Susie Wiles Is DONE, MASSIVE Shake Up After Midterm Wipeout w/ Mark Mitchell & Allum Bokhari

suzy wiles is out as the chief of staff of the white house stephen miller is in a lot of people are going to have obviously because of the the nightmare scenario on tuesday a lot of blame is going to be thrown around and it seems like suzy uh suzy wiles is the first casualty of that there are a lot of people that are uh maga adjacent or very pro-maga that are looking at stephen miller and they're saying this is the guy that it should have been for ages he's done such great great work for donald trump blah blah blah so we're going to talk about that there was a huge huge jobs number report that came out this morning uh the u.s added 165 000 jobs in october uh totally blowing up expectations they were talking about something like 65 000 jobs added uh so that's a huge thing and in coming on the of the massive election blowout the republicans took that's a little bit of good news for the trump administration dems have already started to pivot from affordability to we're going to get our political enemies there's a bunch of people on x obviously if you follow democrats right away they were saying lawyer up they were saying we're going to investigate elon musk they're talking about investigating beyond just elon musk they're talking about investigating people in the tech industry meta amazon a bunch of companies are going to be hauled in front of congress so the affordability question is out uh the there are a couple democrats that seem to have been swept in that have some problematic history there's someone that has is connected to the daycare fraud that has been elected to the minnesota state legislature and then there is someone in texas who withdrew from texas house race uh because but she's still one and she has a felony so we're going to talk about all that today we're going to get right to it smash the like button share the show with all your friends head on over to timcast.com become a member and join our discord head on over to rumble.com become a member there so you can join us for the after show which is monday through tuesday but without further ado we're going to introduce our guest mark how you doing thanks for coming today good great to be back who are you what do you do uh i am the head pollster and founder of the honest polling company formerly the head pollster of brass muscle reports there's a lot of out there but i'm one of the very few that actually saw this blue wave coming and i'm also one of the few that actually saw donald trump winning in 2024. so being able to do good job in a red wave year and a blue wave year is pretty rare but i'm also one of the very few that represents the american people and not uh basically left-wing you know media or the dark money ngos or increasingly we're seeing on in right-wing polling trump political action committees sure thanks for joining us alan uh hi guys i'm alan bakari i work for the foundation for freedom online we're an online censorship watchdog tracking the causes and consequences of online censorship and what's driving all that we were founded by mike benz in 2022 um and you can go to our website foundationforfreedomonline.com to check out our latest work awesome ian's here i am i am comic relief good to be here what did i do for a living what's up carter i was enjoying the conversation about what whether or not it was a d was it a d sharp this is it a d sharp yeah it's a d sharp as far as i know phil is that a d sharp i'm uh it looks like it but i'm not sure it's just the sounds a little up one friend okay anyway i'm carter banks and uh i'm happy to have you all back alan and last notice and uh let's get right into it anyways uh so from uh from donald trump himself actually but the new york we got the new york post to talk about it uh trump fires susie wiles after midterm blah named stephen miller as new chief of staff from washington president trump on friday announced that he was replacing susie wiles as the chief of staff with his longtime advisor stephen miller following republican landslide midterm election loss uh donald trump posted on truth social i'm pleased to announce that mr stephen miller the current deputy chief of staff of the trump administration and one of my most trusted advisors will become the chief of staff starting monday november 9th 2026 trump wrote on true social susie wiles who has done an outstanding job moving over to the trump political operation i want to thank her for her service as chief of staff she has done a great job um obviously there's going to be heads rolling because of the absolute blowout in the administration but also all of the downstream all the down ticket stuff um did you guys expect that it was going to be susie wiles first well if you look at the coverage after the election there was immediate sort of attempts by various people in the admin to knife each other and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going through the election and there was a faction that appeared to be going after pete hegseth the secretary of war and another faction that was going after susie wiles um and that second faction appears to as one appears to have won as a major victory i'll say for stephen miller because uh we saw in some of these reports that came out in the new york times and the daily mail and elsewhere that uh wiles and miller had uh wiles to try to undermine miller over immigration enforcement after minneapolis um and try to make immigration less visible part of uh you know the trump trump administration's public uh stance and you know administration's public uh stance and you know administration's public uh stance and you know miller was on the other side of that so this miller was on the other side of that so this miller was on the other side of that so this is a big victory for him i think it's interesting is a big victory for him i think it's interesting because you saw during the election that uh because you saw during the election that uh because you saw during the election that uh the one issue that republicans won the one issue that republicans won the one issue that republicans won decisively on with voters was immigration decisively on with voters was immigration decisively on with voters was immigration yeah um it's you don't we didn't really see suzy wiles in the public eye a lot and that was something that in the beginning of the administration she may they i don't know if it was actually her or or just you know talking heads that were saying you don't you shouldn't expect to see her approaching the microphone a lot she wants to kind of hang back uh would you expect miller to behave the same way because he's he's definitely not afraid of getting in front of microphone and taking it right to the press do you think he's going to be more vocal more more of an advocate for trump policies well he's certainly going to be an advocate he's a trump loyalist and he believes in trump's platform this was surprising for me because i wasn't sure if it was going to come it was one of the first signs i was looking for for a trump pivot which we really really really need after don after obama got shellacked in 2010 he gave a speech the very next day and he took accountability for it and said he was going to try and do a better job and represent the people and we have not seen that at all in fact donald trump is basically attacking the voters and blaming all the candidates and just like from a polling perspective being in the numbers for the last two years trump did not lose because the iran war trump lost because he failed to deliver on economic populism and that's a hard thing to deliver in a short period of time but that's why messaging is so important so to that to that point this is something this is a question that i've asked other people that have been here this week if gas prices like if we were in a different universe and gas prices were two bucks a gallon but the iran war was going off does trump still lose i mean i don't think mississippi would go democrat but i still think he'd lose because they took suzy brought me into the white house a year ago and i told trump then you're gonna lose because you're completely fudging the economic messaging and we saw this with you don't talk to me about the affordability hoax don't you know the dow's 50k well people don't have you know stock portfolios and this is very different to that point though but like i was i was doing some some googling yesterday yeah um because there are a lot of people who are not going to lose because they're not going to lose but there are a lot of people that are like when the stock market crashed yesterday they were like well i don't care i don't care this is just obviously anecdotal in my replies and stuff but 60 percent of americans have some kind of investment in the stock market so do you think that it's just that they're not aware of it or do you think that because do you think that that they're just like i don't care i'm i'm really angry about the way the inflation has made me feel the cost of living the the cost of of gas and stuff because they're most of the country has exposure we have a stealth depression is the main issue and so almost every economic measure kind of obscures that fact you really have to go to the polling one of the basic questions is the economy getting better or worse we had roughly about 30 percent of people who would consistently consistently say worse until covid and then it was 60s the entire time and it has not changed only 17 percent of americans say today's kids will be better off than their parents 62 think the economy only works for the wealthy and well-connected like i could just go on but like we're in a situation where a third of people are basically using like short-term loans to get groceries and stuff like that right so these people it's not that they care about egg prices it's that they hate the entire system and are mistrustful of large corporations and hate this idea of oligarchy although they don't know the word right and so with trump what we saw is actually you know inadvertently it would appear he did some things that made him look like an oligarch and so people are going to rebel against that and they're angry angry at a system they don't think it's going to work we could go into a lot of it but i mean we've gotten to the point where republicans ran against socialism when i disguised seizing the means of production and republicans support that by a plurality so um we're going into a very crazy place and it's like right-wing socialism right-wing socialism versus left-wing socialism that's the discussion zoomer woffin versus gay race communism where's teddy roosevelt what are the questions what are the two left and right-wing socialism i've seen he's used the government to buy like 33 companies he's bought stock 10 and like 36 different companies or something tech companies a lot of it's to shore up like chip production and stuff uh defense mechanisms but socialist behavior but like so where's your alignment between left and right wing that's so it's not so we can't he's brought this up a bunch of times and i've said a bunch of times that's not socialism but he don't think so no not at all buys still don't think so companies no buying If the government is purchasing stock, right, buying a stake by using market methods to purchase stock, that's not socialism. Socialism is when the government just expropriates a company and says, this is important to the United States, so we're taking control of this company. 51%? No, no, no, no. Again, you're talking about stock, and just because they own stock in a company doesn't mean that they're taking the company. They're different things. What are the Chinese when they have 51% of the stock? The Chinese don't use market forces. They just take it. They may say, oh, well, we've got a stock market, but it's not nearly as free of a stock market as the United States is. It looks like the same thing, just a different scale. I understand it looks like it, but I keep telling you, like people keep saying to you around the table, it's not the same thing, and I don't think the federal government has actually taken 51% control of any of the businesses. No, it's like 10% of 36 other companies. Again, so this is not, they're two different things. You keep saying, well, what about when they buy stock? The government uses social funds, my tax money, to buy companies. Your tax money controls inflation, and you're taxed so that way they can control inflation by taking dollars out. When they use public funds to purchase. When they purchase a company that now is owned by the government, that is socialism. No, it's not. I don't understand. Then what would you call it? Is it crony capitalism? Is that capitalism? It's the government. When the government buys a part of a corporation? It's the government interfering in markets, yes, but that's not the same thing as socialism. Socialism is, people that are on the left always love to get on other people from the right or whatever for saying, you don't even know what socialism is, and this is a case of you calling something that is not socialist, socialism. Are you saying it has to be? 100% to be classified as socialism? I'm saying that it is different, it is different in term. What is that called, because now I'm curious, because it does sound weird. Well, it's the government interfering, like we do have a mixed economy, and it is the government involving itself in markets, but because it's buying stock and buying 10% or whatever stock in a company, that is the government investing in a company because it believes that the company is important to national security, to whatever. It is not the same thing as the government saying, we are going to direct this company, or we are going to have ownership of this company, we're going to nationalize this company, because we need to make sure that the government controls this company. 10% is not a controlling interest. Now, I understand you continue to say, well, what about when it gets to 50, 51%, but that's moving the goalposts, because in reality, they are buying a percentage, but a small percentage, providing liquidity. The problem is, is that the word, socialism and capitalism are abstractions that we use in the polling industry to try and track sentiment towards things that people will run on, but the American people ultimately don't know, because I don't even think conservative leaders understand what capitalism is right now. For them, it's like complete deregulation and let these companies do whatever and ship all the jobs overseas and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And what people want is solutions, basically. We have transactional politics now, and Democrat socialists are winning, not necessarily because people want the lack of economic freedom that comes with socialism. They just want somebody to actually put their interests first. At the same time, Republicans will sort of die on this hill of modern capitalism, which just absolutely sucks and is destroying America. So unfortunately, like, that is tough because all the infrastructure, the thought leadership and all these politicians and the national parties are sort of run to, like, dig in on these abstractions that don't even make any sense, and so we don't get solutions. And, like, the way I kind of see it is we have been here before. We've been in a period where there's a lot of concentration on wealth and power at the top. Workers' wages have been suppressed. They're treated terribly. You know, we even had margin-fueled stock manias and things like that in the '10s and '20s. And back then, people innately understood we needed to break up all this corporate power. We needed to smash these oligarchies and, you know, have stronger unions, have a more progressive tax system. And that was a Republican platform under Teddy Roosevelt, right? And so when you look at what's going on in the world right now, there's a lot of stuff going on. And when you look at what capitalism was, I guess, earlier in the 19th century, a lot of people, like the thought leaders at American Compass, would say, "Well, conservative capitalism acknowledges that if you want your economic system to serve the American people, you have to make sure it actually does that. And in order to do that, you need a powerful government that will actually regulate in a way that serves people," as opposed to -- yeah. You're calling it "conservative capitalism." I'm, like, searching about asking you that. I don't know what to call it. Well, they're calling it "selective state." State capitalism. That's what it's called when the U.S. government buys 10% of 30 different companies. They call it "selective state capitalism." It's not