younger. I do think that the next generation is ready. I think Biden recognizes that. He says, I'm elderly, you know, I'm doing this because I think I'm the person most positioned as an incumbent to win. And I think to go to your question, even eight or 10 months ago, Biden knew and I also looking at the data knew that incumbent presidents get reelected 75% of the time. And when the economy is good and we can debate whether it is. I don't know if you

guys agree, but I think the economy is pretty good by most metrics. When the economy is good, it's even higher than 75%, that's much more likely to get you your guy in the Oval Office than starting to look for someone at this point in time and having to explain why Biden isn't running. I think that there's a lot of political risk to that. I think it didn't agree. Yeah. I think it really just depends on who you ask in terms of is the economy good or bad. I think for people who are invested in the markets, they see prices at all time highs. Yeah. Home values at all time highs your investments are doing really well. But for anybody else who's not invested in the market, They just see rising prices.

They miss the boat on housing, and stocks are at all-time highs. Even when inflation declines, if it's over zero, things are still getting more expensive. There's no doubt about that. So sometimes I'll talk to people on my show and we'll say, hey, inflation's down. And they're like, yeah, but prices are up. Yes, they are because even at 2.8 percent, they're still going up from the already high prices. But the jump was so high. If you're starting off here and the jump is 30 percent and your income's going up even 5, 10 percent,

there's still too much of a difference. Over the recent period, wages are outpacing inflation, which is a good thing. There's something interesting in polling, which is if you ask people, how is the economy doing? The numbers are improving, but a lot of people still say the economy is not doing that well. If you ask people, how are you doing? Way more people say, oh, I'm doing well. I have a job where it almost full employment. Wages recently have been rising faster than inflation.

Yeah, things are expensive because we had that. But there's a question as to how an individual is doing and their perception of how the economy is doing. the economic opinion is starting to come around. My sense is, if nothing disastrous happens, GDP unemployment, wage growth, I mean, all-time high stocks, a lot of these things look pretty good historically. If nothing happens between now and November, I think Biden's well-positioned to win. Who do you think is more mentally sharp? Joe Biden or Donald Trump? Boy, where do we even jump into this? This is a good topic. I like this time. Or just suffering from age, maybe more. Yeah. So I want to go.

What do you answer? I interviewed a few. What do you mean how you answer that? I'm not going to get you my. That's what a lot of people are saying. A lot of people are saying, yes. That's what the people are saying. A lot of people saying a lot of stuff related to it.

I agree with you. It's absolutely true. Interviewed a couple experts on this recently, Dr. Harry Siegel, Dr. John Gartner. Here's their consensus opinion. And then if there's a different view from a psychologist or psychiatrist, I want to interview them on my show.

I want to hear the other side. Okay, but so far, info at David Pakman.com. So far, here's what the, the doctors, John Gartner and Harry Siegel have told me. On the Biden side, what they see is normal age-related characteristics of someone who has had a stutter his entire life and physically is definitely more frail than he was 10 years ago. He's walking gingerly. This includes that sometimes he's speaking slowly in a low-energy manner. Sometimes he'll say things that are inaccurate.

Now, one of the big differences that the doctors pointed out as compared to Trump is that when Biden makes one of these mistakes, he will either immediately or very quickly correct himself. In other words, he's not lacking context and in this kind of mental fog where he doesn't even know what he's saying. He'll pretty quickly correct himself in most cases. With Trump, what these same doctors observed is that he will say things that make no sense whatsoever, either phonemic paraphas, these are where you sort of, you sort of, you sort of, you're trying to say one thing, but you can't say it and you repeat a different wrong thing. Sometimes it's a non word multiple times and then kind of bail. Like there was this recent thing where he said, oh, and you know, Saudi you're at, uh, uh, oh, and then he just could not speak and had to move on in his speech. Or when he talks about, um, sometimes with certain words, instead of establishment, he'll go, estabish, and he'll just have to move on.

Or when he'll say, you know, what was it that he said? Who was it that? Nikki Haley was in charge of security on January 6th. Nikki Haley is in charge of security. You know, it's crazy and she did nothing about it. You know, Nikki Haley. Nicky Haley. Nikki Haley, yep, it was crazy.

And he doesn't realize he's repeating Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley had nothing to do with that. It was Nancy Pelosi. He doesn't realize that he's doing it. And that's a big red flag. They called it a neurological red flag or ticking time bomb when I interviewed them. So their view is that Trump seems, if you know what to look for, way worse off. A couple other things that some have commented on.

I don't know if you guys have seen the way that when Trump stands, he hinges forward at the waist in a really strange way. Almost seems to defy gravity. You can look it up online. Now, some people say it's his lifts that he wear. But others have suggested that that combined with sort of dragging of his right leg. is a potential sign of a cognitive issue as well. Again, this is all from, only from what you see online.

It's not somebody who's evaluated in a person, so it makes it sometimes difficult. And so that there's a lot of different issues here. He seems to do worse at night, which is sometimes something called sundowning that happens with Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive decline. Now, nobody I've talked to said that Trump is deeply cognitively compromised, but they are finding that it's happening more and more frequently, where it used to be like one of the a month, he'd say Obama's the president right now. He often says it multiple times in a single rally now and doesn't correct himself. And when he's called out on it, he'll go, that was satire.

It's like satire. You have no sense of humor, no sense of satire. And there was no indication that you knew what you were saying. So there's a lot of these kind of red flags from the folks I've spoken to. So you think that he is more impaired. I'm spilling my water. That was, you're not impaired. You should run for president. I can't, I wasn't born in the U.S. So I need our Arnold to get the Arnold. Do you think that should stay real quick, yes or no? No, I think I should be allowed to run. Okay.

Yeah, for sure. The other thing with Trump is... Grab you a little thing. There's no... I can just avoid the puddle if I need to. No, it's okay. I'll get it. Go ahead. The other thing that is absolutely the case is Trump blasts his face with self-tanner and dies his

hair and I believe has had, you know, pretty significant... Thank you. This is great. I've never seen this on an episode before. I love that. Oh, I've spilled one broke the glass on an episode before. I think we put that in the intro, too. I appreciate that.

You know, you don't think Joe Biden does anything to his face to make it look more alive? I don't know if he's, you know, there's the idea that he had a facelift. Maybe he did. But Biden's let his hair go totally white and he's pretty pale. And so I do think that that makes Trump look healthier in a very particular way. On physical health, you know, Biden exercises Trump doesn't. Trump's obese and he eats a terrible diet. I feel like Trump has better physical health than.

