Candace Owens Debates Andrew Wilson About Tyler Robinson + Bonus Hour

Key Takeaway

Before entering any consequential disagreement, write down three things: the claim being tested, the evidence both sides will accept, and the rule for deciding what would change your mind. If those cannot be agreed on, do not mistake a clash of opinions for a truth-seeking debate. Use AI as a research partner—not an authority—to find primary sources, generate counterarguments, and pressure-test your reasoning before you commit to a public position.

Episode Overview

Tom Bilyeu and the team dissect the Candace Owens–Andrew Wilson debate, arguing that it failed because the underlying legal facts were not yet established and neither side shared a standard for adjudicating the claims. The conversation expands into fiscal discipline, wealth-tax incentives, political corruption, geopolitical quagmires, and the emerging role of AI as a research and deliberation tool.

Full Transcript

Transcript of Candace Owens Debates Andrew Wilson About Tyler Robinson + Bonus Hour from Impact Theory. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

Good morning everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Show live. It is very good to have you guys here. I hope you had a wonderful weekend. It was wild. If you are at all in YouTube culture, I will tell you that because that debate was hot. Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson collided in what I will call a bizarro world debate that went off the rails very quickly. We're we're going to be looking at that one. The ceasefire with Iran has now expired, but I think the real fireworks are likely to come later for reasons that we're going to discuss today.

So, strap in. JD Vance has gone viral on X for suggesting that the US is actually hurt by being the reserve currency. It's an argument that he's made before. I'm very eager for uh a deep dive on that one. It is I think he's right, even though I expect this to be a very unpopular sentiment at a time where people are struggling. Abdul Elsed makes it clear he is economically ill literate by lobbying for a wealth tax which if you guys were on X this weekend you probably also saw Mark Cuban absolutely bodying Roana for a very similar reason.

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

We're going to cover the underlying reality and what it means for your money today. We're going to be going deep, boys and girls. We got that third hour, so make sure that you guys are ready. The between the debate between people getting arrested, between what's going on with China and the US economy, though, we're going to get into the US economy later in the week. There is just a lot going on. All right, the debate. The debate heard round the internet. Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson collided in a $300,000 battle royale debate that was an absolute train wreck for online debating as a thing.

And if you care about the pursuit of truth, it was just things coming off the rails. This one winds me up. I do not understand what these guys thought was going to happen in this debate. How Andrew Wilson got sucked into this and looked terrible. by the way, uh because keep in mind the facts of the case haven't even come out yet. So, we're in preliminary trials where they're going to be putting forward some of their assertions. They are certainly not going to be litigating the entire trial in the pre-trial.

So, what exactly were these two planning to debate? When you debate, you have to ground things on facts or moral framing. So you can certainly say, "Hey, we're just going to debate this from a certain moral framework and we're going to see which of these two stances comes out better based on this moral framework." But you have to have something that is independent of the two people debating that becomes uh that which adjudicates the truth. But online debating has very rapidly slid into my sort of internal frame versus your internal frame.

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

If you want to know who's actually good at debate, love him or hate him, Destiny is extraordinary at debate. He will take the facts of something and he will show you, I am more prepared on the facts of a case than you are. And so he'll be able to go into each nuance position. Again, you can hate him as much as you want, but he is very good at understanding this is your claim. This is the framework in which we're going to pursue this which with destiny is normally the frame of just what are the actual facts of the case first then what do the facts imply then what would be the outcome if we were to follow your thinking all the way out to me is somebody who is a frame of reference debater so here is my frame of reference I'm going to state it whether you agree with it or not and if he is debating as Drew so eloquently said off camera.

If he's just debating a bunch of Only Fans models, then that works because they may not under they may not even have a reference for what an epistemological frame of reference is. And so he can just bully people. And he tried those tactics with Candace, which was an absolute nightmare. I beg of you all, please. I understand many of you do not like Candace Owens, but if you continue to think that she is dumb, you are going to continue to look stupid yourself. And this is what was on full display.

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

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

So, he just said, "I think that uh Tyler Wilson or uh yeah, Tyler Wilson Robinson." I was like, "Wait a second." uh Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk and she was and so he's like that's murder and she was like that's not the charge in the case and so then he was like all right I can't name any but you can name all seven and yes she can name all seven which then makes it look which is the truth with Andrew Wilson on this particular thing that he's not arguing from a deep understanding of the facts of the case and like a debater in a more traditional style like Destiny would do where I'm going to walk you through the facts of the case.

I'm going to show you that I understand the nuances of the facts of the case better than you. And based on my understanding of the nuances of the facts of the case, I'm going to show you how if we follow your logic out that it reaches a nonsensical conclusion, which is not what he did. There were times where he I thought made good points. But whoa, in terms of actually going, okay, here we have established facts. Here's how your interpretation of those facts is completely nonsensical.

