Will Cain Country - A.I. Turns Founding Fathers Woke

Episode Date: February 22, 2024

Story #1: Google’s new A.I., Gemini, is here to tell you the founders of America were not white, but black and Indian. ALSO, the current state of real life is funnier than satire with the CEO of The Babylon Bee Seth Dillon. Story #2: With cell phones out across America, how long would it take to go from an EMP to cannibalism? Story #3: Why does the media hide information from us when there are specific details of shooting suspects? Plus, which politician would you take as a Squid Game partner? A ‘Lunch Hour Panel’ discussion with Based Politics Podcast co-host, journalist, and YouTuber, Brad Polumbo & Comedian Vince August.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, Google's new artificial intelligence. Jim and I is here to show you that the founders of America were black and Indian. The Vikings were people of color. And the Pope and hockey players are women. Sorry, Babylon, B. the current state of real life is funnier than satire. A conversation with the CEO of the Babylon B, Seth Dillon. Two, one week to cannibalism.

Today, with cell phone outage across America, how long would it take for us to go from an EMP to cannibalism? And three, Coulter's law has been proven correct. The Maxim of Ann Coulter, who laid it out on real time has been vindicated. A conversation with our lunch break panel. It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com and always on demand on YouTube at Will Kane Show. Always streaming live on YouTube at Fox News and on Facebook at Fox News.

And always available in audio format wherever you. get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. It was a little bit hairy this morning and whether or not I would be able to join you here for the Will Kane show because AT&T service is out across the nation. Some 74,000 plus people as of early this morning do not have cell service. Luckily, we still have Wi-Fi, which means we're still attached to civilization. But having lived through the winter storm in Texas and seeing blackouts in New York, York City, it does make you wonder, a, who could cripple us with a cyber attack or an EMP?

Who could bring us to our knees? And how long would it take us to kneel? How long would it take us to resort to Lord of the Flies? That's coming up in just a little bit here on the Will Kane show. But let's deal with not artificial intelligence, but altered reality. Let's start with Google's new AI Gemini. Story number one. He is the CEO of Babylon B, the satirical website, social media provider.

He is Seth Dillon, and he joins us now here on The Will Cain Show. What's up, Seth? Not much, Will. What's up to you? I've seen that you've been all over this Google Gemini AI image generator this morning. It's pretty stunning, and it's sad for you, Seth. It is sad for the Babylon B because you're getting run out of your marketplace of satire by, well, reality. I don't know where you go from here. But let's just show the audience just one or two examples of what has come up in the past 24 hours after they've published their Gemini AI bot.

And here is an image of a request to show Vikings. Vikings, of course, from Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. And Google comes back with images of women and men of color, various ethnicities, but certainly not. Scandinavian. I think we have another example we can show the audience. This is an image requesting medieval king of England. And you can see again, it is a black woman, perhaps a Middle Eastern man. There is a white man, which you would have a 10 out of 10 chance of that being the actual king of England in the Middle Ages. And then here is the founding father, Seth. It is reminiscent of a 1980s Benetton ad, it's people of every stripe and color, not what was actually present

in history, Seth. What do we do with Jim and I? It's a, they're projecting the image that they want, you know, how they want to view the world, how they want the world to be, rather than allowing it to just be what it is. Even in, even in the past, when you're asking to call up images of the past, it's not like, it's not like you're just developing a hypothetical scenario and they're saying, well, we're going to impose, you know, diversity and inclusion into this hypothetical scenario, you're asking it to recreate something from the past that already happened a certain way, and it won't accurately do it.

And this is really the way that they prefer to see even history, which is really astonishing to me. Honestly, though, I find this a lot less concerning, you know, the AI generation of images or whatever, a lot less concerning than the way that they're trying to push, you know, DEI at airlines and things like that. I think there's even more of a safety issue there. but it is absurd like you said I this is it's it's hard to satirize this this is exactly the way that you would have it play out if you were doing like a south park episode about AI and how woke it is these are the types of results that they would put into their satire of this situation so

it is pretty insane it's funny uh but it's also perhaps equally as disconcerting Tray Parker and Matt Stone weren't comedians, as it turns out, they were Nostradamus. I mean, South Park has become a predictor of society like a decade down the road. As have you guys, by the way, at the Babylon B, I mean, really think it is difficult. Your only weapon in success set is speed. Like, you're just going to have to beat them, but your timeline has really tightened. Like, in order for you to mock the direction of reality, I think you're down to about 48 hours like you publish something and it might be real in two days we've had a couple of examples of

times where we wrote a story and it came true later that day um we did it was actually back when um the abraham accords were being signed we had made a joke about how cnn would focus on um you know covid protocols and whether trump was following the covid protocols and and the headline that actually came out on cnn a mere two hours after we published a joke about that basically mimicked the headline It was as if they copied our own headline. And that was literally two hours after we published that joke. So it does sometimes happen in the same day. But usually we're at least a couple of days ahead of reality when we're making these jokes.

But yeah, I mean, the Google AI thing is crazy. To me, it's, and they've come out and apologized about this. And it's like, wait a minute, it's weird that you're apologizing because this is exactly the way that you wanted it to be. You're apologizing for how woke a platform that you designed to be woke is. why are you apologizing for it? They should own it. They should be proud of it. They should say, look, this is the way that we view the world and this is how we want it to be. And what's wrong with you, you bigots for not thinking it's great? Yeah, and many people have pointed out it's actually hard to get Gemini to generate an image

of a white man. Like, what is the prompt I have to put in to get it to generate an image of a white man? But you and several others have dove into, to your point, this isn't a mistake. That's how they're playing it off today. Oh, we're going to go in and we're going to make some corrections, but you've looked at the guy, I think you in particular were focused on the guy who's behind the project. And if you see his Twitter feed or his thought process, this is an absolute, absolute recommendation, not a mistake. It's purposeful in this, in this revisionist history, this revisionist reality. It's a worldview. They're bringing their worldview to their work. And if you have a really healthy worldview that appreciates truth and beauty and goodness

and whatever, then that will come through in your work. And if you have a really distorted and defiled and degraded and, you know, whisted worldview, then that's going to come through in your work. And that's what's happening here. One of the funnier examples I saw was they, you know, they've programmed this thing to be so focused on including people of color into these images that it generates that if you prompt it and ask it to give you a picture of somebody getting arrested, it almost invariably gives you pictures of people of

color getting arrested, which is the opposite of what they would actually want. So it's even backfiring on them in some cases. You would think that that would give you an image of a white man with their, you know, projection of how they want the world to be. You know, you said a minute ago that you find this less threatening than sort of the DEI regime that's made its way into corporate bureaucracy and essential services like airlines. And I think that ultimately you're right, but I wouldn't want to be too cavalier about the dismissal of something like Jim and I. See, what saves us, I think, Seth, is the fact that right now AI is not monopolized. You can go to any different AI function, and it's being programmed with a

different worldview. Of course, the risk is intellectual capture, meaning like, all the same people that go into AI have all the same worldview. But Elon Musk has, what is it, GROC, and that's going to have a different worldview right now. But the risk to me is, the price of that worldview becoming dominant in artificial intelligence is an absolute rewrite, not just rewrite of history, but understanding of current reality. And that's what we see with censorship. And if people don't understand reality and their place in history, then they have no idea to how to move forward in the future. Like we can't negotiate relationships. We can't make forward-thinking decisions. We are literally the definition of ignorance if we don't understand history and reality. Yeah. I mean, you have that problem already with the search engines. If you go to Google and you type in, can men get pregnant? The answer you get is from health. The topic result is health line.com saying, yes, men can get pregnant. You know, Google already has that problem. And we're, you know, we're training people to believe things that aren't true. And I do agree with you that it is problematic. If AI is the thing that we start turning to for answers and helping us think about the world around us and what we should believe about the world around us and even about the past, and what's happened in the past, the more and more people adopt that and start using it, and the further off from the mark it is, it will have very devastating consequences, I think. I agree with that.