Joe Biden. Trump's obese. I don't know about that. Yeah, he is definitely large. Yeah, but if you're talking like coordination and like, I feel like I haven't seen Trump like fall too many times and he plays golf still. Trump, again, so the dragging the right leg thing is something some people are looking at. You might remember when the general had to walk him down the aisle at West Point and it looked sort of strange. Listen, Biden looks sort of frail. I don't want to deny to the, there's, he absolutely is looking sort of frail. He's wearing sneakers reportedly because it's more comfortable. walks better in them is coming down the low stairs off of Air Force One. He's in his 80s. There's no question about it. But I think that there's the perception because of Trump's tanning and hair dye and the hair transplant. He looks more robust. There's no doubt about his voice is stronger also, which increases the perception of his health. There's no doubt. So you would say,

it seems as though there has been more decline on Trump. And he is currently mentally and physically probably worse off than. I only am going by the professionals I've spoken to. because this is not my area of expertise. What do you think the chances are that there will be election fraud in 2024? Define election fraud. What is your definition of election fraud? It depends on what the purposes are of defining it.

I recently interviewed Ken Block. Ken Block was hired by the Trump campaign to find the fraud that they were arguing happened. He found very small numbers of, I use this in quotes because it's not really, quote, dead people voting. So dead people voting can be someone who submitted an absentee ballot and died before November. Dead people voting can be someone showing up and saying, I am ex person or filling

out an absentee ballot for someone that has died. A couple different things that dead people voting can mean sometimes it's confusion between junior and senior like father's son. Sometimes senior has passed away. Junior votes, it's credited as it had been having been senior. It's still only one vote, But technically, it was someone who voted in the name of a dead person. He found, you know, we're talking about in all the states they had him look at, a few dozen examples of all of these different things, maybe hundreds total. So it wouldn't even have been enough to have any impact whatsoever. Now, do we care about that? Sure.

We would love the, we would love the number to be zero. Why not? Right? It would be great to have zero examples of this. But in a country with 340 million people and, you know, 155. million, 160 million votes with margins that at their smallest were in the tens of thousands. There was nothing even approaching 1% of what it would have taken to make a difference in even a single state. Do I think that it's likely that someone will vote twice in 2024 or someone

will submit an absentee ballot in someone else's name either accidentally or deliberately? Let's just talk about a significant amount. No. You think that there will not be a significant amount of election fraud in 2024. Define significant. Significant meaning it makes an impact. No. Okay. Yeah. And the reason why is it just hasn't happened. I can't say ever because I'm not a student of every presidential election, but certainly in the last 20 plus years, it just hasn't happened. This is kind of a random question, but it's something I'm very interested. And we've never asked anybody about this. Uh-oh. What do you think? And I know this happens a lot in both sides of aisle. This is the famous one, though, of course.

Oh, boy. Of Nancy Pelosi's trading techniques. So what do you, do you mean the stuff with her husband or just the timing of the investments and the timing and the success? I think. And buying calls on, you know, invidia. Yeah, I think it's very suspect. I would like to see something much more extensive than what's already in law past where

neither you nor your immediate family are allowed to trade. I mean, listen, I'd have to devote a little. more time to it. I think certainly individual stocks. What about mutual funds? I don't know. I think you shouldn't be forced to divest if you're serving in the House or Senate, but you probably have to say I'm either selling everything or I'm locking in and I can't touch it while I'm in office. See, I think that you should either, there's a few options. One is just index funds and ETFs. Just drive the entire market. That's the most easy to implement. But the other thing is right now there's a 30 day or it's like 45 days

notifying period. If you buy a stock, you have 30 days to dispose that. And it's not the exact amount is a range that you have. Yeah, it's a range like zero to 10, 10 to 50, 50 to 100.

It's pretty big. Yeah. But the penalty on that is like a few hundred dollars. Like it is very little. So if they report two weeks late on that and they report two months in, it's not that big of a deal.

I think it'd be interesting to have it live so that if you want to make a trade, it has to be publicly available for 24 hours. And all of that should be like, at this point, we shouldn't have any reason why it can't be lied. Like on a dash- Technologically speaking,

it can be done. On a dashboard somewhere, you know, Congress's trades and you see the upcoming trades for one day. Just has to be public and then they're allowed to trade whatever they want to,

but it's there. And the public could do with it whatever they want to. I don't know what would be legal and feasible. My inclination is to want that level of transparency. And as is always the case, when you talk about imposing restrictions

on public officials, you'll have some people who come out and say, well, you know, you're going to distance, the more restrictions you put in, you're going to disincentivize people from even wanting to run. That's not always necessarily bad. You might disincentivize some people from running who we don't necessarily want if their goal is to legislate in order for, you know, to impact their own pockets. Now, I don't know enough about the specific trades Nancy Pelosi made. I know that there was a Tesla related trade that garnered some controversy. I don't know enough about exactly what she did to be able to come here and say she definitively was acting on inside information. I just don't know enough about it.

But my instinct is we need more restrictions here. We need more transparency. And that's always my inclination. Yeah. I will put up some data, a screenshot right here to either approve or deny what I'm about to say. But if I remember correctly, a recent very famous trade Nancy did was she bought, I think it was around a million dollars or high six figures worth of invidia calls, which call options are something that you do to leverage your money. Yes. So she's extremely bullish on something. And also, if public data is true that her net worth is right around a certain amount,

she put in a significant amount of her net worth in something that is highly speculative. Yeah. Which I think already looks a little bit suspicious. And then, of course, it went up some crazy amount. I think the argument is that she's passing legislation or on boards that has a direct impact on the stock. Yes. No, absolutely. That's really what it is.

But you can reverse engineer that from seeing her trade. I know she also had some bad calls. Remember there was the Pelosi tracker in like 2021? She had a series really bad calls there when the market dropped. They're not all winners. And then a few people got fired and then trades got better. The trades got better. She started legislating a little more.

No, Roblox is a big one. I think she put some money on that. It lost almost all. I heard she's actually like a leaderboard player in Roblox. And that's how she was familiar with the trades. That makes perfect sense to me. Yeah. No, listen, I, she's obviously not the only person doing this, but she, especially,

as speaker of the house, she was getting a lot of attention. I do think her net worth numbers are like inclusive of or related to her husband. Oh, yeah. So I think that's a factor that which probably makes it not nearly as much of their collective net worth. But I don't have, listen, the last, the last thing I'm going to do is defend. And Democrats or Republicans trades that look at all suspect or lacking transparency. Let's talk about the border.

This seems to be a very pressing topic right now. You said on your podcast, this was two days ago, speaking— Oh, boy. I don't remember what I said. Oh, here we go. He said, speaking of maga lunatics, who are disgustingly serving as the lap dogs of insanity, we've now learned who will be the impeachment managers for Republicans processing an impeachment against the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. How do you think Majorcas has performed as director of Homeland Security, which is a job that's main responsibility is to counter terrorism and enhance security, secure and manage our borders?