We don't have facts. So there is no way for them to debate on that which is like playing perfectly into uh Candace's frame of reference. And then he tries to use the only fans approach of well you just don't know what's going on. You don't understand whatever epistemology or insert uh Andrew Wilson's frame of reference here and she just kept denying his frame because she has a very strong frame. So yeah. Anyway, we'll watch clips from it so you guys can see this for yourself. In no way, shape, or form to me was this a vindication of Candace Owen's way of interpreting the world.

But it was certainly a vindication of Candace Owen's ability to um stonewall in terms of not accepting someone's frame of reference to be able to push back to make somebody look silly by drawing them into her frame of reference because there are no established facts in the case yet. This was madness. This was guaranteed to be madness from the beginning. All right, let let's hear it in their words themselves. Here we go. We got some highlights. The question you're just not enough. It seems pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty.

I just think that you should like Can you tell me one? Then let's do the counter. You can really Yeah. No, this is a great No, no. You just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So, please just answer the question. Name all seven since you've been following the case. Okay. Sure. You name You named one. Yeah, you named all seven. I I'm happy to do that. But can you name one? Uh, I think he's been charged with murder.

That's actually incorrect. Okay, great. Now, name all seven. He doesn't even This is like Name all seven. And And And I I Can you name all seven? I I can. Then do it. Sure. You don't have to put it. No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead. You don't have to put your fingers up. I Okay, hang on. Name them. Yeah, sure. Name them. Uh, the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence in the state of you. No, that's not that is literally not murder.

Okay. And so, just so people No, don't I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder uh it's it's narrowly defined and because it carries a death sentence. I'm not I'm going to answer the question. You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work and you'll be better the next time you debate.

People are often intimidated by the way that Andrew Wilson debates and that is the exact problem. He's used to being able to rely on the fact that he thinks on his feet faster than most of the people that he goes up against. And listen, Andrew Wilson is formidable when the style matchup is there, when it's something that he's spent a lot of time thinking about. Um, and Drew, I will really look to you to tease out to make sure that it's clear what I'm the point I'm trying to get across.

So, I used to do Lincoln Douglas debate. It's a style of debate that you do in high school. And um there's like all these known rules. How long you can speak, how long you can ask questions for your rebuttal period. Um the way that you're using you have to like basically specifically state here is the moral framework through which I am attacking this thing. So I'm going to be leaning on John Lock or whatever. And so you go through but you set that up. I'm using this guy as my frame of reference, his moral framework, and I'm using that because it has the best outcomes or whatever.

So then the person that is debating you can say, "Well, let me tell you why that frame needs to be rejected." And then they would attack both the facts of your framework through which you're trying to put it to prove that people should agree with your assertion. And so there's none of that here. So they both though are holding their own, it isn't Lincoln Douglas debate at all, but they're both holding a way that things should be discussed in public in their heads. Neither of them are accepting the other person's uh frame of how a debate should happen.

Normally, Andrew can just bully somebody because they don't even understand that a debate is meant to have this sort of frame of reference. And so, he'll push that on them and he'll use these bullying tactics on people and they'll succumb to that. And I've seen him quote unquote win so many debates by doing that where the other person is just they're confused, they're befuddled, they they don't understand. He's trying to bring them into sort of a debate package like you would a fight and say, "No, no, no.

You can't do what do they call it? 12 to six elbows. You can't do that." And so the person's like, "Wait, what?" And so they're just confused by this thing has rules. And so he then pulls them in, he gets them, he'll give like really narrow definitions and he'll start laughing at them and saying, "You're like not even addressing this narrow definition that I've given you." And this is where I I am just beside myself that people can look at Candace and think that she is dumb.

That is so that's full [ __ ] If you think that she's wrong, fine. If you think that the way that she parses the world is not going to lead to good outcomes as I do, fine. If you think she is dumb, you are in for a world of hurt. And so what she does, first of all, this woman is seven months pregnant. And uh she she got Andrew Wilson to pay her a $300,000 appearance fee. No matter what happens in this debate, she's going to make 300 grand.

Uh she got him to travel to her. This is filmed in her living room. In her living room. This PBD, bro. She went downstairs and got $300,000 to watch him. It's crazy. Like what in what world do you not come in knowing how she debates? So that you've got to be able to explain what she does better than she can. So that you take this meta approach and you say, "Okay, listen, Candace, you are operating from within this frame of reference. Do we agree?" Yes. Okay.

Now, you're laying these things out as if they are facts. Can you please define a fact? Like if he went sort of beat by beat and said, "Listen, we have to ground ourselves in things that are provably true." Now, it would be a trap for him, which is why he didn't do it. We don't know what is provably true. But if you if you're not able to bully her, and if he thought he was going to be able to bully her, which he seems to think he was going to be able to do because that is the tactic that he's running right before our very eyes, you're a [ __ ] fool.

This is the one. Nobody bullies Candace literally ever. I've seen her go up against the most aggressive, the most intelligent, the most eloquent, the most like debater bro people ever. She always maintains her composure. She is always just like, "Okay, this is what I think." Uh, and does this kind of thing. Putting up your fingers is not going to make me rush. You're just going to embarrass yourself. Slow down. I don't have to step inside your frame. She is so good at that. And so, all of this just ends up melting before your very eyes.