I just, the immediate pressure that I, when I fly around the country right now, you know, my more immediate concern is whether or not I'm going to have a diversity plane crash. But yes, I definitely agree with you that there are, you don't want to be too cavalier about it, not at all. It's funny. I fly every week, Seth. I don't worry about that right now. I don't know.

That's, you know what, I am a, I am a, not a victim, but I am, I fall back on statistics way too often. So in other words, like I see the stats on the potentiality for an airplane crash. And I see the stats for, you know, a home invasion. And that means that I go around the world and not constantly making sure my doors are locked. Now, that being said, I should tell you, I've had a home invasion. And the minute you have a home invasion, then all of a sudden, statistics are meaningless. It's like one aberration, and I don't care about the odds anymore. Now I want to make sure that every pilot is of the highest meritocracy,

and I want to make sure that I have the perfect alarm system. But back to the censorship, and AI is sort of censorship on steroids, because censorship is propaganda. It's all an element of mind control. And I don't know, man, and I know you have something coming up before the Supreme Court, which you guys have participated in here

when it comes to making social media companies accountable for their censorship framework. It's just, I don't think we, I still don't think, Seth, we have a full appreciation for the links at which, I'm going to skip the middle steps, not just the links of which we've been censored, but the links at which our minds have been manipulated.

the extent that it has gone to essentially institute mind control. Yeah, well, mind control, but also self-censorship, because so much of what you see happening now is this threat of being censored or the threat of deplatforming. People don't want to lose their accounts, and so they're actually musling themselves and thinking, I mean, this was the problem that we had. When we got censored on Twitter, there was a question that was raised internally about whether or not we should make this joke. We had made a joke about how Rachel Levine was our pick for a man of the year, right?

And we were debating internally, well, do we even post this joke? because it might get us suspended and we decided well we're not going to censor ourselves we're going to throw it out there let them censor us right we don't want to be the one censoring ourselves it's it's it's it's affecting people's you know obviously their minds and the conclusions that they're reaching on their own but it's also affecting whether or not they have the courage to even speak the truth because they feel like there's going to be some consequence if they do and so that's a really big problem and and i think that you know this yeah that's why we filed a brief in this case is because we're trying to support the right of people to be able to speak in the public

square freely without fear of, you know, ideological or political viewpoint discrimination and the penalties that come along with that. And again, Babylonby satire, comedy, site. You got censored on Twitter for an image of Rachel Levine, the transgender, what's his job? Pentagon, Health Admiral. And you nominated a man of the year on Twitter. But you also got censored on Facebook. What was the story that got censored?

You got censored on Facebook. Well, we've had a lot of issues on Facebook. We've had some posts that just got throttled to the point where they didn't get any views. We've had posts that where we did a Monty Python joke that was censored for incitement to violence. You know, a lot of it is it's either hateful conduct typically or misinformation that you get censored for. If you go all the way back to the beginning, the first one that we got censored for on Facebook was a joke about how CNN had purchased an industrial-sized washing machine to spin the news in before publishing it, which is just a silly, stupid joke. It's not even really that funny. The funny thing is that it got fact checked by Snopes, rated false, and then Facebook threatened to take us down if we continue to publish fake news.

And so, you know, satire's been kind of off limits, basically, on Facebook for a long time, and we're constantly fighting to be able to make jokes that they don't consider hateful or misinformative. And you've been censored as well on YouTube. We haven't had as many issues on YouTube. We get strikes every now and then. You know, we've had that issue, but we haven't actually been to. platform from YouTube. They've never taken our page down. So the reason that I sort of leap from censorship to mind control, Seth, is like, so the case that you guys have written a friend of the court brief on is the attempts by Florida and Texas

to force social media companies to basically lay out their criteria, their framework for censorship. You know, I wonder, I do wonder, even whatever we arrive at, what, what, if there were a victory for free speech at the Supreme Court, I don't know that it could penetrate the censorship complex that has now been, I think, somewhat patched together, but also with historical precedent and background that is like our electrical grid. I mean, it overlaps. It's one on top of another. It has redundancy. What I mean by that is, like, when you look at the Twitter files reporting by Matt Taibi and Michael Schellenberger, you see the role that FBI or the intelligence agencies play in the background of social media companies.

If you listen to somebody like Mike Bins, who worked at the State Department, you'll see the way that the military industrial complex and the Pentagon have played a role in censorship, first overseas in other countries under the banner of saving democracy and overseas elections, and then reverse engineered it back into America to save democracy here in America. And I don't even know if the Supreme Court or a Texas or Florida law, I just, don't think we're going to uncover, oh, here are the search terms that Twitter at the time said we're going to throttle back or we're going to blacklist. When the true framework that we're talking about trying to expose is much more complex than whatever's in the algorithm

at Twitter. Well, you're right. There's a lot of layers to it. When you have the government involved behind the scenes, that's obviously the biggest no-no, right? That's the most egregious example of where you actually have a first amendment issue under current law. The government can't do through the backdoor what would be unconstitutional for them to do themselves. They can't outsource censorship to a third party and have a third party do it for them when they're not constitutionally allowed to do it themselves. And the Supreme Court's already ruled on that before. So that's an issue that it shouldn't be happening because it's already unlawful for that to happen. And so where's the enforcement against that? I haven't seen any accountability on that or any enforcement.