I think that his performance has been unremarkable in the way that many secretaries of Homeland Security have been. The first thing is I draw a distinction between the border and terrorism. Now, the first part is sometimes the framing on some of these issues from the right, I don't think is accurate. And in this case, these allegations that there are endless terrorists coming in over the U.S. Mexico border that quote, and these are not words I use, but that mental institutions are being emptied into the United States. You know, a lot of these claims are being made totally without evidence. A lot of the claims about fentanyl or fentanyl, as some on the right call it. I don't know why they say that, but that's what they say, being trafficked over the U.S. Mexico border. To a great degree, precursor. her chemicals are being flown in. A lot of it is coming in through legal ports of entry. So, like, it's not totally untrue, but it's only a fraction of it. With a lot of the stuff, there's a bunch of different distortion and half truths. Right. But do you think so far he has done a good job fortifying the southern border? I don't know that by fortification. I know exactly

what you mean. There have been a couple of changes from Trump to Biden. They've not been super significant. One related to Title 42 and the justification of COVID for the faster deportation of individuals. Was that the remain in Mexico? Yes, exactly. So that's been a change, but there have not been dramatic changes to Border Patrol budgets. I mean, here's my honest opinion about this. I've said before, although the facts are that documented and undocumented immigrants commit crime at a lower rate the natural born citizens, countries have a right to have immigration policy and force it. Deportations are legal. You know, I'm not someone, this exists on the left, but I'm not someone who just goes, everyone period should be just allowed in. We should have an

open border. My family did it legally. We were not in as dire situation of some of the folks that are coming and seeking asylum. Seeking asylum is legal. So we just need to adjudicate that more quickly. For me, the real issue is I see this entire thing. Two days after Biden became president, they were talking about the border. Nothing had dramatically. changed in those two days. What did change? A Democrat was in the White House. That's all that changed. In those two days? So it was two days after they started talking about it. But then shortly afterwards, didn't he rescind all of the border policy, or not all of the border policy, but a good amount of the border policy that was instated by Trump. It wasn't so much about rescinding, but they more

actively started trying to reconnect families that had been separated. There are still border separations happening, but it's fewer. I think my point is this. We should have a border. We got to deal with visa overstays, which isn't a sexy topic, so they never talk about that. All of these things should be dealt with. But right now, the idea that things are dramatically disastrous under Biden compared to how they were under Trump is a reaction to the fact that they don't really have anything to run on, which is why they're running on Biden crimes that don't exist, at least as far as they've been able to find evidence, and they're running on the border. Because the economy is, as we talked about by most economic metrics pretty good, student loan forgiveness, some improvements on health care

and health care access, negotiating pharma costs, infrastructure bill. So they just don't really have anything. Right. But on the border, wasn't there a lot more strict policy on how you can enter the United States when Trump was president? And then a lot of that was rescinded by Biden when he got into office. The only thing I'm aware of being rescinded is Title 42. I am not an expert on the border. But the only thing I'm aware of that functionally changed was Title 42. Do you think Title 42 would be a good thing? Obviously, I know why it was instated, which was the whole using COVID as a reason. But do you think that that is a reasonable, let's say, framework for new policy to be instated to prevent or to limit and filter the immigration a little bit more?

The problem with it is it's going to put a lot of people in really dangerous and risky situations. So I know that there's a lot of discussion about false and bogus asylum claims. Those have to be figured out and weeded out. I think it's actually easier to do that when individuals come and present themselves at the border rather than filing some form from southern Mexico or whatever the case may be. So I think we risk, assuming we have empathy and concern for folks with legitimate asylum claims in Mexico or countries south, I think the way to keep them safest is to allow them to make that claim at the border. what I think is problematic is not that bogus asylum claims are being granted. It's that the process is so slow that it's taking too long. And a lot of the complaints from the right about, you know, these people, dehumanizing language, they enter our country and then you don't know where they go

and blah, blah, blah, blah, and then they never show up. If the asylum system moved more quickly, you would cut down on a ton of that. So I think we need more immigration judges. I have a lot of, I have friends in border patrol and customs. They all say we need way more immigration judges to adjudicate more quickly. Do you think that we should be trusting people that come to the southern border? And my understanding is all you have to say is I fear from my government, wherever I'm coming from. I fear that they're going to come after me or something. You are filtered then into the United States with an eventual court date.

And I don't think that there is any incentive to actually show up to this court date. There is, that's a very complicated question. Right. That's all you need to initially. say, but these, again, from what I understand, from my friends and colleagues that are in customs and border enforcement, et cetera, the asylum process is more than just that initial statement. That's just how you're basically declaring, I'm seeking asylum. Then there is an adjudication process. My understanding is the adjudication process is not a corrupt non-functional

process. It's just that it takes too long and there's not enough immigration judges involved. That's my understanding right now. So you think so far in the years of Biden's presidency, this immigration, the whole, I guess, thing going on with immigration is so far fine or so far sub-fine. There has been undocumented immigration to the United States for a really long time. The numbers of those encountered crossing illegally ebbs and flows for a lot of different reasons, including combination of policy, seasonally, COVID, and different reasons. It's not unique to the Biden administration that people are entering the U.S. illegally. Is it a problem that some people who enter the U.S. illegally commit crimes?

That's absolutely a problem. They happen to commit them at a lower rate than natural-born citizens. But crossing the border illegally is a crime. Yes. Oh, and you're eligible for deportation. It is a misdemeanor. It's not a felony, which, you know, there's people who don't understand that. You're eligible for deportation.

Countries have a right to enforce border policy. All of there's no argument from me on that. But the border enforcement so far has been fine. If the standard for fine is no one has crossed illegally, it's not been fine under Biden. Your standard for fine. And it's not been fine under Trump. My standard is that we need to be doing a combination of things we aren't doing to dramatically reduce the amount of people who try to cross. Neither Biden nor Trump nor Obama did them. Those things are you've got to punish the companies that are hiring undocumented immigrants. Because if you don't, the incentive for them to keep coming over here. By the way, to work in really difficult jobs. often in poor conditions, right? So this is not easy work, but you've got to do something about the companies that are doing the hiring.

Not enough is being done there. In theory, it's against the law. Very little prosecution of that. We should be working with the source countries that folks are coming from to change the economic circumstances that make them take the risks of coming here in the first place. We're not doing that. We've got to deal with visa overstays, which is a big aspect of it that doesn't get a lot of attention.

We need to more quickly adjudicate asylum claims. We've got to do something permanent on DACA, meaning those who are who were minors when they came here. There's this long list of stuff that needs to be done. It's not fine. Overall, it's not fine now. It hasn't been for decades. It's not especially bad under Biden, is my view.

So it's not changing anything with the immigrants that are coming through the border, but it's reforming things that are already existing internally, such as putting a little bit more burden or pressure onto corporations, and then working, like you said, with the source countries, not necessarily stopping, you know, obviously, for lack of a better term, stopping with the direct immigrants crossing the border. Like, hey, you can't do that. It's completely fine to do that.