So, one, everybody watching, you can learn a lot from Candace in terms of rejecting a frame of reference. This is something that Trump is extraordinarily good at. It may be one of the things that made Trump Trump was he's not going to accept the uh Lincoln Douglas style debate thing that you're trying to lay out. He's going to play his game and he's going to be so consistent in applying his frame of reference that to have a conversation, you're going to have to step inside of his frame of reference and argue your way out from his frame of reference.

That is what Candace did. And Andrew was just completely unable to argue his way out. So everybody walks away from this debate either going well I was already on Andrew's side so I believe Andrew or I was already on Candace's side so I believe Candace it this this one watching the and admittedly I have seen clips I've probably seen about half the debate I felt like I was taking brain damage the whole time. Um the TLDDR of it all for those that didn't watch the whole thing she list out all seven but as you can see in the previous clip she was taking her time.

She called out Andrew saying, "I don't think you think about this case." The reason that, which he doesn't, aggravated murder, murder is different because it carries a death sentence. So, just name them. Okay. Blah blah blah blah. Names out all seven. He says, "You took your time. I feel like you like maybe you got cheating. You do have your phone on your lap." Oh my god. You play that. So, then I have this clip. So, yeah, this is crazy. I did notice something. I just was curious about if I'm just wondering when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question.

Did somebody by chance text you that question? You can check my phone. I'm just curious. No, you can absolutely not. I I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it because you're just going to get double embarrassed. Where's my phone? He's going to be doubling embarrassed. You're you're going to be double th this is people. So, in that moment, Andrew realizes, I've been got and he thinks somebody else has to be feeding her the information for her to have landed such a great blow.

Candace is whip it smart. She is extremely intelligent. If she has producers that are even smarter than her, I would be very surprised. Candace is a generational talent. You don't have to agree with somebody to recognize that they're very good at what they do. Mhm. And that's where I'm always like, I'll even say this, uh, Ben Shapiro, if you're going to come out, you were part of the reason that Candice Rose, you saw in her, yo, this girl is incredible. We got to put her on the roster.

Now, I get it. You ended up breaking up. And there's a very famous phrase, which you guys would do well to remember. You don't divorce the same person that you marry. So, you meaning you guys get married because you love each other. So, you're Ben Shapiro. You're running the Daily Wire. You find this generational talent. You see a a black female conservative. You're like, "We got to get her on the roster because she really is that good." Then you start having ideological differences. You fall out of love.

Now you start confusing yourself. And you confuse. I'm not in love with this person anymore for this person is dumb. That's a mistake. And I I just I see people do it in life across the spectrum all the time. And they cannot get out of their own way. their own emotions for I don't like this person begin to cloud their ability to see whether this person is good at what they do or not. And Candace is very good at what she does. And so to think the if if you're trying to mentally map what Andrew Wilson is thinking at this point, what Andrew Wilson is thinking at this point is I am smarter than this person, so there's no way she just got me.

So, it's got to be somebody behind the curtain that's actually uh like pulled this fast one on me and I must be up against a team of people who have sent something. Bro, you you are failing to understand that you're in you're in the NFL of online personalities. These are the top of the top. And yeah, this is not a good look for him. For me, Candace came out of this either unscathed or ahead. He does not. Now, I doubt that this will be the beginning of the end for him, but this made me feel some type of way about him where I'm like, I've always had this sort of lingering and I don't pay a ton of attention to him.

I'll be very honest, but I've always had in the back of my mind like there's something shaky about the way that he approaches debate. It's like a frame of reference saying blah blah blah. And this one really showed he he's not coming at it from a facts and figures perspect. I was watching one of the reaction videos and Destiny, he put it out there, so I'm not going to take credit for his idea, but he was like, it's almost like Andrew walked in here cocky cuz he's so used to owning women that he was just like, "Oh, okay." Like, Candace is like, he's like, and I don't know if it's a misogyny thing.

I don't know if it's a race thing. I don't know what it is, but he just kind of walked in there like 300,000. Let me go embarrass this girl real quick. And even if you could just mute it, if you just watch the debate in mute, you will see Candace is still standing up. Her legs are open. She's taking up space. Andrew's leg was like bouncing the whole time. He was sweating. He was rocking back and forth. He was sinking low, rubbing his face. The body language is showing who you who the winner was.

You don't even have to listen to their argument. So he even if you thought he won, he felt like he was losing. He felt like he was behind. Yeah. So what is this just a hubris thing? Like like it feels Why would you pay $300 just to get like embarrassed? I don't see that. But I guess some people if I put up $300,000 against something, do you know how psychotically I would prepare? I would Tyler I would be Tyler Robinson if he didn't like I would walk in with his face like I didn't do it.