I don't know if you have, but I haven't noticed it. Where is that? That needs to be put to a stop. There's the other layers of it, obviously, where the media and activists will report on and pressure, you know, these platforms to do their bidding. When you have, like, Libs of TikTok is a great example. You know, Libs of TikTok just got suspended from Stripe. Their account is frozen on Stripe. And it's in response to the media and these activists smearing lives of TikTok and basically calling it a

terrorist organization. And then, you know, the tech companies turn around and say, oh, well, if they're a terrorist organization, well, then we don't want to host them. We don't want anything to do with them. And so the censorship and deplatforming is in response to the misreporting, the lies and the misrepresentations of anybody who's, you know, right of center in any of their viewpoints. They're considered hateful and dangerous and harmful. And so the media and the activists are playing a role in getting these tech companies to go along with this and engage in the censorship. Plus, the tech companies are perfectly happy to do it themselves because they agree with these activists in the media they're like yeah with this is great let's shut

them up it's it's harmful speech it shouldn't be allowed so um what we're hoping you know i think as far as what would be a really good outcome would be just as thomas has weighed in on this before too that you could have something like common carrier a doctrine common carrier doctrine apply to these platforms which is you know there's precedent for this there are telecommunications companies transportation service providers that are really large privately owned companies that are serving a critical public function. And because of the widespread, you know, the monopoly that they have and the way that they're serving a critical public function, they are regulated in the sense that they can't discriminate against people. You know,

they can't pick and choose based on your viewpoint who gets to ride on the train or gets to use AT&T cell service. You know, it's unlawful for them to discriminate on that basis. And so it's not true that private companies in all circumstances can just do whatever they want. In those cases, regulation that applies. And the question is, should such regulation apply to big tech companies? And I think the answer is yes. I think this is the modern public square. It's where the vast majority of public discourse is taking place. And so if speech isn't protected there, then it's not really protected in the public square anymore. We have a problem. And so it's not really a question of how things are, but how they should be. How should the law treat these platforms? And we're

finally going to get a chance to see how the Supreme Court thinks about that. If that were accomplished, if social media companies were treated as telecom companies, as common carriers, and then subject to regulation, what that would do is turnover oversight of the censorship regime back to theoretically the democratic process. You'd have a regulatory agency that's accountable to Congress, and Congress would have some oversight. But I wonder, would that accomplish what we want? you could argue that we're already dealing with the government interference in speech. I think that's not even argue. I think that's pretty clear through the back door. So what you're suggesting is allowing the government through the front door, so at least there is some front-facing accountability through elected representatives, through real democracy, not institutional democracy.

Yeah. Well, and it's existing legal precedent that protects, you know, it's really, it's law designed to present. speech and and fairness and non-discrimination which you know the government is successfully enforcing in a lot of different areas of public life what's the alternative to wait around for one of the world's richest men to believe in free speech enough to spend all this money to buy a platform and set it free well that happened once I don't know that it's going to happen again with the other platforms but at the very least we have one platform where there is somebody

who has a very strong commitment to free experience expression, and he's made good on that in many ways, take over one of these platforms. I don't think you can count on that. I don't think, you know, it's very nice to have a benevolent billionaire, you know, taking care of free speech for us. But, you know, you still need actual legal protection for these things. Not just a benevolent billionaire, but one who is insulated from the type of pressure that would be exerted because the pressure is enormous to censor through all these backdoor mechanisms. And, oh, yeah, I mean, look at what the big companies like Disney and IBM and all it just did with, with basically trying to hold money over Musk's head and say, look, we're going to withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spend unless you censor more content. And he's like the one guy in the world that can say to them, nah, I don't care. Go for it. Take your money. Spend it elsewhere.

I don't want your money. I want free speech. And you're not going to, you're not going to manipulate me into cracking down on and censoring the users I just liberated. I like your your the the choice you've given us it's either you know no one loves the idea of congressional oversight I don't think anyone thinks that's a great idea it's just the I think it's what we have to arrive at if we're going to we're doing it anyway we already got the government playing in the in the pool so the question is how do you hold the government accountable while they play in the pool and your alternative is a benevolent billionaire and maybe just to illustrate that he may be literally one of one It's not just that he believes in the principle of free speech, it's that he has strength, as you pointed out, in the marketplace, and he's particularly uniquely insulated from government pressure because in other realms the government is reliant upon him when it comes to SpaceX, or even, you could argue, his commitment to green energy has made him ingratiated into other realms of the government, where they're like, there's only so far you can squeeze Elon Musk because he has other, he has other, you, um, he has other, um, he has other, um, he, He has the other utility to us, whereas let's say you got, I don't know, pick some other billionaire, an oil billionaire in Texas who says, I believe in free speech and I'm buying whatever, Facebook, which I don't know who could, but let's just presume for a moment that he could. He not only would need to have the principle of dedication to free speech, he'd have to be somehow insulated from the pressure that would come on him politically. And there would be, as we just pointed out, not just Disney and marketplace pressure, but huge governmental pressure he would have to.

to withstand. And I don't know there's anybody. Musk might be one of one. Yeah, he might be. But he still does, you know, it's tough because they do really still have something over him. I mean, if they can run his company into the ground, you know, he's spent $44 billion to acquire Twitter and turn it into X. If they can run that company into the ground or require him to have to sell a bunch of equity in Tesla to be able to keep it going, then that can, you know, reduce the value of Tesla and get him on thin ice with the shareholders there and the board and his whole situation with that company. And things can start to topple like dominoes, even for Elon Musk if he doesn't take care

to make sure that he's protecting his interests and these assets. And so there are still weak points for him. He's not invincible. He's just very dedicated in a way that we haven't seen. I think it's remarkably refreshing. You know, the lesson that I take away from it is, you know, we have to stop. caring what free speech might cost us we have to stop caring what the consequences are even if they're severe even if they cost us a lot and in his case you know he can withstand a lot more

than most people obviously but the cost of him has been more than just monetary i mean the the left hates him now and he's he's come down on the on the side of the far right extremists valuing things like free speech and you know being healthy uh comedians for a long time have been able to say what they want, and then I don't want to sound like I'm picking a pejorative word, but hide behind, hey, it was just a joke. And, you know, in a way, that's what we're talking about when it comes to the Babylon B as well. You can say a lot of things, but what keeps you and should keep you from someone describing your speech with whatever adjective they want to describe it as, hate, misinformation, whatever they choose is, hey, it's a joke. John Stewart used to do this

a lot. Like, hey, it's a joke. What do you make of John Oliver? John Oliver just on his show recently bribed Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice of the United States, with a million dollars a year and a $2.4 million RV. Now, Oliver held up a contract and said, this is not a joke. I'm being real. I ran this by my attorneys. It's not illegal. Nothing about it. How about this?

He did everything he could to disavow himself of the idea that is a joke. joke. And here he is bribing a Supreme Court justice. Does he get to just run back now if it's ever, you know, I'm sure he won't be censored for it. But do you get to just now hide behind? It's a joke. Well, it's a weird thing. You know, these liberal comedians just can't seem to help themselves where they go a little bit beyond just, you know, they're not trying to be funny anymore. They're trying to make, they're trying to make a point in a way that's not even funny um they get so worked up and so so angry uh what do they call it trump derangement syndrome you know all these things um i often see them go out there and they're giving their monologue

and it's supposed to be like a stand-up comedy bit but it's more of like a an angry screed where they're not even making any jokes they're just being political and and uh in offering you know their opinions about how terrible republicans are or something um i think they're they're not helping themselves in that sense because their job is to be funny. That's the first job of being a comedian is to be funny. And what's the funniest thing that you can do? It's to it's to poke holes in the popular narrative. It's to challenge the powers that be. In this case, you know, the narrative is that that Clarence Thomas is already compromised and already being bribed and already being offered, you know, rides on jets and nice

vacations and everything. And there's supposed to be this connection there between that and his rulings or something like that. Like he's already compromised. And so this joke, if you can call it, that is, you know, leaning into that a little bit and saying, well, you know, if you're going to take bribes, why don't you take this one? Even with him disclaiming it and saying that it's not a joke that he's being serious, but isn't that his job to make jokes? So maybe that's just one more layer to the joke? I don't know. I'm not going to try to unravel it and understand it. I don't think it's really that funny, but maybe liberals think it's really funny. It depends on your worldview, I guess, or where you're coming at.