socialism. It's state capitalism. State corporatism. Strategic capitalism. State capitalism has been a thing in history. I mean, Mussolini's Italy practiced state capitalism, but they weren't, like, socialist. We need more courts like fascism, but not really. Fascism is -- fascism -- state capitalism and fascism are actually -- have -- They're not the same thing. I'm just saying, like, non-socialist governments have done the same thing. Right. I'm trying to attach it to the -- I'm not saying it's fascist to invest 10% in a company. Obviously not. Yeah. I'm just saying it's not only socialist governments that have done that. I mean, to be honest with you, whatever you call the process -- personally, I don't have a significant problem with the United States federal government saying, "Look, there are certain industries that are vital to national security, and so we're going to do what we can to incentivize these companies." And I think that's what we're trying to do, is we're trying to incentivize these companies from not only -- or not only ensuring that they will be able to survive, but also to ensure that we have the things that we need here in the United States to ensure national security, right? So the -- even though the CHIPS Act was kind of a boondoggle, the concept of making sure that we're -- we have the ability to make the chips that we need to support the military and support the infrastructure here in the U.S., I think that's okay. So the -- even though the CHIPS Act was kind of a boondoggle, the concept of making sure that we're -- we have the ability to make the chips that we need to support the infrastructure here in the United States for, you know, whatever it may be, whether it be for airframes -- that's usually aluminum -- anyway, for ships or what have you, we can produce the things that we need for our national security. I'm a big fan of Andrew because they're building weapons that use basic, normal things that you could, quote, unquote, go down to Radio Shack and pick up. I wonder if these terrorists -- and I'd like to get your guys' opinions on if they're actually working. I know it pissed off a lot of people. Trump said there's going to be short-term pain. Now we're feeling it and you're seeing it in the midterms. Now we're feeling it in the midterms. But is it working? Are they reindustrializing the base? Because the government can't make the technology we need to survive. It needs to invest in it. And so I'm wondering if you guys have seen it. I mean, that's a really tough thing to measure from a public opinion perspective. The polling on tariffs is tough because people don't understand it. It depends on how you word the questions. But I would just say from measuring the economy, we are getting worse. People are in more crisis. Everything is just getting. Inflation continues to go up. Now health care premiums are going up drastically. We still have wage stagnation. There hasn't been -- like, we haven't seen a major effort to, like, reshore all these jobs or, like, you know, we're starting to turn a corner, I guess, with H-1Bs. But, like, overall, the problem is, is that the government doesn't appear to be addressing these things. What you were talking about with buying the companies would probably be broadly popular. I mean, Americans are protectionist. Like, one proxy, the H-1B program is popular overall. And that's because people think we're taking talent from other parts of the world. But then if you ask them, are corporations abusing it, they're like, hell, yeah, they are, right? And so, like, the main issue is that we have a system that people think has failed. And if the government appears to be cozy with it, when in reality they should be looking out for the interests of people who think they're getting screwed, like, that sort of exacerbates this issue that the government doesn't represent the people. And Trump has definitely leaned into that. Like, the ballroom optics don't help. Hugging Mark Zuckerberg when he accused Zuckerberg of stealing. create the monster, you better put a leash on that thing, or someone's gonna grab it and ride it. - I would say that we're probably a few cycles away from Nick Fuentes being in a position-- know if he's old enough yeah he's like he's in his 20s i mean maybe in maybe in the 40s maybe in the 40s or 50s he he might be in a position to to run for public office and actually win but he's he's i mean he's he's influential yeah and there are a lot of people that listen to him and he's he's extremely charismatic and and really really good at talking um but that doesn't that doesn't mean that he's like on his way to the presidency right now that being said um do you guys have a sense of who will be the one to kind of pick up the torch um and actually resonate with the american people obviously the two names that are that people throw around right now are marco rubio and jd vance each come with their own set of problems i was talking to tate and he was he says that he has some friends that are in the in marco rubio's kind of circle and he says that he has some friends that are in the in the circle and he says that he has some friends that the people around him are good and i've watched some of the the video or the the speeches that he made specifically the one from greece and i was pretty impressed um i also like the fact that marco rubio is extremely anti-communist i know there's a lot of people that have different problems with vance um his history of critic criticism of donald trump uh is the first thing that comes to mind but if donald trump has damaged goods now uh is that something that vance can overcome what are your thoughts alan uh i mean i think like probably the guy who's positioning himself now as we saw in the last couple of days is uh desantis um he's he's sort of come out looking good because he wasn't associated with the administration and therefore he can like distance himself from this electoral defeat which is being pinned on the administration of course uh i think the problem he's probably going to have in 2028 uh given how much people are tying this to iran and the israel uh the israel relationship i think that will be a to the to the administration um he's he's also one of the he's the governor that didn't have an absolute massacre in florida yeah florida is the outlier florida was the outlier they held strong against a significant push from the democrats and um and and i think the only thing that the only serious like the the israel stuff that you were talking about i think is is legitimate and then the other serious very legitimate yeah the other thing that he had to do was to overcome is the fact that he's not tall right the voice is not the best yeah but i do think like vance is probably still still like out ahead it's just gonna be a very wide open primary i think so it's it's four years you know it's only two years until the the you know the next election for for uh president um and israel's on everyone's mind or or on a significant portion of the electorate's mind is that going to be is israel and the united states relationship with israel is that going to be a a key issue or is it going to be a secondary issue that people are like well he's he's a little chummy with israel but these other things overrule that so you still have a core republican voter who did turn out but it's just not enough so trump won in 2024 with about 40 percent of his vote coming from self-id independence and crossover democrats next cycle it might be 45 the cycle after that it might be 50 and republicans still haven't gotten it through their head that they just can't say these people will vote for me because we're republicans that's sort of the hump that we have to get over so the problem is is this coalition was always loosely cobbled together and it was america first economic populism reform the government coalition it had muslims in it it had socialists in it it had uh pro-deportation hispanics in it it had a lot of people in it that are not traditional republican voters trump over the last year and a half has betrayed a lot of those people and just completely governed incoherently and the republican party didn't convert them to republican voters through good government so now the problem we have in 2028 is like trump's still in office for two years anything economically that happens he's probably going to own the 120th congress is going to go after him viciously and from everything i hear find actual real fraud and the democrats have a mandate in my opinion that's very limited but it is it's big but limited to work with republicans on affordability which i hope they would do but i don't think they will they're not going to do that and to hold people accountable for fraud you feel like that the the the american people are corruption is going to be a thing that that is going to be a big deal because i i my reading of it and this is just again my x feed that i'm reading um there are some there's a portion of the the voting electorate that cares about things like fraud and corruption stuff um but i get the the vibe that they're that they're more uh concerned with economic issues well both of them right so on the issue of who do you trust more to keep the country economically prosperous in 2023 republicans had a 14 point lead now they're underwater 14 points and the issue of government corruption wasn't as high in previous elections it's now in the top five depending on where you look at and republicans are losing on the issue of government corruption now so these things will be popular but what the problem is is that when you have a president who looks like an oligarch who's standing in the way of the government and he's not going to be able to do anything about it and you're going to find fraud of all these wealthy people in his administration potentially stuffing taxpayer money or whatever they're doing in their pockets right that people are this is going to be some catharsis the democrats might become popular because like the epstein thing plays into this as well like trump and again i was out there with polling that said the epstein thing was the biggest mistake they ever could have made they handed the democrats an issue gift wrapped for to run on for the next you know four years and they're not going to be able to run for the next two years and what they're going to probably do is make trump the face of epstein accountability they're going to say look at these elites they think they're better than you they're the epstein class and they've been using their roles in government to enrich themselves and we caught them all and we're going to basically what they're doing is taking over trump's 2024 agenda drain the swamp and economic populism and you see they're smart like people like ossoff you know he's leaning into things that sound a lot like trump i'll say i was cutting ads that looked like they were practically american first stuff if these people actually moderated and got rid of the anti-american unpopular stuff for their platform like they could do a good job and i think the calculus that you'll start to see is that the republican party is now so cooked generationally like we might not get the senate back for a decade like it might be that bad right now the house what should be happening is people should be organizing now to get actually good candidates for the first time to run in 2028 that's not happening and it is not going to come from the traditional republican structure um you know but they could they could literally what you're going to see is actually maybe some mega populists run as democrats now really you better chance of winning could that be could that be a a way to change the democrat party from being so anti-american to something that is more pro-american because i mean look there is there is not that there's a lot of it out there but there has historically been a pro-america democrat right john fetterman is one now um but he's obviously very pro-israel too jfk man yeah exactly yeah pro-american democrats bernie sanders he's not say what you want but he's anti-tpp he did not want global bernie sanders is a good person to look at he has positive favorability consistently he was the only person that outpolled jd vance a year ago in head-to-head matchups uh you know now he he would lose to newsom and aoc now but the anti-oligarchy messaging the economic system doesn't work for you these are all popular things and disaffected bernie people actually were some of the first people on the trump trumps yeah that's true yeah the big question i have for bernie though is that if you listen to him 20 years ago he would say immigration suppresses wages and now he does not so this is a big problem because if we want to form co i think we're on a path to a very dark place and people are innately sensing an upcoming political violence the risk of civil war is even higher i think the last time i pulled it last week i haven't processed it yet i think it's going to be close to 50. um we're almost up to 60 now i just pulled it of people who think an economic uprising is going to happen against the government in the next few years because of hardship so uh i mean something's coming right and the 2032 is when social security goes insolvent and the only thing they can do is either raise taxes cut benefits uh or they can print money you know what else happens then too the gen z and millennials are a majority of the electorate yeah and they will still own three times less wealth than boomers and silence together so the day of the pillow is coming um so the day of the pillow i mean it's just i've heard that referenced in the show i love that i think it's a real thing so we asked a question to reduce the deficit would you rather cut social security medicare cut defense or tax millionaires and so perennially the boomers are more pro-capitalism they love free market capitalism and if you pull on socialism the younger people are like yeah yeah i support that kind of stuff right but only four percent of boomers said they would cut their benefits and 70 something of them said they would have all they have like what is 60 percent of the wealth or something like that and then for the younger people the zoomers it was like uh 54 combined cut and then for the middle class it's like what is 60 percent of the wealth or something like that platform to save America needs to be nationalistic it needs to be populist and there will be common ground that we'll find it's like they're gonna you know the left's gonna have to understand that we need national sovereignty right and maybe the right has to understand that like economic progressivism has its benefits like that's what gave us the 50s 60s and 70s a great the great compression partially right like world war ii helped uh but maybe common ground or three is that we can at least audit the department of defense and i think everybody would love that because that's what they thought they were getting with doge and they got rug pulled so uh i hope this happens but the establishment is very good at distracting people with divisive issues like don't you they killed charlie kirk and they all want to kill you and it's like that's not technically correct right like 30 of them might but it's not everybody you got to convert those people it's of course it is that's enough to also might you don't know yeah but like 30 percent of the right change look the way look you you don't know if your house is going to have a fire but you still get fire insurance right like if it's if you have a 30 percent chance of having a fire you make significant changes to what's going on in your house even if there's a chance of having that chance of total catastrophe you have insurance against it yeah so i i mean the idea of of well you know it's only 30 of them that maybe do like it's it's worth paying attention to no obviously you got to track it but the point is you need some introspection too and there's a really good chunk of people on the right who want to like remigrate every muslim and go to war with global islam it's like no that's not our big no we don't want to do that like that's so you know there will have to be some come to jesus moments there and i guess it'll happen eventually it's just a question about how bad things get before then so we're gonna jump to this story here we're seeing as we're talking about economics a bit here um from yahoo finance a blowout u.s adds 165 000 jobs in october trouncing expectations the u.s added 165 000 jobs in october blowing back back excuse me blowing past economist expectations as the labor it showed strength despite the federal reserve's recent rate hikes the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 even amid a slight increase in labor force participation september's