Like this is crazy. Like you can't be and not prepare. Like I I don't know. I feel like I'm missing something. And then people like you know TPUSA propped him up. They paid for it. It was the you know promo tour. I don't know what it was but it it was definitely entertainment. I'll put it this way. I was sitting on the sidelines. I have no dog in this fight. I'm just, you know, reacting like the rest of the internet and it was just a master class to see cuz the things that the dream thing, it was probably 20 minutes of the three-hour debate.

And to your point, that was his biggest end. Like, talk about the dreams. Talk about how you blamed it on TPUSA. Talk like those are moments that she was shaky on, but he was trying to debate her on case facts and she was out here pulling in statutes and oh, Utah blah blah blah says this. I'm just like, yo, she's been doing this for 6 months. This has been her only piece of content for 6 months. It's this in Egyptian planes. Like, why do you think she doesn't know the case?

Like, at the very minimum to milk the content, she does. Yeah. So, so I'll I'll um I haven't watched Destiny's reaction, though. I'm sure that would be far more entertaining than the actual thing itself. Cuz to your point, he's he's deb he's breaking down the tactics. Like, look, like he should have double down on this, but he probably doesn't even know the side of so to see that. But, and I'll walk you through how and this is the same approach that I take to the economy.

I'll walk you through how Destiny prepares. And by the way, he prepares in public so you can watch him do it. Um, so if he were going to be debating Candace, he would do something like this. He would go, "Okay, what are the like whatever 25 things that Candace goes back to all the time?" Because Andrew is going to say, "Um, this is somebody that is expecting you to believe that a dream is real." Now, Destiny or anybody that's good at debate prep is going to go, I'm going to say that.

What's she going to say back? So, this is something that if if I were going to prepare for a debate like this, it would look like um I would follow a very similar Destiny model where I'm going to list out here are the 25 things that she's going to come back at me with, but I'm going to ask somebody to play Candace and I'm going to say, "Okay, let's actually do a mock debate. I want to know what the best arguments are against my arguments against you." So, I need to know what are like two or three back and forth that we're going to get.

We'll go as deep as we can. Give me your best stuff. Um maybe I'll put three or four people on that side. So, I'm making sure I'm really getting the best of the best arguments so that I've got these things down. And so, the thing that I think makes Destiny such a formidable formidable opponent is he'll spend hours and hours and hours pursuing each fact going to like he'll watch clips of Candace talk about whatever the the Egyptian plains or the French Foreign Legion and he'll go deep on those things and say, "Okay, this is the um the thing that she's claimed.

somebody sent her this. This is like um here's what we know about that or at least what Candace has claimed publicly. When pushed on this, she always says the following thing cuz it comes up here, but this is not the first time she said it where she'll say, "Well, I'm not able to research those facts anymore." So, I have given that to the proper authorities. Now, she states, "I've given that to the proper authorities." And at one point in the debate, she walks through all the different people that she sent um her claims to.

I forget what the specific claim was that somebody was going after her or something. I forget. But she laid out like I sent it to Dan Bonino. I sent it to the Trump administration via this department. I sent right and she lists it all out. So if you're really going to be prepared for that, you know the places that she sent it to. You know why she believes that that is in and of itself proof that this is real. And that's where you have to go, okay, she's going to say all these things.

She's gonna say that that means that it's real. And then the real response to that is okay that isn't that is a set of facts about your behavior. It is not a set of facts about the claims that you're actually making. And so you have to like keep bringing the person back to that. Now in in Andrew's defense, he does try that several times, but she rejects the frame. And so if I had to guess, uh, you tell me because you watched it, but I'm going to guess Destiny's saying is going to be something along the lines of if we can't agree on like what victory looks like that we're going to establish the facts of the case.

Um, and the person who shows a better understanding the facts of the case and then what those prove, you can't have a winner. And given that the facts of the case have not been laid out in a court of law yet. In fact, uh Tyler Robinson has not even entered a plea yet, uh this debate can't happen yet. So, we can have this debate down the road once the trial has played out. And now it's like we've all heard the argumentation. This has been a broadcast trial.

We've all seen the evidence. We've seen the claims. Now that all of that's laid out, including the fact that all of the things that Cand cuz I think Candace has said like I've sent information to the defense and none of those things were brought up. So if I'm debating this against her, I say uh the defense attorneys looked at your evidence and decided not to bring it up in trial. So that's an indictment of the quality of your evidence. Full stop. But the that we have paid $300,000 to have this debate now.

Like what are we talking about? So yeah, this is going to be a very interesting debate when the trial is over, but doing this now and paying $300,000. Oh my god. I think that's why he did it now, though, cuz one, it's at its height. One, he could juice it out. And one, he wants to push clicks to the Crucible and his own platform and things like that. All true. But don't you think he actually thought he was going to mop the floor with her cuz he underestimated her.

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

Yeah. Um and just to ground everybody because some people are asking like what the claim itself was. The claim was there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk. Yes. And both of them including Andrew were like I believe it to be so. What? Yeah. What? What are you talking about? Overwhelming evidence is like factual grounded. These things are true. these are the undisputed facts. And that's where I think he set himself up cuz she was like overwhelming like what is overwhelming and then now it was attack on him.