I have no problem with enforcing that you should not be allowed to do that. My point is it's not an acutely bad problem right now. And if these right wingers were really serious about dealing with the problem, and the same thing applies to Democrats who also haven't fixed it, if they were really serious about the problem, there's five or six other things they don't even have any interest in talking about to put their money where their mouths are. They just want to talk about the physical border because it's what's politically salient right now.

Do you think we would have been better off if Trump had built the wall? No. No. Do you think that we should have a wall on our southern border? I have no problem with a wall legally. The problem I had with Trump's plan was it's absurd to think that it will really solve the problem because, number one, you could scale the wall with $90 worth of Home Depot parts as has been widely demonstrated. There are parts where you wouldn't be able to build a border.

Trump said we don't need to worry about that because there's water, but people can cross the water. Number three, it doesn't deal with visa overstays. Number four, it doesn't do it. Right. So again, it gets back to the same list. And he was using it as a cudgel, not as a cudgel. He was using it as a one of his many deceptions by saying, I'm going to build this wall in four years in Mexico will pay for it. Those are outright lies.

a physical impossibility to do that in four years, and Mexico was never going to pay for it. And it was another one of the promises that he used with this populist rhetoric to sort of coalesce voters over things that obviously weren't going to happen. So for that reason, not only was it not the solution to the immigration problem he claimed it to be, it was unbelievable from the get-go and farcical that it would even be a possibility to do. But do you think eventually it would be a good idea to try to get a wall down there? I know you said it won't solve illegal immigration, but I do think it can deter some and improve it. There's no question that physical barriers will have some deterrent effect, but a lot of

what I've read is that it will shift to other venues, ports of entry and mechanisms of entry. So again, I don't consider myself an expert on this issue, but I talk to people in Border Patrol that I know and in other departments. And they all say, not all. There are people in Border Patrol who love the idea of a wall. The folks I know say the wall is fine, but we need so many other things that aren't being done, including the list that I gave. So yes or no for the wall.

I am not an advocate of pushing for a wall. I'm absolutely fine with physical barriers being erected. I think they are not a particularly good use of money, and I don't think they will be particularly effective. But from there's no issue, you know, people say, oh, it's illegal to, we can build a wall, places have walls. You could do it. I would be more inclined to negotiate on a wall. I think the money isn't really what it would cost. To me, doesn't sound worth it.

But I'd be willing to negotiate on a wall if we could get permanent DACA status, a commission to focus on going after the company's doing the hiring, all the other things I mentioned. I'd be willing to throw the bone of the wall and waste some amount of money on it if they'd be willing to do all the other stuff that I think will be really effective. Do you know how much a wall would cost? I don't remember. It was extensively studied at the beginning. Nobody has been for years now.

Biden hasn't been trying to build the wall, so I don't remember. I think it was something on the order of 15 billion. Is that possible? That's it? 20? I don't remember. That does not sound like a lot of I really don't remember. What were your thoughts on Google's famously coined woke AI Gemini? What were your thoughts on that? The Gemini one was the one where it was putting historically inaccurate races for certain generative image requests. Yeah. And then you could ask questions like, should I be a of my white pride or should I be ashamed of my black pride? And it would give varying answers to effectively the same question. Okay, that part I didn't look at. I mean, to me, it seems that if what is the point of the tool? If the point of the tool is historical accuracy, it seems that

some of the images I saw where there was a black person in a role where we know that there were not black people was black or something like that. Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's any problem with going to an AI and saying, can you generate an image of a George Washington-like figure dressed in period clothing that is black? That doesn't seem problematic

in principle to me. I think where the problem maybe came in was in some of the more automated, I don't even know if assumptions is the right word because it's just an AI, but it seemed that the problem

was some of the historical inaccuracies and maybe insensitivity. I think it was written in to combat some historical bias and make it more equal to all races. Something was written in there, and the AI took that and then manufactured images that were not a historical representation of the person.

Historical photos of people that were white at all, of anybody? It wasn't doing it for a while. Yeah, and then they fixed that and then go back, and now you can. But I also heard that one AI that you could talk to, and it started off as a clean slate, but then after the first day, didn't it turn like really racist and hateful? Which AI? I don't know.

I remember hearing a story about this of just people were feeding its stuff and it turned like really hateful. Yeah. I mean, I think the point I was getting to is, but one is Googles. This seems to be based on the data that it's trained with and the sort of guidelines that are established. I think AI experts know a lot more about this stuff than we do. But for me, the concern to me is more about the purposes. Playing around with different racial characteristics. to generate interesting images at face value,

I'm not really worried about it. It seems natural that it's something that the tools could do. I think the question is bigger picture, what is the trajectory of these tools? I agree. I think the bigger picture is definitely the concern. Obviously, if you just look up a photo of someone

and turns out in the photo they're black when in actuality they're not. No problem whatsoever in that. It's just what does that symbolize or what does that indicate is going on behind? Like, why is that happening? Yeah. What do you think about Elon running Twitter?

Do you think he's done a good job so far? No, I don't think he's done a good job from a business standpoint, and I don't think he's done a good job from a content standpoint. I think from a business standpoint, it's a matter of the numbers. The Twitter blue flop was a brutal flop. Yeah. Brutal, brutal flop. Miscalculation, I don't know, but didn't go well. Add revenues down. By some estimates, the platforms lost 50 to 80% of the value relative to what he paid. Now, you can argue he overpaid. and it wasn't really worth that to begin with. That's fair. In terms of the content, I mean, I'm almost off the platform now, other than like a private list of people I follow who are all kind of like clippers and journalists so I can see what are they writing about in clipping

and prep for my show. But otherwise I'm off the platform because it's just become a cesspool for nonsense. The verification, you know, the blue checkmark used to be a useful tool to interact with certain people. Yeah, I know. That's now gone. So if I look at my verified feed, if it even exists, I don't even know. It's horrible.

It's just toxic. But the one thing that I hate about Twitter recently is it any interesting thread that I actually go and watch. Yeah. And you click it. I'm actually interested to see like what are the responses? It's like viral video. Meme. Meme.

Viral video. It's everyone trying to get the clips of the videos. There's no discussion anymore on Twitter. It's so difficult to find something. Yeah. That's not just spam. Yep. But they're all, but they're all the Twitter blue.

So they all, of course, they all get pushed at the time because they pay somebody. a month, but they're just spamming these videos that have nothing to do with the topic. That's a problem. It's usable, really. It is basically unusable. Anytime I will randomly post something in the comments,

it seems as though, very roughly speaking, 25% are like obvious just spam messages, Insta replying with the link to some kind of trash. 25% are just overtly anti-Semitic attacks on me. 25% is just general nonsense.