underwhelming jobs report of 29 000 additions was also revised upward to a gain of 60 000 uh heather long chief economist that navy federal credit union deemed the results a blowout this kind of stuff is good for headlines but i don't think it doesn't make americans actually feel like the the situation economically is better like you were saying earlier mark that that we're in a stealth depression i've heard people say a self stealth recession no i haven't heard anyone say uh stealth stealth depression once you unpack that a little bit i mean when people are literally we've gotten to the point where the right supports taxes on billionaires by three to one you know what i mean like and we have people who are literally shut out of society because they think they'll never be able to afford a house uh again if we're not there yet we're going to be there soon and we're on the cusp of a housing collapse probably that makes 2006 look like a joke and we are on top of probably what is a tech bubble that'll eventually upload right now on top of a president who said he's literally going to monetize our debt so at a certain point these forces like the only question is will we remain the cleanest dirty shirt i don't know there's a lot of uncertainty about what happens but i'll take you know the real in my opinion issue is this idea of institutional trust and we don't have to get into that but i think it's a really good idea to get into the fourth turning i think it's happening that's why all this stuff is gonna is changing so fast now but institutional trust was one of the reasons trump got elected it wasn't just drain the swamp it's like fbi raided mar-a-lago with authorized use of deadly force people don't trust the federal government now only 30 and so now when you're in office and you just say okay well cash is in charge everything's great that's not the way you reform the government and so the whole idea that donald trump is running on economic numbers that came out of a bls where just literally two years ago in the 24 cycle we found out the bls like made up a million jobs and i pulled on it and only and like 70 percent of people i think it was like 60 or 70 percent literally thought it was because they were trying to politically interfere like so i don't think even if people hear it they don't trust it and why would it affect their ability to afford things or not right so a lot of obfuscation with the iranian situation i i agree i don't trust the number like but what do you say you monetize the debt what does that mean trump was talking about monetizing the debt well we started this administration with really the best effort we ever had to cut all the waste out of our deficit and people were very hopeful that that meant that there was a future because people are sensitive to the debt the first time trump promised people's checks a year ago it was only like 60 popular but then the next question we asked was should the government keep it and just pay down the debt instead and actually people said yes 49 to like 30 something right so i thought that that was pretty astute um you know people wanted doge to just rip through the government and then we saw all this fraud we could have gotten a trillion dollar less deficit and now we're paying more on interest each year than we are on uh defense so this only gets worse we get to a certain point where bond vigilantes will force our hand you know like the rate keeps going up until we have economic repression and then you either have to cut or you got to do something else and the other thing that you traditionally do is just print a hell of a lot of money inflate everything away the side effect of that will be that everybody's going to have to cut their debt and then they're going to have to pay their debts and then they're going to have to pay their taxes and then everybody that has assets will continue to get more wealthy and everybody else would just absolutely be crushed more yeah so it's going to be i mean that's literally weimar like that's and the most likely thing that they're going to do is to just print money like that's the that's definitely the most likely yeah that's the lowest common denominator well it's the thing that it's the thing that americans even though they know or most people know kind of in the back of their head that it's actually bad it's a quick immediate solve because the inflation takes a little bit of time to hit so people will get the money they can go out and get that kind of like a sugar high spend it pay their bills they feel good about the fact that their bills are lower or whatever um but then inflation hits a few years later yeah six eight months later or a year later a couple years later then they're like oh wow i keep mcdonald's now costs 50 bucks for a big mac fry and coke yeah i remember i remember 2021 everyone was feeling great so much money and the greatest numbers of our of our generation well no it's not it's not the messaging from the government it's the way people feel that we're talking about people were like i love the idea of getting a check right americans love to get paid and if the government writes checks and gives it to people they're going to do something with that but the problem is when you give people money who don't have assets who don't own anything they spend that money on stuff where does that money go to the people that have things it goes to the billionaires because the billionaires own walmart the billionaires own amazon so all they you transfer the wealth that you produce or that you print and give to the people that gets transferred to the people that own things because they're the ones that you're that your average person is buying products from i keep thinking about with gdp you either want to increase the value of your output or you want to reduce cost of input and they're obsessed with increasing the value of output of course how can we make more make more but if you can reduce the cost of fuel and i bring it up from time to time about hydrogen because i think we're on the cusp of like they electrocuting carbon and then turning it into graphene gives up hydrogen gas that you can capture and use as fuel you make about four dollars and fifty cents for every kilogram of hydrogen you produce total in profit that's after electricity costs so you're actually instead of spending money to get hydrogen you're you're making money in this graphene you can sell to get hydrogen they've they've inverted the value prop now so you could actually earn money to make hydrogen the question is if we upend the global petroleum power structure the the petrodollar i think america will lose on the global war scale they're afraid of letting go of the petrol power but it's like adhering to the petrol dollar is destroying the world economy because it's just fucking oil we need a better fuel we need to like lighten up the fuel to reduce costs and i don't know how how to how to like it's like the indiana jones scene where he's got to get the the idol off the pedestal and he tries to replace it with sand but it's like how how can you do that fast enough how can you switch the fuel economy and maintain power because if everyone's using hydrogen they're not going to use hydrogen now no one everyone will be able to run their jets and their boats and their rockets and no one will be begging us for fuel and it's really easy to get it wrong on energy i mean this is the problem that europe and especially britain have their energy costs are just so huge that they can't have any domestic industry because it's just too expensive compared to other countries and as bad as the gas prices are in america they're not as they're not as bad as europe or the uk but that just shows you how like high energy costs can completely cripple an economy that's all i think about man because the printing were you gonna say something else uh no no go ahead oh the printing money thing is like that's a that's a failure that's like the game over sign oh we print it we had to hyper inflate game over so there's pretty good for the government though yeah they get a they dodge the blame and get away with it and it kicks the can down the road it's good for the rich because they get that they get the money before they get paid the money by like i said people purchasing stuff they get that money before inflation so it goes into the value of stocks or people that have you know borrow more money and you know buy back more shares because i mean the reason that the reason that we have such a or the reason that we've noticed such a a significant increase between the haves and have-nots in the uh in the past 15 or so years is because of quantitative easing and because of zero printing right if you've got 10 million dollars that you're sitting on right and you can take a loan for five million dollars you put that take that loan and you put it into the stock market and you put it into the MARKET AND IT'S NOT JUST gaining 10%, but your loan was at 3%, you're making 7% per year on money that you borrowed. So you pay the interest on it with 3% of your profits, you keep 7%. If you're doing that with millions of dollars, you're making money just because you borrowed money. That happened throughout all of the teens. I was talking about economic populism and the zoomer versus boomer dynamic. One great achievement of the Trump administration, I think, was Trump accounts, because that does give everyone a stake in the future. And it's sort of like some insurance against possible hyperinflation. Because if everyone's bought into the stock market, everything hyperinflates, those accounts will go up, those assets will go up. That actually was a genuine consolation prize. Yeah, it is. Every citizen gets a thousand bucks. Is that what it is? The Trump accounts. Every child, yeah. Every child. And it's matched, like you put a thousand dollars in, the government matches it. And I think for every thousand dollars you put in, they match for a thousand dollars. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Something like that. So it's a. It's a nice idea. It doesn't solve the problem. But it is, it does. It mitigates. Yeah. Because right now, young people don't own anything. They don't own stocks. They don't own property. They probably don't own their car. And for a young person, they're like, why do I care about property rights? I don't own anything. But property rights are the foundation of our entire system. We're talking about young people as a group. One thing, I'm curious about with these job numbers is, you know, who did those jobs go to? Because I think, you know, you look at 2021, when something like, something of like over 90% of all jobs went to non-white male. Yeah, it didn't go to young white guys. This is the Achilles heel of the Democrats as they try and adopt. So they're trying to adopt like an America first platform, a populist platform. They do still have this thing, like Bernie Sanders, he said, changed his stance on immigration, where they just have this sort of seething, this underlying racism and sexism towards white males. And they created this system, this institutional consensus in corporate America, where it was okay to discriminate on the basis of race and sex. And I think this will still be their Achilles heel going forward when it comes to economic populism. There are some smart Democrats, and we're starting to see change, in my opinion. The whole thing with Nick Fuentes and Amy Acton. Did you see she updated her profile pic to be the Groyper post? Really? No, I didn't see that. She knew this was happening. And apparently, it had discussions with people where she was trying to convince people, like, no, I'm not one of these crazy Democrats, going to govern like a moderate. And again, Ossoff's not using radical language. And the big question, in my opinion, is that what we're finding out is that interests and forces control our government, and it is not the American people, right? On the right, it's almost entirely foreign and corporate donor bucks, especially at the Senate. And, you know, until today, I would have said in the White House, because, like, I really think that that was Suzy's role in their personal opinion. But who controls the interests of the Democrats? And what is the feedback loop that prevents them from being, from adopting these moderate stances? Why do they keep leaning in on crazy? And that's my question, right? So is it like, you know, the people, the money coming in through Soros that goes through Arabella, or who, like, I don't know? Or do they just convert you behind the scenes, get blackmail on you, or compromise? Like, these are questions. I don't know enough about the Democrats. I don't have enough of the contacts. Yeah. But we have to work that out. Because again, these are the kinds of people that will try to be dividing any, what will probably be a youth coalition, by things like culture war issues, right? So. Well, I'm not sure, like, static interests that back one side or the other, because I think what happened in the Obama years is corporations tried to cozy up to the Democrats who are in power by doing all these woke things, by starting to discriminate on the basis of race and sex. And I think the question, and they stopped all that in order to cozy up to the Trump administration. I have a question. It's like, how far are they going to do that? And I'm especially interested in the question of censorship as well. Will Silicon Valley, will tech companies start censoring people again now that they anticipate Democrat rule in Washington? That would be a disaster, especially because they haven't finished uncensoring everyone, right? Not only because of the censorship stuff, but because of the capabilities of what tech companies are going to have in the next couple years, right? Like, when it was just, oh, we're going to shadow ban you because you said a no-no word, that's one thing. But nowadays, with AI that can monitor basically your entire internet existence, like all of your online. Brain. Yeah. I mean, literally can monitor, I mean, they can monitor where you are in your house by your Wi-Fi signal, right? Like, they can access your TV without you knowing it. And all of this information, it used to be where there was so much information, they couldn't disseminate it, so they had to decide which target they were going to go after. They won't have to do that, and they probably don't have to do that now. And they definitely won't have to do that in a year or two, because AI will be able to basically monitor everybody all the time, because they just work so fast and they're so capable. Yeah, I've written a number of op-eds about this, like the danger, especially now that Democrats have won so big, is that this whole field of AI safety, which is fueled by some valid concerns about what AI can do, especially in the realm of cybersecurity, gets hijacked in the same way that trust and safety got hijacked with social media companies to push these social causes into the very algorithm of the AI companies. And I think a lot of people that say anthropic, which I think a lot of people that are a little bit woke themselves are going to be somewhat receptive to that. Yeah, I'm going to jump to this story just because this actually leads into what we're talking about here. From Fox News, Dems pivot from affordability pitch to DHS probe threats after midterm wins. From Fox News, several prominent Democrats who ran on affordability message, were largely silent when press by Fox News Digital on their sudden pivot to foreshadowing investigations into the Trump administration, including in many cases, its immigration enforcement efforts. Rep. Robert Garcia from California, who is poised to lead the House Oversight Committee, responded to Democrats win Tuesday with a statement lawyer up despite having pledged to prioritize household costs alongside government accountability. Garcia told CNN before the election that Democratic priorities would be lowering the cost of gas, groceries, the mortgage. The rent alongside combating government corruption in response to a request for comment. He, a representative for Garcia, shared a tweet he posted Wednesday after his Tuesday lawyer, a warning that referenced affordability. People can't afford gas, groceries and rent because Donald Trump and his family are ripping off the American people and enriching themselves. While it may be true that that's happening, it may be true that that that that is happening. That is not why people cannot afford things. But he goes on taking on corruption is about making life more affordable for workers. He, a representative for working families, said Garcia said in the tweet, that's just B.S. OK, look, you can you can have a problem with corruption in the Trump administration