It was from his perspective of attacking her on all the claims that she put out poking holes into it and the they paved the road the next day. The van was stripped for parts and sold all these things. He was like, "Yeah, but like but your feelings but the French Legion, but you think people are trying to assassinate you." And it's like, yeah, just goes to show that if you're confident enough, you can just go be wrong on camera and still win a debate because you could pay $200,000 to be wrong on camera.

Yeah. Yeah. No, not even that. I mean, like her I mean, Candace Owens is I mean, we all know she is just wrong on all of this. Like, she has some like, oh, there's some weird things, but what do you mean France is in this now? You know what I mean? So, it's like So, really fast, don't make the same mistake that Andrew is making. We don't know that Candace is wrong. What we that's that's what I want everyone to understand. What I think you may mean is that when I look at this, I believe that um all this conspiracy stuff is a disease of the internet and Candace is like the ring leader of the conspiracy uh wing of the internet.

And so the very fact that she reasons through the world in that way, uh, you can just say off top that that she's wrong. And what Candace is showing is right now, you can't do that. And so she is just going to do to you what she did to Andrew Wilson, which is completely reject your frame, throw up a list of things that can't be answered yet because the facts of the case haven't been laid out. And so the the if I were to predict and I would need to see all of this play out in the fullness of time to know if this is actually a wise strategy or not.

But this is my prediction right now that what's going to happen in the trial is Candace has put forward evidence that she claims I believe this is true that she claims that she sent that to directly sent it to the def like she's not involved. Are you sure about that? She's not involved in the case. Oh okay. She has her own style of investigation. So let's do this. Let's say she has things that she has said very very very very publicly and if the defense doesn't bring any of those things up, you have to assume they're aware of the assertions.

And the fact that they do not use them to get Tyler Robinson off tells you that they either don't believe that they're compelling or they don't believe that they're real. My instinct is, and trust me when I don't I don't overesteem my instinct on this, but my instinct is they're going to lay out a bunch of facts. Those facts will not include many of the more conspiratorial things that Candace has put forward. And the trial, I think, is and and this is literally just emotion because I've not looked at this closely enough, but I think that Tyler is just going to be self-evident.

Yep, he shot him. He was on the roof. Parents going to be like, "Yeah, there's a lot of damning evidence here. I've heard the boyfriend relationship, whatever we're calling it, uh, in his own words, I thought it was pretty damning against Tyler. And so, it's like my gut instinct is, yep, he's going to be convicted and and it will end up being a more or less shut and open and shut case and and we move forward. And then you'll be able to go after Candace and have the argumentation of if this were credible, hard-hitting evidence, then the defense would have used this.

The fact that they didn't is in and of itself an indictment of the quality of the evidence. Now, I don't think it's going to cause Candace to lose an audience because she's going to take the approach of there are a lot of unanswered questions. The government has lied to us before. There's no reason to believe that they're not lying to us now. And I think that people will people that are prone to um agree with her on an emotional level will be completely convinced that that is enough, that that is right and true.

Uh so that is my instinct about how this is going to play out. But to say that we know right now that Candace is wrong, I what what evidence do we have? A frame of reference, sure. But evidence, we don't have the evidence. Now, do you disagree with that, Ryan? Do you think we have evidence? I think giving any level of credence to anything Candace Owens has said on the Charlie Kirk case is a little bit conspiratory. That's just my take on it, I feel like.

And listen, that that's very fair, but that's just frame of reference. That's That's Yeah, that's interesting cuz I didn't realize that Candace was like everything she's like she's Alex Jones in your head, right? She's she's basically Alex Jonesing this whole thing to me. Like I don't think Candace is a dumb person by any means. I think she's just trapped in this delusion that like cuz she kept adding things on. First it was like, "Oh, now there's two killers." Just kidding. Actually, it might be Israel. Actually, I just got in an argument with the French uh leader's wife and now I'm going to throw that in there, too, that the French were involved.

And it's like she can she can think all these things for sure. Like I'm not saying there's there's not science to where you could like connect a bunch of dots. I just feel like he walks into this with the easiest layup in the world like what you just said that Tyler Robinson did this. And it's like you could you could just prepare, know the seven charges and sweep the floor with Candace on this because facts are on his side. I I want to be very clear.

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

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

This is why you have to the debate has to break down along the lines of what are the facts and then what is the framework by which we uh assess and value the facts and then people can go after that. But when you see hotly contested things like this, if there isn't a uh a very clear framework by which we're going to adjudicate like who won or lost this thing, it it is just going to be the collision of two world views with nothing to anchor other than I vibe with team A or team B.

And that's where we're at here. And that's why people will say this is like self-evidently obvious. It's not. And listen, she sits so far outside of my world view that yeah, I am very much of the mind that okay, she she overesteems emotion, uh she takes intuition as like a a this means something. Um which to me is just all ridiculous. But because the facts of the case are not out yet, anybody who says, "Oh, I've got all the facts." is it's crazy. Just to ground everybody, shout out to Kit Moon in the chat.