if you if there's no longer requirement to be funny and you don't even have to pretend that you're telling a joke i think i self-identify as a comedian for now on i am a comedian and i should not be censored uh it's all a joke it is it is though you're right though that's often it's often an argument that's made that you know because especially with us we get this a lot um where um we're accused of using the cover of satire to spread misinformation or hate speech and that we're not not really telling jokes. We're really, we're really being awful people and covering it up with, oh, well, that was just a joke. And, um, and, you know, that's disingenuous. You know, we're allowed to, we're allowed to have a different perspective. I think it's, I think it's healthy that there are some comedians and conservatives who are on the right and are doing comedy from a different worldview perspective and are, and are challenging the narratives that are being parroted by every other comedian, you know, the things that they're, the things that are the funniest things in the world right now, they're not even willing to go near and make jokes about. Why can't we

jokes about those things. And I think that it's, you know, it's kind of a, it's a cop out. It's an excuse to try to shut up people that you don't like that are, that are telling jokes from making statements that that you don't like. Even if that's, that was what we were doing, it's still constitutionally protected speech, but we're just trying to have fun and be funny and, and poke at the things that deserve it, mock the things that deserve it. So many of these ideas are so mockable. And it's so refreshing to me when you actually see a liberal comedian like Bill Maher mocking, you know, gender, radical gender ideology for kids

and saying, you know, when I was a kid, I wanted to be a pirate. Thank God, no one scheduled me for peg leg surgery and eye removal. You know, like that was an important joke to tell because it actually challenges a popular narrative that no one else is willing to challenge. I found that, like, profoundly important that he was willing to tell that joke despite whatever backlash you would get. So was he just trying to be mean or was he trying to make fun of something

that actually deserved it? I think, you know, the people in the audience can make up their minds for themselves on that. So I want to show you this and get your reaction. Finally, Seth, this came across my attention this week. It's from the Writers Guild of America, and it shows the stats on how television shows are staffed and how it's changed over the past 10 years. And you can see there, there's a lot of numbers on your screen, but basically what you see to highlight is men in 2011 made up 64% of staff writers, and today they make up 36% of staff writers.

You can keep going down different jobs, story editor. um co-producer you're talking about drops for anywhere you know 14% to 30% and the number of jobs held by men obviously the percentage of women who hold these jobs again writer up to producer supervising producer have gone up co-executive producer they've gone up remarkably 20 in the 25 27 30 percent margin. And then they also have a category for BiPoc and white. And it's the same. White staff writers and story editors and producers down huge numbers, sometimes 40%, 26%, 30%, where people of color take story editor up almost 41%. You've had a huge transformation in Hollywood in the way stories are written and told, Seth.

Yeah, massive. And that's very deliberate. That all comes back to what you were saying before, you know, this shaping of people's minds in the way that they view reality. There's a, there's a goal, a woke ideal that is the target. And this is one of the ways of getting there is by, you know, manipulating how the stories were even presented in the first place to the audience. Yeah, and look, there is a, at best we can call it a correlation, but there is a popular conversation taking place about the decline in the quality of television over the past 10 years. As Marvel has prioritized seemingly social justice messages over compelling storytelling, every single show in Amazon Prime or Netflix seems to come with a sermon, not just entertainment. The argument's taken a backseat to ideology, no question, yeah. Correct. And obviously the argument isn't, oh, women or people of color don't write as well as men, but what that has done as a byproduct is prioritize the idea that the stories should be about those identities. And I think we've seen the effects.

People have said, I'm not that into these stories. Yeah, and that might be a self-correcting problem. I mean, if you, one of the issues is how much do they not care about money? Are they like Elon Musk where they're willing to say, we don't care if this loses hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, it's that important to us that we're going to invest in this? Well, maybe they care just as strongly in that direction as he does. If they have any concern for actual market pressure and performance, and as publicly traded companies, they should, then you would think that they would respond to those market pressures and say, we need to actually give people what they want, real entertainment, instead of trying to shove this. down their throats. You've seen Disney kind of backtrack on some of these things and say that they've gotten it, you know, that they've been a little bit off and they need to get out of the

way of themselves and just tell stories again. We'll see if that actually happens. So far, we're not seeing that. We're continuing to see this all the same woke garbage. I can't help but notice, though, that on that chart, there's only two genders represented. Where are the rest of the genders? It's just men and women that are writing on these teams? Where are the rest of them listed? You know, it's, do they even have categories for other genders and any of these stats or reports. I'd like to see where all the non-binary writers are. On one hand, I want to applaud you.

Of course, the satirical CEO of the Babylon B would see the hole in the dam. But, I mean, at this point, the dam is so riddled with holes that water's pouring out everywhere. And all this does is create opportunity for you. There's a bunch of writers out there who are looking for jobs. There's a bunch of consumers out

there. They're looking for entertainment. And it all means more opportunity for you. If you can reach the marketplace and not be censored, and that is why we wish you luck at the Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you. Appreciate it, Will. All right. Yeah, Seth.

Thanks for being on the Will Cain Show. Thank you for having me. There you go. Seth, you bet. That's Seth Dillon, the CEO of the Babylon Bee. Check them out everywhere on social media, where they are not censored or at the Babylon B. How long would it take us?

ATT services out this morning, including mine, which made me wonder and start Googling, how long till we resort to cannibalism? from EMP to dystopia. One week, that's next on the Will Cain Show. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me, Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week.

Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tass. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. I give us a couple of days, maybe one week, till we resort to Lord of the Flies. It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel at the Fox News Facebook page. And on demand, Will Cain Show on Facebook, Will Cain Show on YouTube, Will Cain show on Apple or Spotify.

and hit subscribe, and you can get us in audio or video format whenever you like. I woke up this morning, and I think I had cell service for a couple of minutes, maybe an hour. But I looked down on my phone, and as we speak right now, I see, it still says SOS on my phone. No cell service, although I still have Wi-Fi. AT&T is down across the country, tens of thousands of Americans without... As of 903 or 930 Eastern time this morning, 74,000 Americans, primarily in the Southeast and the South, in places like Atlanta and Dallas, are without cell service. And it made me wonder, how long until we start eating each other? How long is it exactly until we resort to cannibalism?

I was once at a New York Yankee game with Pete Hegseth and the man who killed bin Laden, Rob O'Neill. And by the way, it doesn't matter what celebrity environment you ever find yourself in. There is nothing cooler than being the man who killed bin Laden. You can be in a booth. You could be in a box at the Yankee game with Tom Brady. And I will guarantee you while there'd be a group of dudes around Brady talking about those seven Super Bowls. If somebody says, hey, see that guy over there? That's the guy that killed bin Laden.