and you can have valid and it can be valid. Maybe there is corruption. Maybe they're doing things that they shouldn't be doing. Get them if they are fine. That doesn't have anything to do with why people can't afford groceries. Doesn't have anything to do with why people can't afford gas. The Melania coin is not the reason. That you can't make your ends meet. So this this I understand he's he's trying to connect the two, but it is B.S. Did if the reason that they got into office was to enrich themselves and not serve the American people and you uncover that because, again, we've seen very little effort, not even the communication has been focused on affordability. Again, I don't know if that's the case. I'm saying what the optics look like. Yeah, fair enough. I honestly I think that it's it's more incompetence than than intending to. Say, oh, we're not going to try to work for the American people. Yeah, it's just the Trump coin and the Melania coin. I don't want to think it was intentionally a rug poll that his buddies got the insider scoop and got to sell first. But that's exactly what happened. Oh, I think that that I think that that would I think that those were rug pulls. I think that was absolutely those were absolutely rug pulls. We're talking about cozy contracts. We're talking about insider trading. We're talking about the stuff people are taking money from lobbyists to get people fired out of the Trump administration, selling of access, selling of jobs. The things that are going to come out. Yes. And but I made this point even like even when Obama was the president and stuff like the president has a limited ability to affect the economy. Congress can pass legislation, can regulate and stuff like that. But the president in the president himself and this is the same for Obama and for for Trump, they have a limited ability to actually affect the economy. Right. But that doesn't so it doesn't. So when I hear people saying, oh, it's it's Trump's fault, the economy is bad. I'm going to fix this. A year ago, I went to the White House. There's two points here that I want to make. One is I sat down and said, this is not the first administration. America is an economic crisis and you're losing. And if you can do whatever you want in Iran, but number one, the first thing every day that you wake up is be an economic wartime president. A wartime leader knows who the enemy is, knows what their capabilities are, has a strategy to fight them. And everybody has to be convinced every day that they have a plan and are winning that war. So who's the. Enemy? And I would say the enemy is corporate capture, corporatism, the oligarchy, the uniparty, a global homocleptocracy, right? Like these kind of concepts. And everybody knows that they just don't know how to say it. And then he surrounded himself by all of these interests and cozies up to them and it looks terrible. But I said, what Americans want to see, you can't change these economic forces fast enough. It is cynically about optics, but there's a way to lean into that. You have to convince people that if you vote for Republicans, you will. Continue to get progress down this path to the golden age. I told him that he needs to work with Republicans instead of fighting them to. Lay out the things that they are specifically going to do for economic populism. And it's not hard. Charlie Kirk had a list that everybody saw on Twitter, right? And then show what's going into each reconciliation package. Have a big announcement. Put it on the website. Have a little radio button. I checked off this step on the path to the. And there was absolutely no effort to pay attention or listen or any of that. And then the other aspect of it was, the reason I got there was because, again, stepping back, what I've been told is that Susie Wiles and Jared Kushner ended Project 2025. Susie Wiles was part of the influence that pushed Elon Musk out of Doge, out of the White House. Again, this is all alleged from people and multiple rumors. But after that, we can acknowledge that there was a vacuum of anything other than the one big beautiful bill, right? And then leading up into the fall is when Trump's messaging got really bad after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And so one of the things I was directly told to my face when I went there is that Trump listens to a lot of people every day. He watches Fox News. He talks to Sean Hannity every day. Lindsey Graham's his best friend. And after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and Charlie Kirk was a very positive influence on Trump, and I was actually told that he helped limit. He was an influence on limiting what happened during June of 2025 against Iran. That they were not able to replace that voice in Trump's ear that was advocating, for the younger voter, that Trump had lost. And so I was told that I was one of multiple people that were there essentially trying to throw stuff at a wall to see what sticks. And like this really leans into me, in my opinion, like if you have goals and a strategy laid out and you build a team, a support structure of people you could delegate to that you trust in order to help you make decisions and stuff like that, and it doesn't go from the top down, it's like he's running everything. Susie's managing the White House. He's managing the White House schedule. He makes a bunch of decisions and stuff happens. And what we saw is like that's the kind of scenario where there isn't a lot of backup if somebody's whispering in his ear about what we want to do over in Iran, and here we are. Yeah, Charlie Kirk was a really important voice on that. Yeah, the loss? Trump had a few sources of influence and he was one of them. The one point I'll make on the oligarch thing is it was a good thing that Silicon Valley companies, you know, dialed down the censorship. In a bid to win Trump over, I think either that was good, that was unequivocally good. Maybe it was cynical on their part, but it's good that they did that. I think it is a travesty that Republicans didn't make more of that, that there are still major right-wing figures banned on social media platforms. Like whatever you think of Nick Fuentes, I don't 100% agree with him on everything. Like he should not be banned on Twitch. He should not be banned on these big platforms. TikTok. I agree he shouldn't be banned on Twitch, but Twitch is extremely banned. They're not just as. it's not. you know, he's not unique. I mean, Asmongold doesn't stream on Twitch. Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, but Asmongold is another example. He shouldn't feel that he can't stream on the biggest streaming platform when he's such a popular streamer. I mean, this is the problem. Republicans did accumulate all this clout with Silicon Valley and they did not fully use it to get some of these major figures banned. And now I think there's, you know, Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is going to be more inclined to look at what's coming down the road with the Democrats. And they might even get more ban happy. Yeah, we need to pivot into a 21st century digital constitution. I mean, someone's going to do it. I'd like to see a young, hip, vibrant administration work on evolving what I've got so far. The First Amendment, your free speech, is your right to code access. So like if you're using a digital software in the commons, you get access to that software code. AI is going to be able to reverse engineer it anyway. So just make it a human right. Then you can spin up your own Twitch that interoperates with Amazon's Twitch. You can have your own terms of service on yours. So if Asmongold gets banned from theirs because he said, "Fuck," he can join yours. He can still see their stuff, but he can still exist on the platform in some fashion. Your Second Amendment would be your access to onboard AGI. It's your digital defense mechanism, your gun on the internet. You need to be able to protect yourself against cyber attacks. And then the third would be protection against enforcature, your Third Amendment right on the internet. No one can make you use software. You have a right to freedom. You can't be forced to use a piece of software. You don't have to use private company software, but a government cannot force you to use a piece of software. And they should protect your right. That's what I got so far. We need a serious pivot into this digital realm with protections. Or we're going to get machines controlling us, cutting our arms off. It is not—I don't want to be doomed about it. Why are they cutting our arms off? They'll try and force you into an orderly pattern. Cutting our arms off? They'll carve away your creativity to get you to—that's what I mean. It's a metaphor to get you to fall in line. They'll want you to be part of a machine to get the—but you've got to understand, order for the sake of order can be very evil. It can be very bad. The Nazis did it wonderfully. So we need to be able to— Pol Pot, too. What? Pol Pot, I think. All these totalitarian authoritarians that want to adhere to the order above all else. Law is the rule of—no, no, no. Sometimes you want to break the law when the law is evil. And you want to do good when they lied to the Nazis. That they didn't have Jews in their house. They were doing good and they were breaking the law. So we need to do that in the digital space. They're going to try and create massive amounts of order in the guise of safety. And we need to be able to break out of that for freedom. Yeah, I would like consumers to perhaps be more aware of better options out there. Instead of simply going to the most popular streaming platform that has all these censorship policies, Twitch. Go to Kik. Yeah, go to Kik. Or Greyjay. Have you guys heard of Greyjay? No. So this is a product by Futo. That's Aaron Wolf's company in Austin. You know, he's a big supporter of digital liberty. And that's a service that basically allows you to follow creators rather than platforms. So you follow a creator and it gives you their content across platforms. So if they're banned on Twitch, it'll show you their content on Kik. That's a much better way for consumers to get content, I think. Because it renders consumers and creators both much less vulnerable to these centralized censorship policies. Yeah, it's super important. Mesh networking is really important. To be able to have our network is like all our devices. So that if one goes down, we're still all on the network. But like, yo, bro, shit's changing so fast. I think that's like a 20th century mindset is like AI can reverse engineer all the software code now. Like maybe not right now, maybe now. But it's to the point where like these networks with their code are like calling it IP and that it has value. It's all shattering. It's all the reality is like the most adaptable service. The most adaptable survive. If AI lets you make it, you know, if it isn't, you know, just completely cocked and restricted by these AI safety policies that Democrats are now going to influence. Anthropic just announced. Not just Democrats, like lots of people are trying to influence these AI safety policies. Bootleg models and stuff? Yeah, Chinese. This is the thing. So yeah, open weight models. But these are precisely the things that Anthropic wants to ban. But I tell you, man, if Anthropic tries to step on innovation in the guise of protection, Chinese are going to blow them out of the water. It won't be Anthropic. It's going to be the Democrats. Well, Anthropic already said they're not going to let people reverse engineer with their software anymore. That it doesn't matter. The software itself isn't super important. It's the end result that people want. No one cares what software they're using. They want the result that the software provides. And once you can, once you have the ability, like once you have an AI that you can say, look, I'm trying to do this and it does it. It doesn't matter what software it's using. It doesn't matter what the code is. It matters. Do I get the result? This is not like I'm some kind of like engineer or whatever, but people don't. People didn't know that they wanted the iPhone. They wanted to do what the iPhone did. Right. Like everybody's iPhone. Once you open it up, it's all different inside. All the apps they use, all the things. Everyone's iPhone is very personalized. No one cares about the product. They care about the result. So if you have an AI or access to AI and you're like, hey, do this for me. I need this picture. Hey, I'm writing a song. I need this. Hey, I'm, I'm working on this, this, this presentation. I need to be able to do this, do this, do this. It doesn't matter what the code is or what the software is because the result is what people care. You are right. That's like saying, I want to go to the amusement park. I don't care if you take I-90 or I-85. It doesn't matter how we get there. I just want to get to the place. I want the function. But if the guy that's driving me is selling my data to the Chinese CCP. Then I'm going to be like, well, now it does matter how we get there. So, but most people don't think like that. I don't think. And either way, the people that are going to put the brakes on and limit things, it's not going to be anthropic. It's going to be the government because that's what, that's what, yeah, soon. That's what 2028 is about in my opinion. 2028? Yeah. Well, first off, we have massive Democrat control in both houses of Congress that nobody expected. Then you have a really uphill fight for anybody. Currently on the field. They're mostly all just faking gay. So I don't, I mean, JD Vance, as far as I know, is the only economic populism populist. He's been the polling front runner, but he's got some major problems to work out with the whole Trump administration thing. And so we also have this issue where the AI companies have promised all this debt. Don't have enough revenue to pay it off as well as all of the concentration in the stock market. So like we've seen this kind of thing before in 2008. Whether it was intentional or not, the bubble got popped under George W. Bush and that gave the government a lot of power that was coming in to solve the crisis, right? Yeah. So a cynical person like me would say, you know, whoever Larry Fink or somebody like that. we'll pull the plug and drop this puppy right in Trump's lap on the way out, and then the Democrats get to do whatever they want. That would be an opportunity to give us UBI over AI or something like that. So just like the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, 2008 Obama used the government to buy them, basically, did they completely buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with that bailout? I don't remember. I think they bought Fannie Mae. So you think they're going to crash Anthropic and buy it? I think the AI companies realize there's a problem, and the financial industry realizes there's a problem. And so we're getting to a situation where it's like, okay, there's probably talks behind the scenes about moral hazard, right? Like, let's socialize these losses. And, of course, if you're going to do that, it's going to make a lot of people unhappy. And so you have an opportunity in a crisis situation to pack a whole lot of stuff in there and make a lot of change. That's the whole reason why Anthropic was saying that they need to have the government regulate them, because they're looking to insulate themselves from some kind of negative result from one of their AIs. But all of this stuff. It's kind of irrelevant, because this is not happening in China. And China's, if they're six months behind when it comes to AI models, all their models are open. They're all, you know, you can change the weights and stuff like that. Whereas stuff like Anthropic, OpenAI, they're not. This isn't about AI, though. That's the thing. This is about our debt-fueled, over-leveraged financial system that everybody is using government bucks to gamble in, right? The argument, the argument, though, is that, the AI, the productivity that AI will produce will allow the U.S. to outgrow the debt. Make it, you know, produce productivity to a point where the debt is manageable again. Now, whether or not that's true, whether or not that's true. I see wage suppression. That's all I see. Pardon me? That's all I see. What, in AI? Yeah, like, we were talking about before. At Rasmussen Reports, we had four employees, right? And $20,000 a year in software costs. I would estimate. I've replaced all of that with Claude. So. You're paying, like, a few thousand bucks a year? 5,000 bucks less than. Yeah. I don't need an author. I don't need a graphics guy. I don't need advanced statistical weight-raking software. I built my own. Like, I'm not just dumping it into