The preliminary hearing was approved if the prosecution had enough evidence to go to trial. Tyler Robinson hasn't been convicted of anything. He hasn't he's been charged with things. This is what the prosecution is building their case against. He hasn't entered his plea deal. So, this is the part before they can even ask for a mistrial because technically they haven't even started a trial yet. So, this is very early. We haven't even got to the point where the jury hasn't been fully selected. Like, there's still a lot more steps we need to go.

So, we have time before we're going to get the true facts of the case. But, yes, he's not he hasn't sat in front of the jury. He's not in court. He hasn't done his time yet. All true. And don't get sucked into debates if there isn't a frame of reference for adjudicating the debate. Damn. Know the facts before you go in and know the best arguments of the other side. Otherwise, toast of cheese. Cool. Um, let's jump over to that JD Vance clip. He said something really interesting.

Um, I'll read the tweet and then we'll play the clip out. JD Vance wants to wants to end the US's dollar position as the global reserve currency because it thinks it allows Americans to consume too much and do so too cheaply. Keep in mind the next time you order a $20 burrito on Door Dash. That's Yeah, that's exactly right. And by the way, you know, I I am uh this is like maybe super heterodox. I I am not sure that I think the reserve currency is actually good for the United States of America.

Uh I think there is a good argument that reserve currency status is akin to coal in Appalachia. It's a resource curse, right? It allows your consumers to consume very cheaply, right? That's been the story of the American economy for the last 15 or so years, uh, even before that is we can just borrow basically in an unlimited way because we have the reserve currency. That's Yeah, that's exactly right. Okay, so here's the bad news. Because JD Vance is right about the fact that what ends up happening is you get in a position where you can make all of your debts and deficits go away by printing money because you can export so much of that inflation to the rest of the world because everybody the world over is transacting in dollars which means that there is always a desire for dollars which means that people are going to be saving in dollars which means they are likely to soak up your debt for a very long time although this changed recently for a very long time.

the reserve asset held the world over by central banks in the vast majority of countries around the world. They held US debt like it was gold. Okay? So people had US debt and that was like look I'm solvent precisely because the assets that I own or US debt. So that lets the US run a $2 trillion per year deficit. That lets everybody in the US live inside of this bubble of things are just very easy. And that lets people begin to believe that socialism is the way out of this because we have this infinite money glitch that's going to allow us to pay for everything we want.

And so why wouldn't we just pay for everything? Make housing free. Make health care free. Just make it all free. Daycare, buses, all of it. Free. Free. free because we're going to be able to print until the end of time. However, if you look at the way that every empire dies and you look at exactly the graphs of central banks holding the US debt as reserve currency versus gold, it is going down as gold purchases skyrocket. They they are terrifyingly rapid curves. people realize, hold on a second, by me using US debt as a reserve asset, I am simply allowing you guys to abuse all of us by decreasing the purchasing power of the dollar through inflation so that you guys can have the most reckless economy ever because you're not even being efficient with the dollars that you spend.

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

So I get the response especially if you already hate Republicans. You're going to look at JD Vance saying this and you're going to say well this is just somebody that wants to see things get more expensive. Now, at some point, we're going to have to really have a come to Jesus about we have made certain things in America too expensive. Very important things. Housing has become too expensive. Healthc care is a separate debate. But I get why anybody under the weight of medical debt is really going to have a problem with that.

But the burrito thing is where this is really people getting um completely divorced from reality. If you are having trouble making ends meet and you're not going to the grocery store and buying ingredients and using your own labor as a way to get ahead in life that that is asinine. You are shooting yourself in the foot. So both things are true. Things that shouldn't be as expensive as they are were made expensive through terrible policy. And at the same time, you were doing very stupid economic things, partly because of this bubble that you've lived in where you're exporting a ton of your inflation, trying to give everything away for free, importing cheap labor, trying to mask the decline of your economy by making everything cheaper by importing it from China, hollowing out your manufacturing base, bringing in immigrants, uh, who will then work for much lower wages so that you can have the option of buying everything on Door Dash.

Now, when I grew up, it was crazy to think that somebody in the middle class would have a housekeeper. Crazy. And I remember being in my mid20s and thinking I we ended up setting a call center up in um uh the Philippines because this is the the beginning the early innings of globalization. And I thought, "Oh my god, this is amazing. Create opportunities for people in foreign countries and you can get things so much cheaper. Yay." So, I go to the Philippines and I meet people and everyone has like uh inhome care, live-in nannies, and I was like, "Whoa, how much are you making?" And they were making what by my standards was very little.

And so I was like, "Wait, are you wealthy here or middle class?" Middle class. And you can afford like that? You can afford like people to live in your house and look after your kids? You can afford housekeepers? Yeah. And I was like, "Whoa." like this is this is a huge I wouldn't have known to call it a K-shaped economy, but wow, that is like real disparity. That's crazy. I couldn't wrap my head around that. Now, flash forward to the US and we have the same thing happening because of all the things that I just laid out.