You know, it's just, it's just become a worthless platform for me. I know there's a lot of people that are still on it and use it and like it, but it's almost worthless. I'll tweet like once every two months now. What are your thoughts on trans women competing against biological women in sports? Depends on the sport, and I think not enough is known about this yet. So I think, first of all, I try to defer to peer reviewed research and medical experts on this. So I'm not super interested in what right-wing pundits or whatever, have to say about it. From the research I've done and the peer-reviewed research that is out there, it's not,

it's sort of a complicated, it's a more complicated issue, I think, than get men out of women's sports, which is what you hear from Trump at rallies. There are certain sports where it really doesn't seem to matter. Sports like what? Equestrian, archery, others that, you know, there are sports that are gender segregated and don't really seem like they need to be. There's, um, you can make the argument that there's gymnastics events that don't really need to be gender segregated that aren't based on strength. So you've got a category of, so, so there's the totality of sports. Then you've got this gendered sports.

You see we're slicing, slicing, slicing. Some of these, it doesn't really seem like it makes much of a difference. There are others where if you look at some of the research data, if you were to restrict it to assigned male at birth individuals who have been on the right hormone treatments for X period of time, that the performance advantage falls within a standard deviation, which basically means like it's within the normal variability you would expect among those born biologically female or assigned female at birth. So like that would be an argument to me for saying in those cases it doesn't doesn't really matter. My kind of take on this is I think a lot of this stuff is new enough that we don't have every answer yet.

There are some who are really using this to find a new public enemy number one. For a while, it was gay men. Now it's moved on to the trans community to scapegoat in some cases. I'm against that. I'm for treating everybody with dignity. So, yeah, you know, I think I don't have an answer. It seems obvious that in some sports it doesn't make sense. and it should be okay to say that.

And it also seems like in some sports it really doesn't make a difference and we're still learning about other sports. We're still learning about the impact. You know, there's those who say, David, you know, muscle mass doesn't matter because there's something about the angle of the hips to the femur that on, I'm just not sure about that yet. We're still learning about a lot of this stuff. And then the other thing I'll say is a lot of athletic institutions have already been

dealing with this for decades when it comes to intersex individuals. And they have existing protocols, which could be looked at. And very few people who are just about get men out of women's sports. Very few of them take the time to look and say, oh, how does the NCAA handle this? Or how does this entity or that entity? And I think there's a lot to glean. There's something else here now. Something new.

From exclusively on Paramount Plus, it's the series Stephen King calls Scarious Hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi vision calls it the best show streaming right now. We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules. Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children is how we all go home. From binge all episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus. Don't you wish everything was more rewarding?

With Rackutan, almost everything is. You can earn cash back on those new shoes you've been wanting. You can save on the next trip you book. You can cash in on groceries. Just join. Shop your favorite brands and save. Sephora, boots, Argus, Timo, Adidas, Trip.com.

The list is long. Save online at over 550 stores. And when it's time to redeem those rewards, get your money exactly how you want it. Choose bank transfer or PayPal. So go ahead, take a trip, fill a cart, get a new outfit. Recutin is a world of rewards.

Join today for free. Go to recutin.com.com. Or get the app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. From that. There was a lot of data on intersex people. There's policies for how different athletic leagues handle those situations, which could be instructive in thinking about this issue.

I have never, at least I don't think I've met like an intersex person. And I don't even know how many exist. So I don't know if that's like. I think it's a third of one percent of people I heard. That sounds really high. But I could be completely wrong. It sounds a little low to me. I think there's a couple things.

There's a couple things that go on. There's a lot of, I don't know if the right thing is to call it. I want to be careful here. I don't know if it's called a treatment because treatment implies disease and I'm just not sure. I think that there are interventions both hormonally and surgically that are often done with folks that are born with different traits so that by the time they hit puberty, one would not know because it's been dealt with in one way or another earlier in life. So I think that that's

part of it. Oh, this is 1.7. Oh, h-chr.org says that 1.7% of people are intersex. Yeah. So people born with sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies. I was thinking 1%. You said 1 third of 1. Maybe it's 1. Yeah. Wow. That seems high to me. But then again, I guess you wouldn't know if it in a long of the, in a lot of the, just get treated when you're a kid and your parents don't tell you. Yeah. I don't know about don't tell you that, that, I, I, I'm stepping out of my medical knowledge. Okay, maybe we're all, yeah.

Yeah, outside of the frame here. But that's fascinating. I had no idea it was that high. Yeah. But I think the point, the point is there are resources that we could go to that have established protocols for this stuff, which could be really instructive. It would also be interesting to measure the difference in intersex people versus biological male or biological female. Because I don't know if there's even some like inner, like middle, I'm not sure, you know.

Okay. Another thing that's really, really popular right now is squatting. Do you see this as an issue or do you see this as something that is overblown? Squatting as in occupying a house. Yeah. It's blowing up. I want to talk to this guy's name is Flash. And he's the squatters, squatter.

Have you seen him making the rounds lately? So he goes in and we'll squat on the squatters. So imagine you're a homeowner and you get a squatter in your house. You call this guy. He says, don't worry. I'll take care of it. Because the law says if the squatter claims they have, have a lease, you have to go through the eviction process, it could take months, and squatters have

the resources to extend that to years. They can do certain things, they can file for bankruptcy, they can file certain positions. It'll take a long time. So you call this guy, Flash. You say, hey, Flash, I got a squatter. He says, don't worry, you got five grand, I'll take care of it. But he does it legally. He's not the type that goes in, like, you know, bangs on the door and tries to forcibly remove them. Does it legally? He says, you sign a lease with me, and now I have a legal right to the property, and I could squat on the squatter. So he goes in, squats on the squatter, they see him there, and he has a legal right to set up cameras throughout the entire property, with the exception of a bedroom.

Right. So he goes in, puts cameras everywhere and invites his buddies over to the house and says, don't worry, I got a sign lease just like you. If you call the police, I got a lease. It's a civil matter. You can't kick me out. But I'm here with my buddies. You could leave if you want to.

But, oh, by the way, the cameras everywhere. And most time, they leave. But he posts the footage online. And he's gotten this huge response from people. And he, I think, is really pushed such an initiative because of how ridiculous it is. They're recently in Florida. They just passed a bill against squatter protection. So they made it a crime to falsify a lease.

They made it a crime to trespass on a property. They really discouraged squatting. And so I hope California would be next. Yeah. But it's a big issue. Listen, big picture. I am completely in favor of homeowners being able to enforce their property rights. I'm against squatting in principle.