The group of dudes is migrating from Brady to Rob O'Neill. But Rob O'Neill said while we were watching the Yankees that day, I give us 24 hours. 24 hours after an EMP, electromagnetic pulse. 24 hours after we lose power, we're full on Lord of the Flies. Now, I don't know if Rob is right. You know, Rob is extreme. I'm sure he would admit he is extreme. And so he's prepared for that extremity, 24 hours until we're full on savage.

Of course, Rob and many other seals would thrive in an environment that is savage. But it did make me think exactly how long do we have until we go from no electricity to a downed grid to Lord of the Flies. Some of the guys that work on the show, we were talking about it this morning. And Dan, nicknamed Two of Days, 35 years old, said he wouldn't know what he would do if he had to go somewhere and he didn't have service with ways. And I will admit, I will readily admit, at this point, I'm a full-on bot. Like, I plug in the minute I'm going anywhere, even if I absolutely know where I'm going, 10 minutes drop. the kids off at school. Only two or three turns. I know where I'm going. Plug-in ways. Hey, you never know. It could be a traffic accident, a massive traffic build-up on Inwood. I don't know. I might need

to plug into my technological overlord, make sure I know where I'm going. But Tuday said, if he permanently lost it, he literally wouldn't know where he was going, wouldn't know how to read a physical map. I remember the days of holding an Atlas in the car, and I loved it. Now, I don't do it anymore because I don't want to take the time to look at the Atlas. I just want to get going and let the electronic overlords guide me along the way. But my sense of place and context and direction is severely diminished. I don't know where I am as well as I used to know where I am. And I like knowing where I am. I'm addicted to maps. I collect maps. So why I'm a slave to ways. And that's just one of the small ways that we are so addicted to our electronics.

Another member of our show, Establishment James, young James in his 20s said he misplaced his phone or couldn't charge it for 24 hours, and he could feel the panic sweats coming in. I mean, we are addicted to this thing, but not just this thing, everything that goes into this thing, the lights, the electricity, the refrigeration. And if we were really attacked, really attacked, how would we do? I've seen it in small doses. I'm sure you've seen power outages for, you know, half a day, maybe even 48 hours. A few years ago in Texas, we had the huge winter storm.

we lost power for a couple of days. Some people had to suffer through that for more than a couple of days. Look, the way it rolls is usually for two days. Everybody has fun. They eat what's left in the fridge. They make a fire if it's the winter. They suffer a little bit if it's the summer. And you consider yourself indoor camping, you know, but 48-hour passes, and things get real. Things get real fast, and it cascades. I saw this this past summer in Maui. after the Lahaina fire, they lost electricity. They lost cell service. Nothing. So you are barbecue gas grill, whatever you've got in the fridge, you are word of mouth. And by the way, that's one of the reasons, along with government censorship in the immediate days after,

literal government censorship, which I experienced, you're not allowed to report from this location and that location being gigantic, created an environment of conspiracy. Word of mouth and censorship, welcome to the world of conspiracy. Water kept running and that was a godsend because that was the last straw. My mother was still there for a week without power. It was a week before power came back on. But water continued to run, which is a godsend, because that is something that requires electricity. So how long do we have? And most estimates suggest that if we were attacked, cyber attack i don't know china russia iran north korea electromagnetic pulse that took out our electricity grid life is going to be much different than the pandemic oh we're all happy to just sit

in our homes because we could play on our apps and our internet and stream some shows life goes much differently and it goes quick after that initial 48 hours that's when things begin to cascade refrigeration means the food is lost whatever you have has been cooked dry foods could last a little bit longer. Suggestion is within three to four days, the water is down. Your water system generally requires electricity. Most towns, like for example here in Texas, have water towers, which are heightened and pressurized. But even those only hold reserves that by most estimates are under rationing three to four days worth of water. Three to four days of water. And once you lose water, now you lose sanitation. You're five, six days away from sanitation backing

up, which requires electricity as well. Now, think about how your life over a two to five-day period changes. You lose any medication that you need that requires refrigeration. You lose any type of medical devices that require electricity, ventilation, C-PAT, whatever. Convenience and necessity, gone. And then, once you start losing water and sanitation, you have a rapidly declining state of living now you could probably count on within that first five days within the first week crime rising because at the very least you will have those that would look to take advantage you would have looting robbery breaking and entering immediately on the rise this isn't necessarily out of necessity it could be out of um fortune out of out of you know taking advantage

of others as most crime is it's not driven out of Poverty or necessity, it's driven out of criminality. So then you have a response, depending on the inability, because our communications are down, of police response, you have the law of the jungle. If you're going to deal with crime on the streets, you're going to respond with what it takes to stop crime on the streets. Now we're arriving at the place where Rob O'Neill thrives. Now we're talking about law of the jungle. Now we're talking about not the golden rule, but he, not he with the gold makes the rules, but rather he with the power survives.

Ammunition, firepower, home defense. At some point when food is lost, you go on offense. Society rapidly declines, and the number that we probably arrive at is a little over a week. I think true electrical grid loss, communication, then refrigeration, then food, then water, medicine, you're probably talking about civilization holding out for 10 days and those last three a true holdout. We all remember COVID. And one of the things about COVID that revealed itself to each other is the way our human beings responded to one another. What fear does. I don't know, and you don't know most likely what hunger does, but I've read about the way that hunger can change

you quickly. So once we get hungry, we become different people. But COVID taught me, once we become fearful, we're entirely different people. The guy you know, your neighbor, not the guy you know. In some cases, the buddy you've had for much of your life, all of a sudden wants to wipe everything down with Lysol and wears a mask. And you're like, hey, that doesn't add up. But fear changes or exposes who we really are that apparently is covered up with a thin veneer of civilization that in the end and I'm not a prepper but I want to be in the end you need to prepare to last to hit that point of no return to hit that savagery within a week for now still SOS no service for AT&T

Coulter's law has been vindicated. If we, if the shooter in Kansas City were white, we would have known immediately the fact that we didn't. Verifies Coulter's law that the shooter was not white. That coming up in just a moment with our lunch day panel on the Will Cain show. The new Bimo, V.I. Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks. More points. more flights

more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card and then some get your ticket to more with the new bemo V-I-Porter Mastercard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months terms and conditions apply

visit bemo.com slash the Iporter to learn more Bill Maher said he wouldn't pick Joe Biden to be his Squid Games partner. Okay, but who would you pick in Washington, D.C., to help you survive the Squid Games. It's the Will Cane Show streaming live at Fox News.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. On demand at Will Kane Show, on Facebook, on YouTube, and on podcast. Today is our lunch break panel. It is Brad Palumbo.

He is the host of the based politics podcast. He's a YouTuber. He's on X at Brad underscore Palumbo. And Vince August, comedian, former judge. I was waiting for it to say judge on American Idol or judge on America's Got Talent, but a real-life judicial judge, Vince August, who you can find on X and on YouTube. He's Vince August 21. What's up, guys? Glad to have you on the Will Cain show.