But most importantly, because of cheap immigrant labor that you're bringing in and you'll get a gazillion people that are willing to drive for Uber because they don't have the qualifications. They don't speak English well enough. And so that's a job that they can get that pays reasonably well. And you train everybody, oh yeah, this is how life should be. I should be able to get my burrito delivered to my door via Door Dash. But all of that stuff makes it more expensive. And so getting back to the fundamentals of the 80s and 90s where everybody just expected if you were in the middle class, you were going to grocery shop, you were going to buy ingredients, you were going to make your stuff, and that was how you kept your costs low.

And so we've completely given up on that. Through that lens, we look back at a very true thing that JD Vance is saying, which is this is one of the things that has allowed us to be just completely reckless with the way that we spend money, continue to drive ourselves into uh a desperate fiscal situation, which then pushes us to rely even more on financializing rather than getting back to a manufacturing base in the US that actually takes care of middle class workers. But that means that you can't mask the stupid decisions that we have made by importing cheap labor.

And so we are stuck in this very weird position where you're going to see a ton of vitriol thrown at um JD Vance. Now he may be wrong about that. And I think it would at this point be extraordinarily unwise to just be like, "All right, let's stop being the reserve currency." I think we should be defending our position because we stupidly put ourselves in this position. But now that we're in it, we can't pretend like you can just be like, "All right, let's not be the reserve currency anymore.

I'm sure it will be fine." It will not be fine. That will create massive problems. But it is a very sound argument for him to put it out there and say, "Hey, there is a downside to this that we need to think through." And I think that's true. Uh, you know, like when you like are at like a party or a bar or something and you see like a pretty girl walk by and you be like, "Hey girl, can I take you out tonight?" And she like, "No, ew." You like, "Well, I didn't watch you either." I feel like that's what JD Vance just did right now.

I feel like it was cool that we had a global reserve currency when it was in the '9s and everybody was buying cheap stuff and everybody bought their first, second, third houses. And now that the economy is a bit unaffordable and we need to start cutting back and we need austerity and we need to start increasing taxes and we need to start redistributing some stuff. Now it's do we really need to beat the global? We don't really need cheap things anymore, right? Like the funny thing is I So the way that I take this, let's use that analogy.

JD Vance is sitting at the bar and he hey, want to come back to my place? Ew. No. And he's like, I've got to go to the gym and I have let my wealth make me think that women are going to find me attractive. There's actually a lot of rich guys that are in better shape than me. I can't be fat anymore. I've got to hit the gym. I've got to get buff. And it's like, yes, that is correct. And instead, people go, "That's fat shaming.

You shouldn't tell this guy that he needs to get in the gym. Uh, like he should be accepted the way that he is." Nope. He should get his ass in the gym. He should get fit. He needs to understand that life isn't just about money. Like, sometimes you also have to be disciplined. You've got to do the hard [ __ ] And the reality is, if you look into our future and really answer the question, what do we need to do to get back on being the strongest country in the world?

it would be we have to be fiscally disciplined. The bad news is that we are almost certainly on the England train. England used to be the most powerful empire in the world and they completely lost faith in themselves. For a minute it looked like they were about to get back on track. You had Margaret Thatcher who just absolutely insisted that they um get disciplined uh be ruthless with austerity and build their way back from that position of strength. And it worked while she was in power and then as soon as she went out of power, left-leaning governments came back and just started pushing in that same direction because you had the US providing military cover for everybody in Europe.

Uh and they were at the beginning of globalization. And so they have Tony Blair uh doing very similar things to what um God can picture him so clearly. He plays the saxophone. His name is No. Get out of here. The president Oh, Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton. Thank you. Uh so very similar mentalities and we just start globalizing and in globalizing we don't realize that we're shooting our own middle class in the face and then by getting terrible immigration policies we further exacerbate that. But we do hide that we are making things worse and worse slowly but surely by trying to bring in cheap cheap cheap cheap labor uh which then exacerbates the same middle class problem but it does make things cheaper for those that can afford it.

And so you get the bifurcation, you kill the middle class, you send a bunch of people in the middle class into the upper class, but you also uh get people stuck in the lower class. So yeah, this is um it is the path that every empire takes. You end up bringing on debt in the beginning by having the power of being the world's reserve currency. It's extraordinary at letting you build infrastructure and getting things moving in the right direction. You become incredibly powerful. You then financialize everything.

uh you export things to countries that will do things cheaper. You hollow out your middle class. It it is a terrifying tale as old as time. Now England says you're not going to be able to back your way out of this. And so and also PS every empire before that. They're just the most recent. Uh so you've really got to have a vision for what is America going to become? Uh I'm committed to painting a picture for what America needs to be that is positive, that shows we can really do something extraordinary.