I'm against it legally. And I think that in some cases, the process for legally getting a squatter out is too long and convoluted. So I'm 90% of the way to whatever, right? The other 10% that I think is important to bring up is the risk is you make it too easy for a legitimate tenant to be denied certain property rights, certain they wouldn't be to be renters rights or to fully and properly have. have disputes adjudicated. And so I think the one thing we want to balance with, I mean, listen, obviously, people who don't have a

lease don't have a right to go and live and occupy an empty house. There's no question about it. What I would want to be sure is that we don't pass laws that allow landlords to violate the lease or otherwise the housing rights of individuals who are legally there. So here's something I'm, I was just thinking about that would solve a lot of this is having all lease signatures verified or you get them notarized. Yeah, a notary with a photo or something like that. Is that not required? I don't know enough about leases.

No. So in California, it's interesting. If your leases, I think it's either 30 days or six months, a lease under that technically does not have to be in writing. It could be a verbal agreement. And that's just binding in California. For anything else, you have a lease agreement that's signed, but it does not need to be notarized.

Okay. So you could just show up. and I could forge Jack's signature and say, oh, that's the lease, there's your signature. We signed it last night. I think having notarized documents with video or photo proof at this point needs to exist in the database.

This is like, hey, I was here, here's a notary, a third party sign this, and that way if you have a lease agreement that's not notarized with a photo or a video of the person signing it, it's not a valid idea. Yeah, it's an interesting idea. And that may be specific to California.

Some states may require a notarization. I don't know. As far as I'm aware from every lease that I've seen, it's not required to be notarized. It's just a signature. Got it. Which is wild to me. Do you think the American dream is dead? There is no question that when you have an economy, as dynamic as the American economy,

with strong dozens or hundreds of strong industries and the level of opportunity that exists, to some degree, the American dream is very much alive. There is a type of corruption that it. exists in some countries with regard to basic public services, police, contracts, bureaucratic stuff. That's not really a problem in the United States. That fosters opportunity to a great degree. There are some things that are working really well about the American dream. In addition, class mobility is really low. And so when you look at the statistics of how likely are you if you're born in the bottom 20% of society by family income, how likely are you to, you to, you to, you

to get out of that compared to if you are born wealthy or how likely are you to just stay there, there's definitely a problem in terms of real, real mobility. And so I think there's still significant opportunity and there are also barriers to that opportunity. This is not meant to be a gotcha, although it may seem like a gotcha. So just let me know if it is and we can just not answer it.

All right, but I asked Destiny this and I thought it's an interesting question. Uh-oh. If you are poor in America today with no dependence, no disability, cognitive or physical, between the ages of 20 and 60, is it your fault? There's a bell curve, right? So if we take everybody born to a poor family and we put them on a bell curve, you're going to have a variety of outcomes that are going to be distributed. At the tail end of that curve, you're going to have some people who are born poor and end up in the 1%.

And then so we could start by saying, well, how did they do it? Is it just because they decided? Well, it's usually a combination of timing and odds as well as personality, predisposition, and factors sort of beyond one's control. I'll just give you an example as it applies to me, right? It's possible. And sometimes articles are written about me where they say, you know, I am responsible for building this thing and I took the initiative and worked hard and blah, blah, blah, blah. The truth is that some of it was the environment I was born into in the sense that when I graduated. from college and started working on my MBA. I was still living at home. So my expenses were such that and, you know, my housing situation was stable such that I didn't have to work so I could tool around and hang out, try my podcast while I got my MBA. And I didn't have any big pressing need to immediately start paying for housing, right? So that doesn't have anything to do with me.

In addition, I'm willing to repeat the same thing day in and day out for years doing my show, such that I build an audience and eventually I get to that escape velocity and then it starts growing. Some of it has to do with me. Some of it doesn't. The timing was a factor. I was doing it at the start of news and politics on YouTube. That helped made it easier than starting right now. It's a very specific to an individual thing.

There are certainly people who get to being 20 and they were born into poor families. They were forced into finding some way to make money at 14 because otherwise the parents or a single parent weren't going to be able to make rent, which took them out of school. College was an impossibility. They didn't have the social skills, et cetera. Can we say it's their fault that they're poor at 20? Not really. Is it true that there is lots of opportunity and that with normal distributions, some poor

people will end up having positive outcomes in that environment? Sure, that's true. So it's complicated. What are your thoughts on tipping culture? In my view, tipping really was created for those individuals who are, in specific categories of service workers where they're not making a full wage. That was the initial kind of point of it. Now it's everywhere you go to, you know, a bake. I said the other day I went to a bakery and I bought a $30 cake and it suggested a 20, 30 and 40 percent tip. And I'm kind of like,

well, if you're making me a coffee, but no, but actually there is a baker, but that's not the person who's getting the tip. It's the person who put it in a box. I still tipped, you know, but I, it's, to me, it seems like a way that is pushing just higher prices on the consumer more subtly to get the employer out of just paying a higher wage. That's my funding. I heard a lot of the recent was because of square. Yes. It's also true that square stripe and these payment processors take a slice of the tip. Absolutely. So they're incentivized to propose tips as well. I believe that's where that like, you know, turn around and it's just standard on everything, I paid a tip when I got my car smogged. Me too. When you got your car.

car what? Smogged. What does that mean? Is that window tint? No, no, no, no. Smogged is when you have to go and see if your car has passes up or below the... Yeah.

So every year you have to go and get your car smogs. Was it take it down it? Because it wouldn't really pass. Was it a bribe? No. It was like a square thing. And the percentages were your percentages? So I had like...

It's 18, 22, 25. No, mine went up to 72%. So I would, every single time, it's like, memory of mine, whenever that tipped prompt comes up, Usually I click the top one. So I accidentally, when I got a smog test, tipped 72%. How much was?

Because it was just like robotic. 30 bucks. The smog, I think, was like 20. So it was a cheap smog. And I think that's why they justified the little tip thing at the end. You know what I always do is the other. I always do other. And then I write in like one to two dollars.

Depending on what the service is. Obviously not for like a server. The reason I got heat with this was people wrote to me and said, David, you know, you're in a position where this is just like a curiosity to you. You don't know what it's like out there. You're not depending on this money. I'm sympathetic to all of that. People also said, you're kind of depending on tips yourself.

You have a membership program where, in a sense, you're giving away a podcast for free and hoping that some people will be nice enough to tip you through a membership program. It's only one of 10 revenue sources. I'm totally sensitive to that. My problem isn't with the workers that are struggling and who are being underpaid and put in a position where now they are counting or dependent on tips to afford even a basic living. My gripe is not with them. It's the way that the combination of employers' cynicism and payment processors wanting to take 3% of everything have combined, to just, at the end of the date, it's just passing more cost onto the consumer.

That's what it is. Yes or no, progressive penalties on speeding tickets. So if you make a lot of money, you pay an $80,000 speeding ticket. Yes, with a cap. Okay. Up to how much? No idea. You've interviewed Richard Spencer, yes.