Ready to be here. What's up, Will? Vince, last Friday on real time, Ann Coulter issued what people have come to call Coulter's law. And that was that we do not know the identities of the Kansas City

Chief's victory parade shooters. And that means they're not white. If they were, we would know right away. The fact that we don't know confirms they're not white. Facts now have come out, and it turns out, Anne Coulter was right. She was mocked, by the way, by Bill Maher and Van Jones. But as it turns out, she's right. The shooters in Kansas City, not white. It is a hierarchy. It's first, if it's white, we go right back to the

inauguration speech. 21, white supremacy is the biggest threat in our country at this time. If you have white with an AR-15, that's the bonus. So you got the powerball as well as the numbers there, so you're hitting big. Once you start chipping away at that, once you lose AR-15, then the argument becomes a little bit weaker. If you lose white and AR-15, then it's don't report. The news cycle will get this out of the news quick enough, and we'll move on to it because we've scene what now the shooter at down at allstein's church was trans we're going to bury that like the tennessee shooter this story again it doesn't fit a narrative get rid of it and and let's let's be honest whenever there's a shooting the right is kind of and i don't when i talk about the

right i mean you know the conservative right is is at a weak point because it's come after the guns and you can't it's hard to defend the shooting and they never defend the shooting they defend the legal gun owner's rights. So there's already a weaker argument there. But when it's the left, it's we have to make sure we can check the boxes we want to check because the boxes have to be white supremacy, AR 15, and, you know, go down that list. If we can't check those boxes, get off the story. Well, what you're pointing out, and I'll put this to you, Brad, so what's interesting is you said that in a little bit of a funny way there for a moment, Vince, but I know what you're getting at you said like no one would defend the shooting but you're right if you're

on the quote unquote right that's the box that you're put into because you are immediately painted as the bad guy so it's not the shooter that's the bad guy it's you're it's you that are the bad guy because you believe in the second amendment or gun owners second amendment advocates whatever it may be you know brad like i'm gonna i'm gonna i'm gonna say this it's really bothered me like i've a friend for most of my life. And after the shooting in Evaldi, which was horrific, you know, the text he sent me was like, how do I defend myself? What do I need to defend myself from? I didn't do anything here. I didn't shoot anybody. I didn't advocate for this, but you put me in the box in the same position, presumably of the shooter. Like, how is this about me? And this is a lifelong friend.

Yeah, no, I get that concern because I think the problem here is whenever you're using individual actions or circumstances, and then you're blaming collectives or entire groups. Like, we would all agree that say that you're someone and you were mugged by a black person once, it's not okay to then look at a random black person and be like, oh, they must be dangerous. We'd all be like, that is bad. That's offensive. That's stereotyping. But when it runs in the other direction, when they're like, oh, white men are the big. biggest problems causing mass shootings. It's like suddenly okay to collectively assign guilt and blame on the basis of immutable demographic characteristics. I think that's horrific.

But hold on, Brad. The only thing I'd push back, the only thing about, I think you're just one step removed from actually what's happening. It's not simply because, listen, what you've described, Brad, is racism. It's taking the acts of one individual and applying it to a group as a collective, right? And racism is wrong, but racism is a natural condition of humanity to extrapolate in the pursuit of security, okay? It doesn't make it right, but what it does is it reminds us we have to overcome those instinctual things and allow for individuality. But what Vince is describing is less like, my friend didn't text me because I'm white. He didn't text me because, by the way, the shooter in Yvaldi wasn't white. I think he was Latino.

But it's because I'm on the right. You know, it's because I'm conservative. So it's like viewpoint extrapolation, which is also not accurate because who knows what that shooter's viewpoint is? It was removed all agency from the individuals and it's just about, I have the wrong political opinion. So now somehow I'm responsible for Yuvaldi. But I think it's because it's easier than arguing with your points or your positions. It's a smear job, right? It's like they don't want to have a debate about the facts of guns in America, whether their specific policies would have actually made any difference.

It's easier to kind of go with an emotional blame narrative to try to discredit the opposition rather than argue with us and explain why we're wrong because most of the facts aren't on their side. I mean, guns are used far more in self-defense in America than they are in violent crimes. And they don't want to grapple with the actual numbers or the realities or the fact that in many of these cases, these people, were already legally prohibited from purchasing a gun and found a way to get one anyway. So it's easier for them to try to make it a blame game, try to, it's the same way when they say like the NRA has blood on their hands, even though as far as I'm aware, no NRA member has ever committed a mass shooting. You might disagree with the NRA's positions, but you should argue with them.

Instead, they do this ad hominant to try to discredit the position with the public rather than explain why it's wrong. I think it's really cheap, it's really divisive, and it's kind of corrosive to how our politics is supposed to work. So before I go back to Vince, I want to go back to you on this, then, Brad, really quick. How do you explain, so what we're talking about is how they won't, how Vince, your explanation about the power ball is perfect, actually. Like, the necessary ingredients for press coverage are AR-15 and white person, white man. those are the those are the elements that make us shooting

meaningful to the media if those elements are missing it goes away but then there's another step which I'm going to put to you Brad and that is the step of totally hiding from us the details of a shooting so in this case look it was

two young black men I don't know if it was gang related but it was seemingly like they got into an argument at the parade and they quickly resorted to guns, is what we seem to know right now. But at first we were told, well, you didn't get to know their identity because they're juveniles. They're not juveniles. That's false.

Like, it's a lie. Like, one of them's 18 or 19, and the other is 22 or 23. The two that have been arrested in charge with second-degree murder. So we're seeing a whole different thing play out now of not just, hey, here's the powerball ticket number of stories we want to run with. But now we've got some elements. We actually want to make the story go away. hide the story, Brad. It's because they're approaching these stories in mainstream media and analyzing whether

they're useful to pursue an agenda. And as soon as it comes out that it's not a loner white male with an AR-15 or these other necessary preconditions to push their ideological agenda, it is useless and in fact actually hurts their agenda, right, in different ways. So that's why they don't want to cover it. That's why they don't want to press for the information to be released in a more timely manner. And I think it's just that's the fundamental problem with the approach is they're not looking at these incidents as what is the news value. They're looking at it as what is the

political value. And they've kind of conflated those two things successfully in their own minds and in the public perceptions over the last decade or so. But it's not how the news is supposed to work. Vince? Well, the other aspect of this is you have to remember what media is. It's very visual. So when you have the visual of a white supremacist, a thought immediately comes to mind, and they usually look like me, which is not good for me. But there's also the other visual, the AR-15, which looks like a really scary gun. And as a gun owner, I can tell you right now, if you came to me and said, we can have your Springfield M-1 or your AR-15, I'd say you can take my AR-15. My M-1 is a lot more accurate and it's a lot more dangerous because

Was it a caliber of a bullet and how far I could shoot? The other aspect, then, is the visual that we have, which is what these shooters look like and where we are right now and what the big story is right now, which is immigration. And if the shooters look like the thing that is the other aspect of the news right now

that we're trying to not make a big deal out of, well, that's a lot of overlap. And you know what? We've got to make that story go away because it kind of gives credence to this. So rather than just, just deal with this as a shooting, it starts to layer in every other aspect of the news and it becomes this layering thing. And it's to separate those layers for the people that want to have

a narrative. That's way too much work. So you know what? Just bury it. Barrier because then we're going to have to get into all of the other aspects. It is interesting that one of those powerball ingredients, as you've talked about, is the AR-15 because to your point, Brad, like the news is not to relay information, but to further a political agenda. Why is the AR-15 so important? Why is it part of the political agenda? Its contribution to annual shootings is minuscule. Like, it's, is it 4%?