Claude and saying, "Process my polls." I built a stack. Elon's been saying the real value of the economy, and I agree with him totally on this, is the electricity. He's like, all this stuff. Because, like, Phil was saying, with production. If that's the case, then China's got us by the ball. Apparently, they do, electrically. Not that we can't get there, but. Because, like, nuclear power. But if you can make two sandwiches for the cost of one, you've cut your economy's national debt. I might say $40 trillion on paper, but it's really $20 trillion in value debt. So if we can enhance our output, reduce our input. The thing is, how? But this still comes back to the fact that the government has basically total control. You can't get any kind of power generation, anything built in any reasonable time, right? China, if they're like, "We want to build nuclear power, we want to build nuclear reactors," they break ground the next week, or at least they can, right? They don't have the same limitations. The United States, the EPA comes in and says, "Hold on there." And they have to do studies, and they have to make sure that there's no turtles, and there's no. You know, this isn't a breeding ground for some. Specific animal that might be endangered, or is it a wetland, or whatever. In the United States, we just do not have the efficiency that China has. And China's got a lead when it comes to generating electrons, right? Like, China has the Three Gorges Dam. They have another one that's going to be coming online that's going to power enough people to cover, like, the entire country of Germany or something like that. They have nuclear. They went all in. They have solar. China, 10 years ago or whatever, went all in on electricity. They had electricity generation. The bottleneck next year isn't chips, because, like, Amazon's sitting on chips in a warehouse that they can't power. Google's sitting on chips in warehouses that they can't put into service as a data center because they don't have the power to do it. And China doesn't have that same problem. So even if China's using the previous generation of chips, right? They don't have the most advanced models that TSMC and NVIDIA make. They don't have the ability to increase the amount of usage that they're getting just by using more of the older chips, right? They're getting the same level of compute. They're just using more of the older generation, and they have the power to do it. Like deregulating the power economy, dude. I don't know anybody in the Department of Energy right now. I'd like to, but. We should have been building nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants two decades ago, but anyways. Thorium reactors. What I would propose. My understanding of it, looking back economically or history, is that the issue isn't like. It's these ways of productivity haven't necessarily netted a better economic situation for most Americans. And so look at all the things we've invented in the last 20 or 30 years, and yet the middle class has been absolutely decimated. And so the question I have is, like, if Elon Musk or whoever thinks this AI is going to completely overhaul our economy, like, what is the force that's actually going to concentrate that wealth down? And not up. And so the reason that we have this whole problem is because we have a government that serves the massive corporations, and they aren't operating from the perspective of the economic common good. And not only that, they actually despise the very concept. And the Republicans will call it socialism, right? So whether or not this AI stuff develops, whether or not, like, we have the energy limitations, like, the main problem is, is that we're still on a path to an economic uprising or some kind of political violent upheaval, right? In the near term. When you say near term, five, ten years? I think less than that. Really? Well, look at what we're talking about. Zoomers and millennials are going to be a majority of the electorate. They're going to govern very differently, right? We're talking about potentially social safety nets failing, right? We're talking about, remember in 2008 when that great financial crisis happened, we had a much more robust middle class. We are starting from a way worse place. It's like half the people can't even pony up 500 bucks to pay off an emergency. So, like, how are we going to survive that if there's a downturn? And I think what we're -- There will be some kind of downturn in the future. That's not a question. Yeah, we can't kick this can forever, right? Like, and, you know, and it could be, like, it could be -- so this is the fourth turning, essentially, where the institutions fail so badly that a new generation of people with a different set of values rebuilds the institutions. And we know these new generations are millennials and Gen Z. That's what history tells us. And they're doing all the behavior things. And what's going on is fourth turning stuff. He's rebelling against the older generation. Israel is a very big sign of the fourth turning. People are pissed as hell about that. Because the institutions, if they put Israel first, have failed. And so what we're going to see is that eventually the political power will form because of pain and friction. It's just a matter of, like, what's the instigating factor? You know, like, last time we talked with Tim, like, all the different scenarios under which something secessionist could happen, that's one. Like, you know, the Bolsheviks, if a Democrat gets into office, we get pulled into a war in Eastern, you know, Europe. Or the stuff we're doing in Iran bleeds up into there, right? Like, that could happen. You could have an economic uprising, like riots and stuff like that. And what we're also, I think, seeing, which is positive, like, I would say people look at this Tuesday as a crisis. And I say, okay, yeah, but, like, take a breath and it's, like, get in the game. Now it's game time. You outsourced a revolution to somebody else. Now it's all hands on deck, you know? Yeah. I mean, I don't have a significant argument against the idea of some kind of civil unrest or whatever. Like, when I asked, it was 5, 10 years, and you said sooner. You were thinking before 2030? Well, this is what Americans think. So I think when I process it, I'm going to get a number like 57 or 58, the percent of Americans who think it's at least somewhat likely an economic uprising against the government happens in the next few years. Those numbers have all been going up, right? So, and if you rank people's concerns, like, one of their highest concerns is political violence in the United States. People don't care about foreign terrorism anymore. They're more concerned about domestic terrorism, like three to one. So we ask the question, who's America's biggest enemy? And we usually stack rank them and see where they are. And we put the Republican and Democrat parties in there. And it's, like, China, Democrats, Republicans. Iran. No, Russia. Then Iran. Sorry. So, like, we went to war with the fifth biggest enemy, a war of choice. You ever stack corporations in there? No, that's a good idea. I mean, the polling, Americans hate corporations. They're trusted less than the federal government in some measures. And I had one. So I actually did some polling for the head of DOJ antitrust, Gail Slater, because she couldn't find anything about it because people don't want to poll about how unpopular corporations are. Imagine that. There were questions along the lines of, like, do you support or oppose holding big tech companies accountable for whatever? And it was, like, 80%. And how likely is it that aggressive antitrust action by the government will bring down prices for American consumers? This is, like, 70%. And these are people that, like, antitrust, like, most people don't even know that, but they're just desperate for some kind of solution. And what we saw, like, I'm telling you, this egregious stuff is going to come out. Like, you got a lobbyist who is getting paid millions of dollars to get Gail Slater fired. You got a lobbyist who is getting paid millions of dollars to get Gail Slater fired out of DOJ antitrust to defend Live Nation so it could keep buying and upholding it. these ticket venues so your taylor swift tickets 300 bucks yeah americans are going to freaking hate that and the story has only been told a little bit right so this is the kind of stuff that's coming like there's going to be very egregious examples of bad things that happen that people are going to so trump went into this election with a 38 approval rating lowest going all the way back to nixon nixon got down to a 25 and he was forced to resign so that's like the bookends we're dealing with he's going to take a hit because these midterms going to be down to like 35 probably so that's like about where george w bush was when the great financial crisis happened like this is appalling and so when you look at 35 to 25 these are the kinds of things that can get us there and now what you'll see is a senate that has so many votes for impeachment that uh like this could really happen the foreign corporation influences nuts because the bank for international settlements is out of switzerland it's the mother bank for the federal reserve the bank of london the bank of australia they funnel their money through this swiss bank that kind of controls the liberal economic orders monetary system and i don't know how many americans have heard of the bank for international settlements you should you should know where your economy is being head mother-brained to extricate from that i'm not even advocating to get out of it because that would they'll go i don't know go that's the whole system that's been set up since 1947 is this liberal economic order out of switzerland i guess is where they headquartered it um but the system's hyper inflating i feel like they're going to sell the americans under the bus uh i don't know how to get out of the federal reserve system without defaulting on the debt and destroying the americans total economy i don't think that's an option defaulting i mean maybe default on the interest owed to the federal reserve and knock the but like dude i'm tracking like 2029 total chaos if nothing changes but the upside is things are changing like we're here there's opportunity the people have spoken they want the the democrats in the house and the senate they've they've spoken the republicans is like it's an opportunity to bridge this gap now with it with an intensely popular president in the republican party i mean what do you think and the word of the people now like pulsing on the left it's not the end just something's got to change the crown is in the gutter all somebody has to do is pick up the crown it's a nationalist populist movement that is sanguine about representing the american people that's all like the very basic fundamental purpose of the government all we need is one person that can do that the problem is is that they're going to need a major support infrastructure and the republican party is farther than it's ever been from that and i would argue that probably the democrat support infrastructure has other goals right and so in my opinion the biggest sucker in america right now is elon musk who pissed away half a billion uh half a billion dollars trying to bail out republicans at the very end and they're trying to do the right thing right they're trying to do the right thing right they're trying to do the right thing right they're trying to do the right thing they're trying to do the right thing right they're trying to do the right thing right and i would be pretty mad with it if i were him because he lost you know tens of billions or whatever in stock because now they're going to come after him right and it's like the problem is is that all the money that goes to the right is funneled through a tightly controlled network of people and it's all allocated based on who makes the most money off of it it is not ideological at all these people are not ideological they're just riding the world's biggest grift and they get more money they've spent more money than democrats this cycle i think 11 billion was spent in total so that's a massive amount of money again most of it pissed away and that's certainly not spent like knocking on doors no no well the right doesn't have that same that the kind of infrastructure when it comes to we need it now activist but yeah i mean we do need it now but that's not something that you build in you know six weeks like the democrats have had you got six months no i'm just saying like it ain't happening well i guess i would not i would put i would not bet anything on the right being able to build that kind of infrastructure an infrastructure that can rival the democrats ground game activist infrastructure because the democrats have had have been doing it for decades look you know the the idea of a community organizer those kind of things like barack obama was a community organizer like that oh yeah they definitely plugged the seiu into the whole network decades ago and they also had the federal government helping fund that with they did and all of that they did yeah they understand financial that's not happening that's not happening in the u.s i mean whether whether it be uh the national lawyers guild to protect the the the activists if they get out of hand or if you're dealing with the uh you know the on the ground uh promote uh protest stuff like every protest always has nicely made signs that are pre you know made up and and they're handed out that kind of activism the right does not have what we say we have six months what to do what exactly so if you think we're let's just say jd's the candidate somehow miraculously he overcomes the fact that israel hates him and that he probably won't raise the miriam middleton money and he'll have to use big tech money instead or whatever and somehow they keep from shiving him and shoving rubio in because that's what everybody around trump wants uh again he's the polling front runner and he's the only one that i've talked to who i think is a genuine economic populist which i think is an imperative at this point the right will not win without anybody who can talk about that with authenticity now i he he's always been doing well in the polls his net approval is 10 points better than trump there is a shot but what we're asking of him isn't to run as a president in a tough cycle we're asking him to challenge an extremely well-funded organization that he's going to have to take over that wants to fight him with every fiber of its being and realizes that if he gets his way and gets political power and governs for the people that their gravy train is over so how do you do that is he going to build this whole thing himself who's who's team going to be how's he going to keep it from being co-opted how's he going to run it with people outside of dc like there's a lot of questions your point to the house you can keep it from being co-opted there aren't as many true believers on the right as there are on the left right like they're like people on the right like battered wife yeah like your point like people on the right that should be doing things with the money that's donated to try to help get the candidate elected they're just shoving in their pockets here's the problem though the people think about how many people went to trump uh rallies in the last 10 years there was never a resume stand there and what trump said instead is don't no don't worry sit down you don't have to do anything i got this for you and then it was a rug pull if you look at the the ballot initiatives that were all brought for throughout the several states all of the stuff the right the republicans campaign on they all passed voter id that passed you know almost every 70 or 80 positions yeah they're all they're all things the right loses because it wants to they have the right issues like it's not hard like well there's one thing that's missing from this discussion which is the the level to which the federal government like the deep state in the us and in many other countries has this formula where they astroturf uh the grassroots uh where they fund civil society you know they have this formula where they fund civil society and this is how they created the impression this is how they started in in 2018 uh to create the impression of a grassroots demand for you know counter disinformation on social media right they just funded all of these civils what they call civil society organizations and that creates the impression of grassroots activity and actually it can create genuine grassroots activity because that's a lot of money that's going down to you know to organizers to community organizers uh to academics to all these forces