American neo-Nazi anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist. You've also interviewed the Westboro Baptist Church as well. They're famous for being extremely anti-Semitic and homophobic. How do you draw lines on who you're willing to talk to versus who you are not? Basically, it's like a three-part test. First question is, are they purveyors of ideas that are getting at least some attention or uptake in general society? So, like, I don't interview the Westboro Baptist Church anymore because,

mostly we've moved beyond that type of overt homophobia. It still exists, but it's different now. At the time when they were, when I interviewed them, there was still a movement that opposed gay marriage that was significant. So first of all, I was like, these are, these are ideas I find bad that are getting some people sucked in. So I want to rebut them. Number two, do I think that I can actually rebut them rather than provide a platform for them to evangelize? Because I wouldn't want to do that. I wouldn't want to bring someone like them on and give them a platform. or they might actually succeed at convincing people. So I want to make sure that I'm actually prepared.

If that's the case, then I'll talk to whoever, because I think that there's some greater good in doing it. But there's extremists who have ideas that are so niche that no one is falling for it. I don't find it worthy of confronting them. And there could be extremists who are extremists with bad ideas in an area. I'm not well-versed or prepared to contest. I won't do that either. Now, what if you lose a debate with one of these people?

Let's say you bring them on. They're extremists, but they somehow just sound more confident. They're more well-versed. They start all the little fires. You can't quite get them. Do you decide at that point to not post it? It's never happened. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, it's a good question, which is would I decide not to post it? I don't know. It's never happened. What are your thoughts on PBD hiring Chris Cuomo? I have thoughts. I actually love it. And I know people are going to flame me because all of his audience absolutely hates it.

I think it's an amazing. I love it. What are your thoughts? I'm agnostic on it. I'm kind of confused by it. Honestly, I mean, I think I would need to know more about his vision for what he's doing, which I don't know. It's certainly an interesting, it's getting people talking, which some say is objectively a good thing. But I kind of, has he started producing content?

Yeah, I've seen him on some of the content. They just did a live yesterday. I haven't seen anything yet. I want to see it first. So he asks him, like a contributor, just like, you know, like Vinny and like Tom, just asking him the questions on whatever I'm discussing. And does he live in Florida now? I'm not sure. Okay.

But this was physically present in the studio. Yeah. I love this idea. I think it opens up a lot of dialogue. He has a lot of people listening to him. So does PBD. Yeah. Finally,

I feel like we're having open discussions. That's moving people forward. I went to your Discord to ask your hyper fans for questions. So I joined the Discord and I asked, do you guys have any questions for David? Oh, man. I didn't hear about this for my odds. This right here is the question. Okay.

There was one big question. There were a few questions, but there was one that rose above all of them. I've never heard this asked. Wow. Is it okay for white people to sing the N-word in rap songs as long as, long as they're alone in their car commuting to work, we need to know what David thinks. Do they have hate in their heart? They're singing a song. They're just singing the song and they're by themselves. They don't use this word to attack black folks. Correct. It's hard to say you're not

allowed to just do that in your car, right? I mean, I don't know. I mean, I guess the question would be if I apply it to myself as a Jewish person, would it be okay for a non-j-jew? Imagine that there was a song with the K word. Would it be okay if it's in the song? It's not even a good analogy because the K word hasn't been taken back by Jewish people in the way. We should. There's been an attempt. We should. We really should. It's so hard to make an analogy. You know, I do not have an opinion about what people do in the privacy of their cars if it really is private. You plead the fifth. Yeah. Okay. What do you think the ideal tax rate should be? Uh, zero. No, I'm kidding. No, listen, I said this on PBD and then someone wrote to me and said, David, the math doesn't work. And I said, how the hell do you know how I'm

structuring it? I would love it. If the top tax rate was 30% and we could fund a beautiful social safety net where everybody's housing, there was no one homeless, hungry or without health care. I think that would be a beautiful thing and let people keep 70% or more of their money. I would love that. I've been told it doesn't really work mathematically given the U.S. budget and the number of people or whatever. But in an ideal world, I don't need people to pay high tax rates for no reason. I just want to make sure we're covering and paying for the things we should pay for. Now, what about a flat tax? I'm against that.

Why? I believe that the framing of the tax system was designed to be progressive to some degree. Now, I don't need a 93% top marginal tax rate. And in practice, a flat tax becomes a regressive tax because the richer you get, you don't necessarily spend proportionately more on your needed basics. So it becomes a regressive tax. Yes or no, is democracy at stake in 2024? Yes, but maybe in a different way than you would assume. But I'll leave it at yes. Is it I could or I couldn't care less? I couldn't care less. I agree. Bring the laptop. So I think Trump's an F. I'm going to make me lay a D.

Desanctus, probably an F. Jordan Peterson, you know, his old lectures aren't the worst thing in the world. So I would put him as a D. Alex Jones is an F. We're getting to some contentious stuff here. Oh, boy. You listen, I drive a Tesla at least for a few more months, then it's gone for good. You don't like the Tesla?

I don't like this. I'm ready to move on. So I think Elon is very problematic, but what he has done to push forward on electric cars is very, very significant. So I would actually put him at a C, even though I think a lot of his ideas are very bad. Jesse Lee Peterson has high comedic value, so I'd put him at a D rather than an F. No, Amazing. You didn't catch that. Oh, I didn't catch that.

That's fine. Leave him at the D. That's okay. I put him at D. Russell Brand. I think that's an F. Tucker. Tucker actually has some okay takes if you get them like in a private situation.

So I would put Tucker at D. This is going to get very problematic. I don't even know who all these people are. Bernie, I'm going to put as an A rather than S only because I think the practicality and presentation of some of his ideas is not top, top, top. Oh, man, this is really tough. Kirk, I'm going to put as an F. Remind me this guy's name?

Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh. He's an F. There's no variance on L. F's? Like, you think Alex Jones is the same as Charlie Kirk is the same as? Yeah. All right.

I think so. I think they're all worse than F. So the lowest I have here is F. So I'm just going to dump him. I'm also not devoting so much thought to this necessarily. But, um, PPD, you know, I found him very personalable. and open to modifying some of his ideas, at least to some degree, even though he was very, very aggressive with me. He hired Cuomo.

So I'm going to put him as a C. I'm going to put myself as amazing. Amazing. All right. Is that fair? Amazing. Candice, I'm going to put at, I think all these daily wire people are basically F. She's not daily wire anymore, man.

No, she's not. You know what? That puts her up at D. Wow. All right. How about that? Just for kicks. She joins Infowars.

Vivek. Yeah, then we'll have you. You know, Vivek, Vovic's an interesting guy. He's a visionary. He's a visionary in some way. I'd put Vivek as a D. Now, you know what? I kind of have to say,

Vivek's better than Candace, so I'm going to go to see. This episode is brought to you by Nespresso. Hear that? That's your next obsession. Every coffee, a new world. Every sip, a new taste. This is the new espresso.