I'm not even sure if it's 4% of like, if there's 40,000 shootings in a year, it's there are so many millions of AR-15s that 99.99% of them are never used to kill anybody. yeah yeah well it's the last gun i'm grabbing in my house and that's why a conservative always looks at this conversation as dishonest it's like look what uh 90% probably i'm guessing at this but i'm a gun owner i know some things about guns my whole life 90% semi-automatic handguns revolvers too i mean uh handguns and so like if you're truly trying to make a dent in violence through the mechanism of gun control, forgive me if I don't see you heading

towards the direction of everything. Because virtually everything is semi-automatic, right? Like, of course, we got rifles in both actions and shotguns. Yeah, we need to repeal the Second Amendment and collect all the guns. Because just they pretend they just want this piecemeal reform, like just this here or this, that. But even they can't truly believe that would make much of a difference.

I mean, the countries they talk about favorably don't just have, you know, tighter background checks. They just ban all of this stuff and forcibly did buybacks and all this other stuff. So there is an alarming degree of dishonesty and also unfamiliarity with these subject matters. I'm not a huge gun person, but I at least know the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. But the number of times you hear a newscaster or a democratic politician say automatic rifle when what they mean is semi-automatic, which are totally different things. it just betrays a profound ignorance of the thing they're claiming to want to ban or regulate, and it's like you should probably at least be familiar with the basics.

I love how media is obsessed with all forms of diversity, except only the ones that show up on the census. Not like, how many gun owners do we have in this newsroom? How many people who are born in red states do we have? How many people who go to church? These are more meaningful kinds of diversity that box you check on the census, and the lack of it shows up in the coverage. So Vince, Bill Maher on his show last week said, as an aside, a joke that he wouldn't choose Joe Biden as his Squid Game partner. Now, I'm not going to presume that everybody watching and listening knows Squid Game, but it was, I think it was a Korean show.

I can't remember if it's Korean or Japanese show. Forgive me. I watched it dubbed. Korean. On, thank you. I watched it dubbed on Netflix. Didn't pick up the underlying language or culture, apparently, so that's on me. But squid games. Good show, by the way, fun show. And the idea was people were all put into basically a hunger game style event. They die. The winner gets all their debt paid a certain amount. The number climbed by every time someone else died. But people partnered up through it for a while. They partnered up to arrive at the end to survive the other contestants. And Bill Maher said, I wouldn't want to partner up with Joe Biden. Which leads me to this, Vince, who in D.C.

would you choose as your partner in the Squid Games? All right. If I can go a little bit out of D.C., it's RFK Jr., because he's jumping on the floor doing push-ups every opportunity he gets. If I can't have him, I'm going Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard is in shape, former military. She's constantly training. Then I have a woman on my team so she can get into smaller places.

I can't. I'm telling you. Jabbert, August, you're not. beating us. Jabbert, R. F.K. Jr., you're not beating this team. You're not beating us. I think we can, Brad. He left some Navy SEALs on the table for you. Yeah, so the hard thing is that you have to beat him at the end, right? Because a part of me just wants to go for like... That's the key I was going to say, Brad. Vince, you've made him... I don't know. Are you going to beat Tulsi in a fight 1 v.1 when it

comes down to you in Tulsi? You need somebody just to Brad's point, good enough to get you long, but not better than you. You can't teach speed. Tulsi's got speed. My my think is Dan Crenshaw. And part of me if this is a little offensive, but like he's got the military training,

right? He's got the military background. And I think he'd help me get to the end. I think he's got the smarts and the know-how, but then there's advantages that I would have over him that maybe I could use to get it over him in the end. Oh, I don't know what you're.

you're saying. What are you saying, Brad? What advantages do you have over a former Navy SEAL? I don't know. Are you saying you're going to sneak up on his blind side? Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Okay, well, I'm going to tell you something, Brad. I'm taking Dan Grinshaw with one eye over you with both eyes. I'm sorry. I don't think you're going to, I don't think you're sneaking up on him. Now, I don't know if there's other seals. I think there's, I don't know how many seals there are in Congress in D.C. right now. Tim Shehee's running for Senator in Montana. Ryan Zinke was. I can't right. There's a lot. Morgan LaTrell in Texas. I don't know. There's a lot of them. But your analysis is right. We got to pick somebody. This is why I may go back with Vince

on this. Certainly Vince made a better selection than you, Brad. Less offensive and more accurate. is I'm going to go with RFK that I've got to play the age card. I mean, he's jacked. I don't know if I could take him. But, I mean, could he blow out an ACL trying to wrestle me to the ground? Age has to catch up at some point. I don't know if he's on HGH or what's going on. And I'm not saying RFK.

I'm not saying, but I'm just saying I don't see, how old is he? 60s? I don't see many 60-year-olds looking like RFK. And I don't see him injecting anything, including. steroid. So if he's not taking vaccines, he's not taking HGH. I do, how, so Vince, how old are you? I'm 54. Okay, Brad, how old are you? I'm 26. All right, let's go with Brad on this, although he's, his cohorts have not yet

arrived at the disposable income necessary to probably invest in this. How, what percentage of your friends, Brad, are on testosterone, HG, HGH or OZMPIC. You know, not many, because I don't live in, like, the city, so I, well, I live in a small city, but I think what I lived in D.C., if I still live there, the answer would be a lot higher. But I know a couple guys that I play soccer with who are clearly on something, but I would say not a ton, to be honest, out here in West Michigan.

So, Vince, you are in the disposable income bracket, and you are actually in the target market now that I think about it. Like, dudes that start taking testosterone, early 50s. Well, I'm going to tell you this. Little known fact about me. Former powerlifting champion. I was actually ranked number one New York Times in 1991 powerlifter. I am right now in Orlando getting ready to run 5K, 10K, K half marathon back to back.

I've never taken a drug in my life. That's why. As a powerlifter? Yeah, never did it. Um, that's why Team August RFK Gabbard is just, you can't beat this team. You can't, there's no vaccines in us. There's nothing, there's no chemicals that play here. This is, this is, this is guerrilla warfare spelled actually G-O-R-I-L-A. All right. Last topic. He's back. John Stewart is back.

you know what do you think will be the influence to both of you on this we'll go we'll go Brad first what do you think you're really young Brad so you may have not experienced the full effect of John Stewart through the political process if I'd have asked you this question a decade ago how influential and impactful will he be on a presidential election the answer was probably very substantially impactful and influential You're young, so I don't know that you ever experienced that, but he's back. And I think the first thing that I notice is, look, he's funny. Okay, that's the bottom line.