in society but that doesn't exist on the right it doesn't now well but no like well you get me at january 6 we had people beating each other on the heads remember base stick man from 2016 or 2017. that's not an organization those are people no it's an organization like it's people organizing right but like i'm saying that the foot soldiers are there trump just convinced them that he was going to do the work for them right and that didn't happen it never does obama did the same thing i thought hope and change i was like finally he's in office i can relax in 2008. i campaigned for the guy i got videos featured on youtube in the early days when it mattered when it was big and then i was just like oh i learned my lesson you can't rely on another person to lead this for you have to do it yourself we're in this i'm in this for me and you're in this for you we have to work together but work for ourselves together you can't rely on an autocrat they're they're too bribed i don't know i don't know the solution what do we do what do we have six months to do because we have ai we can like mike benz was here last week we were talking about oh yeah why isn't there someone like kissinger in the modern era refactoring a new form of global military dominance that you know can can work uh and what do we need to accomplish that because we can sit down in 17 hours and get something crafted so i think it needs to be not attached to a candidate and i think it probably needs a few billion unfortunately that's pie in the sky right but it needs to be focused around not a party it needs to be focused around a very specific and limited policy set that's based on values tucker carlson understands that if you're going to build a coalition and and compromise with people they have to understand why you have your beliefs and his 10 points was not like a list of build the wall and stuff it was like we believe in a fair america and a rule of law and stuff like that right um so this organization should have something like arabella where it funnels the big money in and it goes to organizing infrastructure so it needs some somebody that'll do the data that won't sell out like all the right-wing posters that sell out to the lobbyists it needs somebody to lead to to do messaging it needs somebody to be in charge of the advertising and do digital ads that don't just get pissed away uh it needs to have something like turning point where there's a national you know organizing for grassroots but it should be structural Right. So you build one of these nonprofits in every state and you actually allocate money to them instead of just like pissing on the grassroots. These people, you know, give them real data. It's coming from one source. Then you have something like the Democrats have run for success where they actually find candidates and train them and back them. So the main issue with the Republican Party is that the primaries are basically their chance to find the person that can raise the most donor bucks or get all the manna from heaven from the NRCC or whatever. So they can all grift off of it and they will shut MAGA. They will shut outsiders out. They'll tell the donors not to, you know, support them at all. And so the Republican Party tells you you can't punish Republicans in primaries on purpose because they want to keep making money. Right. So you have to get this army of candidates that might not like they'll probably run as Republicans, but maybe also Democrats. But all of this, the whole goal is to build this whole thing and another win red that actually brings the money straight to the campaigns that is not headquartered in D.C. and has like an iron fisted control of who works there and it needs to be on an uncorrupted organization. The Republican Party is too far gone. You could have like a smart contract system where the money just goes. There's no middleman where it's just like the donations are spread out. Yeah, it's communistic sort of. But I mean, a functionally communistic, whatever you want to call it. Yeah, you could do that with like ways to structure this, to keep it like focused on the mission. You know what I mean? Like you like part of the whole goal is to separate the source of the money. From the outcome of the money. Right. So you're if you're donating this, you're donating for pro-American impact. You're not donating to get contracts out of the Department of Defense. Right. And again, that's the fight. And it would go. Everybody would hate it. And they would try and come after it and stuff like that. But it has to happen because like I just look at the Republican Party takeover. Like I'm just hearing things like Joe Grutter's the head of the RNC was handpicked by Susie Wiles. Like we essentially took like a moneymaking. Organization and transplanted it into the front, the very head of a populist movement that had a historic mandate and just like I mean, this is what happened. It was co-opted. Right. Like that's in my opinion what happened. I wonder if if a populist grassroots movement could compete with Chinese autocracy, if we need like a federal authoritarian movement like seize, seize the means of production, seize people's. No. Property rights, you know, to beat the enemy like like they did during World War Two. China doesn't seize the means of production. I mean, they abandoned like full, full top down U.S.S.R. style economics decades ago, particularly like Lincoln, you know how he shut down habeas corpus for an area because it was too dangerous to let these people like right now. It's too. I don't like this urgency mindset since 9/11. It's been like this. I don't like it. But can we compete against an authoritarian enemy? Well, you have to have cracking down. You have to have a government that actually. Encourages not just like the the companies that are involved, like if you're talking about like beating China with A.I., right, like you have to have a government that wants to see A.I. being used to benefit the people as opposed to A.I. being used as a means to kind of shape a popular opinion and control people because I mean, the the A.I. products that you're allowed to use and stuff in China. Are very different than the open models that they put out because there are certain things that you're not allowed to talk about. I'm sure if you were in China and you ask an A.I. model about Tiananmen Square, you'll get a very different answer than if you ask like if you ask an A.I. model from China that you're using in the U.S., I imagine the answers would be pretty different. And this is the big problem that there's a lot of hostility towards sort of A.I. oligarchs and tech oligarchs and all of this. But if you just unilaterally slow down on all of this stuff without. Like getting an agreement with China to slow down as well, then what's going to stop China racing ahead? I mean, that seems to be like the disconnect. You know, you have like big Democrats who say we've got to like pause all development, super intelligent A.I. You've got a you've got some conservative like Tucker Carlson probably wants to do that as well. But if you don't get China to pause as well, how do you stop them just dominating everything? And that's the that's one of the things when it comes to A.I., when it comes to like actual A.S.I., like artificial super intelligence, if it if you do get models that are that smart and that are that capable of predicting, you know, predicting how other actors will behave and what they're going to do when you lose, you lose forever. So if we had the problem I see is if we had like a strategic A.I. limitation treaty or whatever assault is right. How do you stop other actors like that aren't part of the agreement, like Israel or our intelligence agencies, you know, Department of Defense or whatever? I mean, and again, and the thing is, like stop anybody, even if you can try and slow them down, you can't stop them. Even if you put the brakes on and and and say, say pie in the sky, China agrees, you slow it down. But all you're doing is kicking the can down the road anyway, because the the the capabilities of these models continue to get better and better. And eventually on a long enough time, like if you put it off by two years, it doesn't matter. And in the in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. You put it off for two years. Things start back up a year later. You're dealing with an intelligence that you can't yeah, you can't comprehend how it thinks. It looks like the Manhattan Project. I just keep thinking like the Manhattan Project. If if you don't win the race, they use it on you and then they bow you into submission and then you have no choice but to give up. Yeah, I mean, the the the best case scenario that you can think of. Think of is something like what happened with nuclear weapons. The U.S. used to neutral destruction. No, but like kind of. But like the U.S. to use two nuclear weapons and the U.S. didn't say we're taking over the world now. Right. We did. No, it didn't. It did. Look, I know you're going to go and get into the global economic order, but I'm talking about using violence and using nuclear weapons. The U.S. had nuclear weapons and it didn't say do what. We say or we're going to nuke you. It didn't use that kind of that kind of. It didn't continue to force strategic deterrence. And also, even though you have like you have your issues with the global economic order, it was and it was a carrot and stick. Look, if you if you open up your country to markets and you work with us, we'll be good to you. If not, you know, maybe the CIA goes in or your government or whatever. It was still every country that said, OK, we're going to open up our markets. They're their their standard of living rose, their standard of living increased, their life expectancy increased. All of the things that came, especially after World War Two, when we were when the the global society, if you want to call that all the countries on Earth were considerably further down the economic ladder. Right. The U.S. saying, look, we're not going to just go in and nuke your governments and take your resources. We're going to help you to develop your country and your people. We're going to be better off the entire world, even places in in that are that are still kind of backwards, like in Africa and stuff. They're better off than they were 50 years ago. The the the the what is it? The infant mortality rate has gone down overall globally. I'm not sure if Zimbabwe is better than it was 50 years ago, but. Oh, yeah, yeah, you're right. There's there's a couple of pockets where things have kind of regressed. U.S. isn't really better than it was. Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe is kind of a new. Thing is, you know, what used to be something else, right? Yeah, yeah. So the which was a net food exporter. Yes, yes. But Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe's infant mortality rate today is probably better than it was when it was first formed. So you see what I'm getting at? It probably wasn't as good as when Rhodesia was right. But an example of like a military dominance would be like, imagine the worst case scenario. The Chinese decide we're going to we're going to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States. They're going to blow up our economics. We are power. It goes down for two weeks and they're like, see, this is what we can do. Then it goes back up. And four weeks later, they do it again. And they're like, I'm talking about bow to us and we will make sure your standard of living goes up. And we're like, oh, the U.S. when the like I said, like I said, when the after the end of the World War Two, the U.S. had the nuclear bombs and had the capability to actually dominate militarily. And we didn't. That's the that would be the best case scenario with AI. Have the U.S. behave with a super intelligent AI system saying, look, we've got this and we could do this stuff, but we're not going to. Let's figure out a way to order for that to work. I think they have to show it once. They have to use it once and be like, we're never going to do this to you again. Well, they actually maybe they have to use it twice. They use it once and then they wait and then they use it again. And they're like, we can keep going. But you don't the to demonstrate the intelligence of a super intelligent AI system does not require killing millions of people. It does not require the same. Kind of demonstration that you're alluding to. Well, I'm thinking like, well, how would you do it? What would you do that would threaten people and not kill millions of people? I mean, what's another tactic? Just because I can't answer, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I don't think anything can terrify people like blowing up their account. Point isn't trying to terrify them. I mean, just be like, look, we have this. We have this. I hacked your nuclear codes. Yeah, I mean, something like that. There you go. Just because you like be like, look, your your your entire military infrastructure is completely open to us now. And we'll prove it. And we do it. And we're going to take the. the AI system out of your system but you're no longer in a position to militarily. Actually, that's probably what happened in January of 2025. We just don't know it yet. That's probably what happened. Are there instances of military dominance where all they did was just show the potential that they could win? Well, that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right? I mean, there was an interesting historical counterfactual. There was, like, a few years when America was the only country that had nuclear weapons. They could have conquered the world if they were ruthless enough in those few years. Yeah, that's the point that I'm making. Like, oh, yeah, they didn't. I don't think the Americans intended to blow everybody up. That wasn't their intention. They wanted to end the war, and they were willing to show force to do it. But they didn't just indicate that they had the ability. They blew up two cities and killed. I don't know how many million people died. So. I think it was, like, quarter. Well, they said they were going to stop after the first one, and then the guy was like, no, we're not going to surrender. And they're like, all right, we're going to drop a second one. And then. That's not what I heard. No? What did you hear? I heard they were all ready to surrender, and there's just pages and pages and pages of quotes I read that some guy put on Twitter of all the people who were like, we didn't have to do this. They were going to. It was going to be over, but the order came from on top because they wanted to demonstrate these things. I could have the history incorrectly, so maybe you're right. Well, you know, it's like one of those things you see on the Internet, but it came from a pretty credible account. I mean, they were quoting actual generals. I forget, like, MacArthur or whoever, but. The question is, like, how much does AI resemble nuclear weapons? Because with nuclear weapons, you get that, you know, balance of power and, you know, mutually assured destruction. But if two countries have super-intelligent AI, how much does that resemble that where, you know, if one. Well, you know, it's all like first strike. Like, can, if one super-intelligent AI acts first, can it just completely knock out the other one? No, you need more electricity. Whoever has more electricity wins in those instances. If that's. If development is the critical path, but you're saying it's like, okay, instead of asymmetry of capabilities, it's like asymmetry of vulnerability. Or something like that, right? Yeah, it's like the scenario you were saying, where, you know, one country doesn't use its super-intelligent AI. That allows a few years for another country to get it. And what happens then when two countries have it rather than one? Yeah. And, like, if you get the first super-intelligence, you can kind of seed the rest of the world with your intelligence. And so it all gets manipulated by yours. That might be, like, the way they win. The one difference I'll point out is that when we developed nuclear weapons, we had an existential foe that externalized all our problems. And America. American public opinion was cohesive. And there was a high-trust society. And we were at the end of the fourth turning crisis, where people had already reformed. And a lot of stuff had happened there in World War II, like, besides just the nukes. There was an unprecedented level of government control over the economy. Like, we were re-industrializing. There were lots of new regulations. There was a lot of government control over certain sectors in a way that would be absolutely crazy to us. And then after that period, it was like, hey, we