One touch, endless possible. possibilities, iced, flavored, long, short, because some days call for that espresso kick, and sometimes a smooth, silky latte just wins. It's exceptional, but effortless, like actually effortless. Simply press, brew, and explore. Nispresso, what else? Keep exploring at nespresso.com. Jack. Jeez. I didn't know. I expected that. Okay. All right. It wasn't supposed to be a spit take. No, no, that's interesting. Ben Shapiro. You think he's good or bad faith. I think he is mostly good faith with some exceptions that I've called out. I'm going to put Ben Shapiro as D or C. I'm going to I'm going to go C with Ben Shapiro. Um, Stephen Crowder.

Oh, my God. That's an easy F. I don't even have a challenge there. Uh, Biden, man, now it's getting really, really tough. I'm actually going to put Biden at the same level as Bernie. Even though my politics are more Bernie aligned, I've got to hand it to Biden that he has exes exceeded my expectations on execution. And so I really value that. Gavin Newsom, I'm actually going to put Newsom at A because I think that he has the Geneseecois that the Democratic Party needs generationally and in terms of attitude. Doesn't mean, I think, he's on policy.

I don't think he's God's gift to progressivism on policy necessarily, but I think he has a lot of potential. He's a good talker. Very good talker. He'll be president one day. That's what I think. I think it's possible. I think it's possible. And then let's see, Mayorkas.

So for me, if I think that someone does nothing for me, but they're not actively bad, for me, it's like a B. So there's a lot of these that are just going to end up in B. So like, I think B. Ian Vouch, I consider to be, I'm not a socialist. He's a socialist. I don't agree with that. So, man, but he's obviously better than Shapiro because at least he supports me in getting to social democracy.

So he's got to be better. See, the problem with these is why are Mallorcas and Vouch on the same? It doesn't really make sense. You don't have to put Ben as a C because he's amable or whatever. It could also just be good faith. Like even if they have policy prescriptions that disagree with yours, but you think. think they're trying to solve like I feel like that is a commendable trait oh I'm going to have to start over oh actually no I mean honestly that's not how I'm doing this this is really tough what's your

rubric my agreement with you yeah in terms of basically policy in terms of what I think is good I mean listen let let's let me put it this way with some of these like I think Anna and Jenk mostly do a good job and I disagree with them on some stuff so they're probably like I agree with them, you know, somewhere around B, I guess. And AOC, I probably would have put it a C previously, but I think she's actually become much more pragmatic and interesting now. So I'd move her up. Don Lemon, I think, is like a fine interviewer. I had him on my show. I'm going on my show. I'm going to be on his show. But it's not like I'm going around looking for Don Lemon's opinions on stuff. So a lot of these don't do much for me one way or the other. I've never seen an entire John Oliver

episode. Um, who's this guy right here? Right there. Is that Nick Fuentes with no beard? Oh, okay. I mean, you know, he'd be very low. Like, that's an easy F. RFK would probably be a C because he has a bunch of stuff I agree with, but I think he's kind of gone off the rails on some things. Trudeau, I think is like okay, but like, you know, we're kind of at the point where I don't know that I have super strong takes on a lot of these people. I think what this is really exposing is that I don't really deify, for lack of a better term, any of. of these figures. It's just sort of like... Said yourself.

Right. But I didn't go S. I just went amazing, which is for comedic value. It's for comedic value exclusively. So, yeah, I don't know. It's tough. I think Kamala's probably... She impressed me when I met with her in person.

So I'd probably put her up. I mean, see, here's the thing. I'm going to have to move vouch down because for me, Kamala's not at Biden level, but I got to probably move vouch. So now they start moving around. We can move them. You could move them.

You can move them. Are you really going to make me? Can you keep going? If you don't want you, you're not going to force you to do anything. But this right here is what the people are. The Jack's feet is force. Yeah. I mean, maybe I have to move a couple of these up to S, right, to give myself more space. Sure.

And so then, I mean, I probably still keep Majorcas down at B. Oh, boy. Hassan Destiny Piker the second. I don't know where I'm going to put him. Probably. I mean, he's kind of gone off the rails lately, probably at Vouch level, I think. But do I agree with Vouch more than Hassan? Maybe I need to move Vouch up.

But Vouch had a strange thing with horses. So I don't know. Did you guys hear about that? No, no. Let's not even discuss it. Yeah, it sounds. We're going to put it on the screen. We're going to put whatever we're talking about on the screen.

Horses. Chris Cuomo, I think, is interesting. You know, it's probably like a B. Trudeau, probably. Sort of like Kamala. This, I, how much, am I, going to be canceled because of this? No, I think I'm in trouble.

People love this. Lex, you know, since Lex interviewed me, my opinion of some of his playing a little soft with extremism hasn't super impressed me, but I'd probably put him here. John Oliver, I just have to opt out. I know a lot of people like him. I don't know much about what he does. Destiny put Lex as S, I think. Did he?

Yeah. I'm not going to be bullied by Destiny's opinion. No, no, no. Rogan, you know, Rogan's tough because if you look at what he was saying four years ago versus what he's saying now, my opinion has shifted dramatically. He's jumped in on a lot of just repeating right-wing talking points without necessarily understanding them fully. So I probably would put him, this is really tough. You could say, you know, B.C. Yeah.

Can you put something in between? You really can't. I guess it's B. No, it's probably got to be lower, though. But then I might have to move vouch again. I'm really concerned about it. Vouch is just an issue here. She's getting pushed down.

Yeah. Oh, yike. AOC, I'm going to move up. I don't, I probably put her, you know, she's really gaining a lot of political knowledge from being in Congress about how things work. We'd love to have her on. That is, that is one of my. We're trying to. She's turned down my requests.

Don Lemon. Man, I don't know. I guess B. And then. Jenkin, Anna, I don't know. A lot of these people are my friends. I don't know what I'm doing here. I think it's sort of like this.

See, here's the thing. See how there's this triangle that builds towards the bottom. No, DFI. I am negatively biased. Like, I think most stuff is very so-so. Yeah. You know?

And then now, let's make one final adjustment to make it accurate. This reflects my actual self-esteem. No. No. No. No, that's sad. like me, that hurts me, man. I'll leave myself for satirical reasons. Thank you so much for coming on.

Thank you for making me do this. Say whatever you want, shout out whatever you want. You have books. That's all linked down below. You have a membership program. We have all the stuff. I'm not going to push anything on people, but just, you know, find my content. If you like it, cool. If not, there's plenty of other things to watch without emailing me that you're angry. Cool. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Guys, any comments about the entire episode, leave them down below. We'll be reading them. Yeah, really appreciate all of that. Until next time. See ya.

Amazing.