He is way, way, way better than Trevor Noah. And I don't, that's, I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to be like a, like I am when I talk about sports or anything. Like, he's way better than Trevor Noah. It's not particularly close. I've seen Trevor Noah in person. person and he's not funny. Now, I think the extent to which it could have an effect is that John Stewart is still extremely popular with the millennial cohort. And they do look to him.

And Biden is struggling with young voters who lean Democrat but are extremely dissatisfied with his failure to deliver on student debt bailouts. They really disagree with his support for Israel. things, they're really dissatisfied with him. And a lot of them are talking about voting for like Cornell West and the Green Party or other options. And I think to see John Stewart already calling out the elephant in the room and being like Biden is not fit, basically. I think that will resonate. And I don't know if there's any getting off this train. It may be too late for Democrats to actually avert disaster and avert putting up this guy who's clearly not fit to run again. But if anybody can influence enough of the base to just not be interested in showing up for

this uninspiring candidate, I think he could make a significant difference on that front with younger under 35 voters. What do you think, Vince? All right. Well, I have to first off clear out my bias right away because I toured with Trevor Noah from 2018 until 2023. So I know Trevor, very, very well. We're friends. I also know John Stewart very well, and I have a relationship with The Daily Show. So let me get that out there. John and Trevor are, you really can't compare them because they're two completely different comedians. Trevor comes from an international voice. John, you know, comes from his voice, which came after really 9-11. And they both do two very different things. What John does is he makes fun of the news and news coverage.

And what we saw the last two shows was a masterclass at how to do that with comedy. I think the problem you have right now in general in society is people want to hear what they want to hear to either bolster their position, give them more information to support their position or somehow tell them they're right. And the thing with John, and we saw it in the first episode, he's going to bring funny. And if the funny goes after what those things go again. So if he does attack Joe Biden's age, then that audience, we know what happens right now. They shut it out. They don't want to hear it.

So people want to live in their vacuum. In terms of the people that are in the middle, whether or not that comedic voice is going to get them to sway one way or another politically, I think that middle voice is smarter than that, than the extremes that are already. married to their positions. And I think they can see through it as humor and not necessarily as a news source. So I think he brings a great form of entertainment that we're missing. I don't know that he's necessarily going to move the needle in terms of actually, hey, look, here's what you guys should do in terms of voting. Well, my only response to that is John Stewart speaks. to the center left. I think that is actually the audience that listens to him and either receives confirmation bias or gathers their style of arguing. And John Stewart has done some good things.

And what he's done for non-elected victims and first responders is incredibly commendable. I also think he had a negative contribution to our political discourse. And because he does it with a smile and through comedy, people don't see the negativity. But he reduced many of that center left to thinking that sneering and snarkiness is an argument and it's not an argument and I think we're you know I mean debate is dead like I invite honestly sometimes unless there are a Fox News contributor Brad you're as close as I get to disagreement and you're a libertarian you know I welcome anybody onto this show anyone but no one wants to have that interaction anymore. Everyone's, the left considers any kind of platforming and argument, an act of

malevolence and vice. And I think that John Stewart's helped contribute to that with his dismissive behavior to the argument of the other side. And by the way, I mean, I don't know. Actually, I think most of the right is more willing to debate. I think that I agree. No, I do. Maybe not every fuck. What's that? I agree. What did you say, Brad? the right much more willing to debate the things where there's debate within the right than the left is to question any sacred cow and and that's not all john stewart that's a lot of things that have contributed to that but i do think he helped create this world that you know sneering and snarkiness and condescending um dismissal wave of the hand through a joke is a way to

win and and so he's back and i'm worried that that may be reinforced on the center left because he's really good at what he does. I mean, this is the compliment. I don't like what he accomplishes it, but he's really good at it, and I think he could accomplish it for the center left, Brad. I agree. I will say that I think coming back to the Daily Show is going to be better. I watched some of what he did on Apple TV, and it was horrible.

It was extremely bad faith, deceptively edited, dunk interviews with Republicans, other stuff that just really didn't seem to have any nuance or really open to what the other side was saying, trying to dunk on them or humiliate them. But I think we've already seen with his return to the Daily Show more of a willingness to punch in both directions than we ever saw with him on Apple TV, really, at least in the episodes that really made a splash or got a notice. So I don't know. I think it will all depend for me on to what extent he's willing to poke left and question

things where even many rank and file people on the left know that they've gone a bit nuts, whether it's the trans stuff or the border or other things or just pretending Biden is, you know, not at all, lost a step. These things that are just obviously untrue on his own side. For me, whether this has an interesting and valuable impact his return will come down to how much he actually focuses on partially pointing out those things. If he just dunks on Trump all the time, I mean, it won't add a lot of unique value. last word to his good friend vince i think that what you pointed on there will is there's a

couple things with the lack of debate and i think center-right people live in the center-right because that's where they are i think far-right people live in the far-right because that's where they are i think the center-left people are where they are because they've been pushed there by the far-left because one of the things that's also lost in debate seems to be on the left where if you don't agree with us on everything, then you're not with us at all. And what happened is, is you start getting pushed

further and further towards the middle because you do lose some of the agreement. Like I know people on the right when it comes to an issue like abortion that when they look at elections, they're like, guys, we got to drop this. This is where we lose. Whereas on the left,

if you start talking about limits and things like that, you get they they kind of push you away you know because i look at where i was in the 80s and i was considered a democrat liberal because i was against wars i haven't moved but somehow some way i am now qanon to the same people that agree with me and it's like wait a minute what the hell happened here i i didn't move you people are shuffling around me and now all of a sudden i'm sitting on at the end of the right row because you moved for you move you move change pairs further to the left. So I think that's a big distinction where there's a loss of debate. It's not just right with left. It's within the faction and especially on the left.

Yeah, that's really well put. I thought you're going to say center right. You jumped all the way to Q and on. That's good. All right. Vince August, check him out. Comedian, former judge, Brad Palumbo, coast of the based podcast. I have that right, right, Brad? Yeah. You're based? Base politics. That's the slang. That's the Gen Z slang.

Do libertarians used based? I didn't think that was a libertarian thing, based. Well, we did original. It kind of has become co-opted a little bit, but we're reclaiming it. Okay. All right. Based podcast. There you go.

Based politics podcast. All right. I really appreciate both of you jumping on. Always do. Thank you so much for being on the Will Kane show. Thanks. Thanks, well. All right.

you go. I always go longer than I anticipated going. I'm going to get a talking to by my producers afterwards. What's the ideal length for the Wilcane show? I've heard in the past 45 minutes. Now we've gone to an hour. Sometimes we hit an hour 15. What's the ideal length for the Wilcane show? Drop it in the comments in the chat or Wilcane show at fox.com email. I sincerely want to know your opinion. What's the ideal length for a daily Wilcane show? Until I get your answer, I'll see you again next time. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Prime members. You can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon music app.

It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.