developed nukes. The government has nukes. Everything's awesome. Our government's perfect. Where now, the problem is, is that all of our institutions are in absolute decay. We don't have an externalized enemy. Our enemy, if anything, is the corporations and the government. And so if the corporations and government get this capability, like, what do the people think, right? That's. Well, in America, the American people are generally negative towards AI, right? Like, 70%. I saw. Oh, it was terrible. Yeah, like, 70% of Americans use Google AI every day, and 70% of Americans say that they don't like AI. Like, there's so many polls that I see where I just think of that Simpsons bit where the old lady's like, you know, put everything in one bag, but don't make the bag too heavy. Yeah, it's like Amazon, right? Everyone uses it. Everyone likes dunking on Jeff Bezos, but everyone uses Amazon. And that's one of the things that, you know, that's one of the things that I find most frustrating is people want things that are mutually exclusive, right? Like you were talking about, like, with the. the Social Security stuff, right? Nobody wants to do any of the things that will fix Social Security, but everyone knows that it's going to destroy the. These are not hard problems. On AI, I will say just one last thing. I mean, we're talking, like, everyone. The Duma conversation is very, like, dominates. You know, will it kill us all? Will there be, like, the equivalent of nuclear warfare? But if none of that happens, there are some massive silver linings. Hollywood is over. Hollywood can no longer gatekeep culture. Oh, the Malfoy stuff is incredible. Big video game companies can. Video game companies will go first, actually. You already see, like, Bioware going on. They're one of the worst video game companies to have, like, pushing political messages on its audience. Like, all of these cultural gatekeepers will eventually disappear because of AI, which is a significant silver lining, I think. I think so. The overpriced white-collar industries of, like, administration, like lawyers and tax attorneys. Government bureaucracies, yeah. Yeah, bureaucracies can go. That feeds. That's the people. If you want the populist upside of AI, it's that. You can save money on not having to go for a $2,000 consultation with your guy to get your finances together. You can tell that thing and give it access to your stuff and have it done in two hours. Look, one of the things that I think is most positive about it is, like, if you have a technician that's looking at an MRI, do you want a guy that's looked at 10,000 MRIs to find maybe to see if you might have a problem, or do you want an AI that's seen every MRI ever? Every MRI ever. Every MRI ever. The capabilities of AI to influence and affect the healthcare industry, not only on the actual medicine side, but also on the side of getting rid of all the administration. Yeah, the delays. Getting rid of the delays. How about that? People have a negativity bias. I think that's really showing itself with AI and data centers and all this. But, like, if you think for a little bit about all the things that could go right with it, it's actually quite a fantastic future. Yeah. Democratizing integrity. Yeah. Like, if I had, so, I left my former employer, Rasmussen Reports, and I was doing a good job. I rebuilt the company. I got to a position where, literally, Trump-aligned political action committee wanted to offer us a check, but I was told I had to be silenced and not criticize the Trump administration in order to do that. So, I started my own company. Had I done that two years ago, I would not have been able to start my own company. So, I'm out there, and because of that, I don't have any strengths to anybody. And I can literally reproduce an entire polling company myself with AI. I was listening to it. And government accountability. I mean, I do this, too, at FFO. It's so much easier now to just say, hey, AI, tell me about all the U.S. government funding that went to promoting censorship in Brazil. And it'll find all the places where they hid it, because they hide it in so many places. And AI can just, like, find those little nooks and crannies where they hid all the funding so quickly. It's like aspects of the apocalypse. I try and tell as many people as I can. The term apocalypse, it's a Greek term meaning apocalypse, means to remove. Apo is remove. Calypso is the veil. You're taking away the veil. You're seeing. Not only do you have access to seeing it, but, like, the downside of the apocalypse, I think, is that your emails are going to get made public, all your texts, all your browser history, maybe even your thoughts, if they start reading thoughts. Like, that's probably coming. So, like, get good with God and righteousness. Because that's another reason why not to become obsessed with law and order, because there's going to be, you know, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be like, there's so many people that have broken so many laws, and it's like, bro, law is not the lay of the land. It's like there's law and then there's good. And sometimes you've got to do the right, the good thing that maybe is a little more chaotic. People are really going to have to find God when it comes to that. By far the worst consequence of the digital era in general. You know, I'm pretty anti-censorship, but the panopticon, like everyone publishing everything about everyone, recording each other, posting it online, no one's lives being private anymore. Well, that's, so you're a millennial, right? Yes. That's something that Gen Z doesn't really have a concept of. Yeah. Like I'm. Enemy of the state? What was that? Enemy of the state? Yeah, I mean, I love it. Will Smith was great. I thought it was a great movie. Gene Hackman, is that who it was? Yeah, Gene Hackman. But I'm like, you know, I'm Gen X. And I remember a time before being constantly monitored, right? Like when I was a kid, I would get on my bike and I'd go ride and my parents would be like, get home before the lights and they wouldn't actually know where I was, right? Like literally. Gen Z doesn't have a concept of not knowing where like their parents are, where their friends are. Only recently in my life have I actually turned on like the monitoring thing in this, where you can have, where someone can share your location all the time, right? Like that was something that never occurred to me. But, you know, like Gen Z is like, oh yeah, I have all of my friends. On all the time or that my group of five friends, I always know where they are. And it's, it's something that Gen Z doesn't really find value in. They, the idea of, oh, I don't want to be watched all the time. They kind of assume that they're being watched all the time. Anyways, the idea of privacy has evolved to, from being like, I can actually be alone and not have cameras watching me all the time to like, well, no one's complaining about what I'm doing. Maybe I'm actually, I can't even really, I can't even, I can't, I can't really come up with a theory of mine. You're socially cohesive as a generation and in a way that it fascinates me. So we were talking about video games before and when we were young, like what year, if you don't mind me asking? Was I born? Yeah. 75. Okay. So I'm four years behind you. And I remember first seeing the Nintendo and you got it and you played Mario and Duck Hunt. Like that's all it was, right? And then our entire lives were just more and more options that got better every year. It was incredible. And, And it's gotten to the point where like 10 years ago, just thousands of independent games in like literally every niche what do the gen z do they all play freaking roblox so they'll like literally set the all-time record of uh you know games the gamers all on one game with like grow a garden or something like two years ago and they play fortnite right so they want to do it from a social interactive perspective that's why they perceive technology so positively and they don't care about these aspects uh and is that's my hypothesis but that that is what you would expect to see out of a fourth turning generation is somebody that see i'm sick of all this fragmentation and individuality we should come together my society sucks eventually i'll fix it when i get power and that's going to happen soon all right i think we're going to jump to uh some of the discord calls today's friday we don't do the uh call in from or we don't do the uh the super chats on fridays because obviously we're pre-recording this so we've got our lovely discord members so smash the like button share the show with all of your friends tell everyone you know head on over to rumble.com become a member so you can watch our after show monday through tuesday and then head to the discord so you can call into the rumble after show and also so you can be among the people that will uh submit questions in the discord on friday so uh right now keith kevin adele says timcast i don't think tucker nick and their ilk will support vance or rubio due to their association with trump and the iran war i think they'd support the most anti-israel candidate which i believe will be el saeed do you guys think brandon gill will be a more viable candidate so look personally i don't know a lot about brandon gill but the things that i see i like i don't know that tuckers and and uh and um nick fuentes's audience would find el saeed compelling i don't think they're only israel skeptic even though they are very very you know anti-israel i don't think that that is is the only issue i think that that el saeed has uh problems that the groipers would probably disapprove of i i i kind of think that one of the reasons why they don't like vance is because vance is married to an indian woman that's one of the things i've seen people talking about uh his kids named vivek one of the reasons why they were very strongly against vivek is because vivek is an indian um a lot of their arguments against h1b is because of the the perceived uh influx of indians so i don't know that they would go for el saeed either do you guys have thoughts on if the groipers and if you if you watch like fuentes post-election stream he does say this was sort of in alliance with convenience with the democrats uh democrats still hate white males uh you know it's the same people who supported blm in 2020 and supported all this you know discrimination on the basis of race and sex in in uh in uh in corporate america so yeah you already see that happening or is that pros happening of them turning against the el saeeds and the democrats he's looking for an unencumbered dark horse and he's already endorsed fishback i don't know how serious that is and then he alluded to the fact that he's identified who he thinks the dark horse candidate will be although i don't think he's named a name yet but uh yeah i don't i don't i don't know if the fishback i feel like fishback was on our show and he was engaging he was very much uh he very much was a politician he was you know was was looking at you and saying your name to whoever he was talking about doing uh doing that kind of politician speak um but i don't know that i don't know i'm not sure that fishback has the the mojo yeah i mean the i think that the difficulty that uh groipers will encounter and the fuentes faction will encounter and it's the same problem that the dsa have because all the dsa candidates ran behind the more moderate democrats and they would have lost in a if there wasn't a massive national swing against republicans um where some of the more moderate candidates would have won uh can uh can that faction accept somebody with maybe most of the policies of a james fish fishback but with the demeanor and the rhetoric of a glenn yunkin can they can they accept that yeah say oh this guy this guy this guy's not based enough he's not faking gay thing yeah he's faking gay you know they want a charismatic leader but i think they need one yeah i mean the america needs one yeah the presidency uh you look at the people that get elected to the the office of the president they're almost always six foot or taller yeah right well authenticity i think is the number one word this president is going to have to do better than any previous one probably in convincing americans to trust them that trust has been sort of stomped on yeah the last two years we gotta find a middle ground between the corporations the u.s government the chinese government i don't want to derail the conversation into this but we need an amalgamation i think the corporate governance we're headed towards a corporate governance the world economic forum has desperately been trying to create world social governance corporate governance they think national governments is passe maybe it's time to move on it's not going to be one or the other there's going to be a blending there already is in the background but we need to forge it first with american bill of rights ideals in this corporate structure and otherwise the corporations will have the guy killed they'll have the so you can't have another jfk that gets killed you need to find a middle ground we need to do it someone's going to be able to to navigate it it's just this land is able to give up the the banks aren't going to give up on the united states it's too powerful all right we got we got one for you ian uh from taylor ren's is what is the ex-wife today oh yeah taylor ren's ex-wife uh hey phil please ask ian what he thinks the social security situation would look like if our government invested the money we pay into it into stocks instead of lighting it on fire they technically they didn't light it on fire they just spent it on other things a lot of it probably went to bed paying down the debt but transfer payments yeah of types yeah what's the question late now what was the question exactly what do you think the social security situation would look like if our government invested the money we pay into it into the stocks into stocks instead of lighting it on fire i don't know it depends on the stocks i guess you mean just to the s&p and or to the well instead of putting the money into the lock box that was always wide open that was never locked instead of basically just giving it to the government to spend how they see fit because that's what they do with it uh if the people were allowed to retain the money that they would have put into the social security system but retain it for themselves or even if it went to even if it went to the federal government and the federal government then actually did take that money and put it into the stock market so that way people that are you know are going to be able to get not particularly uh good at saving money they had to save the money because the government said daddy's going to do it for you a little state capitalism um i don't know it might might at least stand up to inflation a little better than if it sits in a box and gains nothing does it gain and does it gain interest while it sits in the lock box no no actually it devalues because it's still dollars and and they keep printing it so it because you have to pay interest less value yeah i would think that if that would have been a good idea that they would have done it already i don't know why they haven't looked into that is that just why do you say that just because it's a good idea that you think the government would have done it i think that history is kind of good for an evident kind of evidence that it doesn't do if they spent the money they've taken in and transfer payments primarily right and then we're going back and making it actually go into accounts instead doesn't that make our past gdp structurally lower because all that money that goes to like you know medicaid or it goes to welfare or whatever what would wouldn't have been that it would that that means that would they would have borrowed the money to do it yeah they'd had to print more money i wish i could give a better answer i don't know enough i don't know about the structure and i really yeah i mean again it to mark's point like conceptually it sounds good but like you said like the money that does get spent on on social security and and those things that does go into the economy it does go into the health care uh health care market you know even if the government is is just taking a transfer payment transferring from one to you know one one group of people which is the people that are on social security to another group of people that are people that are in the health care industry um it's still a transfer payment at the end of the day day of the pillow because you have gen z and millennials at peak working age basically paying for end of life care for boomers is the day of the pillow like bite down on the pillow because you're about to take it the day of the pillow is is you take the pillow and put it over grandma's face until she stops breathing oh man dude then they're going to be living until they're 150 genetic i scribe to the gentler version which is where the all the benefits just got cut off but but that's where it came from is a 4chan copy pasta about that yeah all right so let's see what do we got um at what point do we admit from dr pants phd in 40 at what point do we admit that enlarging the town the tent alienated a large enough element of the base that it was counterproductive i mean by this that the pandering to minorities and immigrants had a statistically insignificant insignificant return on investment while younger white males abandoned the party in droves we didn't pander to anybody that was the whole point of maga america first national popular economic populism everybody's like sweet i want that we didn't have to pander to people now we're doing fratricide we're like we were we had muslims for trump two years ago and now the republican party needs to make global islam our enemy like that's where we went in two years it's pretty sad so we're anti-pandering now we weren't pandering then i think the republican party was pretty anti-islam in 2016 i think that pretty consistent on that point uh also dr pants 40 uh phd in 40 uh sublime is a dog shit band oh snap sublime yeah dog shit dude sublime's awesome no they're not wrong way yeah that's not good freaking album is so good not good santoria uh yeah that is it is absolute garbage absolute garbage and the message is terrible as well very long uh phil how can we organize to fight back for the states in 2028 and get rid of the interstate compact that eliminates the electoral college how can we run a better marketing campaign i'm not a marketing guy so i don't know as for the interstate compact um i'm not a hundred percent sure if that's constitutional um if i understand correctly the states are not or the electors are not obliged to vote for whoever the uh whoever they they had so it would actually have to be the the people in the actual electoral college going ahead and voting for whoever the majority was as opposed to what their state says is the idea here that the states are going to align their rules because i'm pretty sure states have their own rules about how so there there's the elect the electoral college is supposed to is supposed to go not for they're supposed to vote for whatever the state is but if the if the total uh popular vote goes a different way than then the the compact says no matter what the state is supposed to vote for we're going to vote for whoever wins the popular vote which i don't know if that's unconstitutional or not i guess we'd have to test it if it hasn't been tested before yeah state does it and then sees what happens but the democrats are essentially that's they want to circumvent the electoral college which they don't have to worry about it yeah right that map looks pretty ugly yeah i i it probably won't be an issue but this does go to the point that democrats do want to structurally change the united states and and get rid of the senate get rid of the electoral college and they'll basically do anything they can to circumvent the rules because the rules only matter if you're in charge you know the the republican the dnc and the rnc are private companies you guys probably know that i don't know if everyone knows that they're private companies they're private companies they're private companies they're private companies they get to decide whoever they want to be their candidate they're fucking private i'm sorry private companies are deciding the candidate of the democratically elected it is insane that to me that is insane the rules too they can change their rules about how they do it the founders didn't want parties at all particularly george washington he was adamant about it you know so i mean what else would they be non-profits i mean there have been some sort of yes something like a non-profit organization they're private companies i mean well non-profits can be private companies too but um but that they're i don't know if they're for profit or not i don't that's any good question let's find out i mean people make money that work for them but i don't know that they they are i i don't i don't know that it's i think that a non-profit would in some ways be worse because they're subject to more government herbicide you don't want the government you need a legal entity whether you're for profit or not yeah whether you follow the form 990 i think you're i think you're just getting wrapped up with the concept of a company and and thinking that it's automatically bad well i don't know there should be some government it should be some function of the federal government the federal government is actually prohibited from being involved in those non-profits because the states are supposed to do that the states have the states uh decide how they run their elections the federal government isn't supposed to be uh largely involved in elections because the federal government isn't supposed to have a have an opinion right like yeah that's a good point yeah the government has a lot more leverage over a non-profit than it does over a private company because we're threatened to take away non-profit status the dnc and the rnc are both 527 tax-exempt non-profit organizations yeah so and and again the federal government isn't supposed to have an opinion right the people are supposed to vote the electoral college elects who's going to be the president and the federal government is supposed to say well this guy's the president in charge now because that is the will of the people so we will change and adjust to what this administration wants as opposed to saying well we we want to have a stake or a say in who the president is and how the country's run i find i understand the the better men model that we need the senate we need a group small group of better men that will override the mob if the mob speaks but it's like the will of the core like a 501 what is this 527 that's a corporation so these these non-profit corporations it's the will of the corporation the people vote and then the corporation decides who they're going to put in it's like the rnc actually has like political power though i think it's like a fundraising and grassroots organizing organization and they allocate the funding they are decision makers because i think they get to decide how their funding goes but then there's a lot of other layers and like what we're talking at the state level is like okay who are the elected officials from the parties and then what do the state parties do like uh it's pretty complex but the rnc itself like joe greuter's like he's just meeting with donors and they're having a weekly call with all the volunteers there's like 170 of them that get to decide who the candidate is but they try to stay aligned with what the people vote but then at the end of the day they get in a room and they decide the dnc has like 1800 people they have the super delegates and then the delegates the rnc has a very small group of like 200 people or something c nosky says why is it that we're three days after this trouncing looking at the same candidates as possible 2028 contenders as what just what just lost why aren't we trying to find the next guy because it's only three days yeah i think there will be a dark horse in 2028 absolutely we don't know who it's going to be name your craziest one let's go around the room crazy i honestly i don't even have a any idea of of who might be an option dark horse republican candidate in 28 doesn't have to be republican dark horse principled human that will save america right i just keep thinking about myself god that's not my real life i'm not looking for someone else to save me anymore i don't know though i don't want to be going to run for president in 2028 i like the ben franklin model i'm here to support but i'm not going to run for president i'll do it if i have to in an aoc uh me and aoc are going to run together i want to get her in here man she's my she's my saving grace and i'm not even joking yeah come come over here um i don't know let's do real dark horse candidate tucker carlson that's not a dark horse people are predicting okay i think it's good i think that the definition of a dark horse candidate is you can't predict them yeah mcconaughey matthew mcconaughey honey yeah you see that video you put out no oh it's worth a watch really i was probably written by chat gpt but i mean the concept's good right but like i wonder how connected this is to the tucker thing because i've heard that tucker has been reaching out to leftists as well and i don't think he i don't know if he's going to run or not but him going principles first in my opinion was the smartest thing i've seen in politics for a long time and uh the matthew mcconaughey thing was a five-minute speech about how important it is that we step back from the two-party system and have a true independent uh candidates and that he wants an independent movement and the goal would be to basically get a block of hostage votes in congress where you can shut down any legislation that doesn't serve the american people and that's like single issue enough for me where it's like like cool who can he get on board and would he be the candidate and it's like at the end of the day he he's the authenticity i think is there the ability for him to build trust in people i don't know anything about his politics he's got the the charisma too he's from texas yeah uh someone who is it i can't see this person's name on here that is uh i also uh tj rayman rainman uh phil what do you think of massey for 2028 the one person to stick to their guns on the epstein files fought against the the fought against the apac and lost sure and had been big anti-war advocate i feel like he embodies what maga was supposed to represent and didn't go full warmonger neon neocon when trump did i think he's the only one that has that x factor right now look i like thomas massey but there is absolutely no way that he would win the office of the presidency just going by the fact that congress people don't go from congress to the office office of the president right that alone usually they'll go and they'll get a governorship somewhere they'll they'll win an election as a governor um but thomas massey lost his election in a state where he was a seven-time incumbent right it is the most pie in the sky stuff to think that thomas massey would ever would be able to win in 2028 maybe down the road maybe something changes maybe he does you know he gets elected to like i said like to a governorship and he spent some time as an executive maybe that's possible there's a lot of people that keep bringing up his name because they're very they're very fond of his perspective and stuff and i get that but actually winning is totally different than people that keep bringing up his name because they're very they're very fond of his perspective and stuff obama would get trounced obama was a senator yeah he went from congress to no he went from the senate to congress the congress is the house and the senate okay well i'm making the distinction of congress people to senators congress or congressmen people in the house representatives yes senators are both representatives well i don't understand why you didn't understand what i was because you said people in congress don't become president you're acting like the senate is not in congress no the senate is the senate the senate are they're congressmen phil okay okay okay okay congress consists of houses but senators are called senators congress people are called congress representatives and they're congressmen and then they're senators and they're congressmen people from the house are do not go from the house Generally, you do not go from the House to the office of the president. Okay, that's a different statement, yeah. People from the Senate can have historically gone from the Senate to the office of the president. You're arguing semantics here. I think so. Yeah, I was just arguing the definition of Congress. You're arguing semantics. That's what semantics is. Well, I was right. It's still arguing semantics. Okay, be clear. You're on a TV show. Everybody knows what I'm talking about. Everyone knows where he came from. You said congressman, don't become president. You were wrong. Were you under the impression that I didn't know? I thought you were mistaking that Obama went from the Senate to becoming president. No, I said that Obama went from the Senate. He was a senator. People refer to people in the House of Representatives as congresspeople generally. People refer to senators generally as senators. This isn't. Well, then that would be a weird thing to do. This is colloquial. It's a colloquialism. People, that's generally what they do. Congressmen. Okay, whatever. They call. Are you indicating that most people think that senators are not congressmen? Most people, when they think of senators, they think of senators. When people think of congresspeople, they think of people in the House of Representatives. When I think of Congress, I think of the two houses of Congress. The Senate and the fucking Republic. That's why. The representatives. I'm not trying to. How hard is this? I'm telling you what most. Is this just five spaces or a tab? Like, this is what we're talking about. I'm only telling you what most people think of. That's the way that. Look, bro, you can only speak for yourself. Who knows what most people think? I don't know. I'm trying to educate the masses. I think he would lose as well. Yeah. But he could definitely cause Republicans to lose. I think he should run because of that. Because he's going to give people a run for their money. Massey, I mean. He would be a forcing function. I also. I hate to say it, but it's not the time for libertarians. No. It works locally, but it fails geopolitically. It's like a nice set of ideals, right? But it's like. It's one of those things like. It's a representative democracy. It only works in like a moral society, right? The problem with libertarians. With libertarianism, and I was a libertarian for a lot of years, or I called myself a libertarian. Like. I didn't know you converted. Yeah, yeah. I'm not. I'm not anymore because they're kind of dumb. And they're dumb because of this. Like, the argument of we're going to get into office and leave you alone. Well, that's not what people want people in office to do. That's not what Americans want. We're going to get into office and then we're not going to do anything. Well, that's not what America. That's not a. That's not a compelling argument. That's not a compelling slogan. You know, the. And that's something that libertarians. You know, the 3% or 4% of America that calls themselves libertarians, like, that's what they. That really charges them up. Yeah, we're going to get into office and they're going to leave us alone. We're going to let us live our lives. Most Americans say they want to be left alone, but they're not interested in leaving other people alone. Most Americans. The fact that Silicon Valley dialed down censorship in anticipation of a Republican win is a testament to the fact that corporations do look. look to the government for direction. Yeah. And maybe that's simply because that's the only reality they've ever experienced, but that's certainly how it happens. And again, you've got to watch in the coming years if a couple of years, whether they'll start reversing course on those policies. All right. So you can follow me on X. I'm at phil.remains. You can check out my Patreon. It's patreon.com slash phil.remains. The band's All That Remains. You can go to all the music sites to check them out. Alan, where can people find you? Yes, I'm on X at Alan Bakari, and you can find the Foundation of Freedom online at foundationfreedomonline.com, where we continue to cover the growth and an occasional retreat of censorship around the world. Occasional. Mark? On Twitter, it's at honestpolster. The website is thehonestpol.com. I have a free Substack notification thing. Like half the content's not behind a paywall. So if you guys want to go there, it's thehonestpol.substack.com. I'm really glad to have you. Follow me at Ian Crosland. X, Instagram, YouTube. Follow me all over the place. Twitch, anywhere you find me. Subscribe. Ian Crosland. Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks on YouTube as well, and Instagram at Carter Banks Official. I think X is also at Carter Banks. And check out the label at Trash House Records on YouTube, Phil. All right. We will be updating with posts all weekend, and otherwise, we will see you back here on Monday. We'll be right back.