But unfortunately for all of us, it does start with we've got to be fiscally responsible. Now, for people that think fiscal just means money, fiscal specifically means government spending. So, we need to be disciplined at the government level of what money we spend. And right now, we do not do that. We are absolutely a wash in fraud. We are a wash in boondoggles. We've got to stop doing all of that. And we've got to decide. We can have anything we want, but we cannot have everything we want.

So, what are we going to pay for? And we absolutely must chase out of politics anybody that would break the engine of prosperity. So that take the entire DSA and you can literally just eject them. Uh take Ro Kana, you can literally just eject him. And I feel bad. He's such a lovely person and I really enjoyed my time with him. But he's just gone full off the deep end uh DSA style policies even though he's going to call himself a progressive capitalist. I believe that's his own phrase.

Uh unfortunately he is not. This is hyper regressive. Seeing the back and forth between him and um Mark Cuban was awesome. Mark absolutely bodies this kid. It was beautiful. Uh okay, I'll jump to that. I had the Iran War memorandum queued up, but the back and forth We'll get to it. Yeah, the back and forth of Mark Cuban seems more pressing right here. Yeah, this is crazy. You got to let me read Mark's tweets because these are dope. So, you've got Roana laying out like, "Hey, we got to tax this wealth, man.

We got to tax these billionaires. Like, this stuff is crazy. We got to get that money. We got to redistribute it. Uh, I don't even understand why people are pushing back. Mark, if you came with me on a tour of America, you would see that people really do hate business leaders. They hate billionaires." Cool. Hey, I'm willing to agree that people hate business leaders, but that does not mean that that's actually going to solve the problem. So you can hate these people all you want, but if you Luigi manion them and shoot them, this does not solve the problem.

If you have misidentified the solution to the correct problem, you still are going to be worse off than you were before. You've got to identify the correct problem and you've got to identify the correct solution and that is the very thing that we're not doing. So we have row has identified hey people really feel like the system is not working for them. Yes the system is not working for them. We're pushing everybody into college getting them insanely indebted. Then we are driving them uh with that debt on top of them into a housing market that is just absolutely abusive for a whole host of reasons.

And then we are making it impossible for them to save uh because we're inflating the currency away. and all of this under cultural changes that people aren't being honest about. And so you have all this energy where people used to be raising families. All of that energy now is going into political causes that are completely unhinged and just absolutely going to make things infinitely worse. Uh but nonetheless, here we are. And so you're building up all of this resentment inside of a system that has both psychological problems going back to the burrito issue and real systemic problems, housing, healthcare, debt, uh, etc.

So, okay, here's what Mark Cuban had to say about all of that. Ro, I like you. You know that, but you need to read the state of the state. The number of deca unicorns, so uh, 10 billion plus unicorns. Unicorn is a startup. Traditionally, the unicorn means that it was self-funded in the beginning. So anyway, the number of deca unicorns in Cali is growing by the day as investors chase amazing startups. A unique feature of these10 billion dollar startups is that even if they raise a billion uh a billion little if any of that money goes to the founders which is very important by the way the vast vast vast majority of money that people raise does goes to the company.

So the people giving you the money are like I'm not giving this to you the founder. I don't care about you. I expect you to run this thing and if I win then you can win. But you've got to get us to an IPO. You've got to get us to a sale. If you don't get us to an IPO or a sale, I don't want you taking any money. I don't want to see you driving fancy cars. Uh I want to make sure that you get this thing to increase in value.

Okay? So, the money is going into the company. Now, it does make the company more valuable. And so, on paper, this person running the company who might still be largely broke is now being considered a billionaire themselves. And this is where the trouble begins. People not understanding wealth. Okay. So uh so if and uh little if any of the money goes to the founders who are now worth billions of dollars overnight. They are the definition of cash poor stock rich. How are you going to tax them?

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

But you can bet if I'm investing in a multi-billion dollar startup, I'm asking them to move from Cali first. In my opinion, if this passes, meaning the wealth tax, only idiot startup founders stay in Cali. I've done it before and I will do it again. Dallas, Pittsburgh, Indiana. I will make not being in California a pre-erequisite for an investment. Ideology is not a strategy, row. So here you have one of the most visible investors in the world telling you, "Hey, if you guys do this, I will not invest in a company that's in Cali." Now, I might invest in them, but I'm going to make them leave California first.

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

So, you see them continuing to ratchet things up. So, anybody paying attention knows this is not going to be a onetime fee. Remember my big beef with Bernie Sanders is that he keeps saying that, oh, with that however much billions he's saying that day that we're going to raise, you could uh feed this many kids, secure healthcare for this many people, etc., etc. And we have another one from uh Cuban that I want to pull up where he addresses this exactly. Um but if you can't find it, I'll just shorthand it.

But um basically, yeah, you could do all of that stuff, but you can only do it once. And that assumes that you actually are able to get that much money, which odds are that you're not going to be able to because the act of trying to sell those shares to raise that money will be destructive itself. And like Cuban already pointed out, these guys are probably not going to be able to borrow the money because it's so speculative that they're actually worth that money. So anyway, absolutely crazy.

All right, go back. Okay, so this is in reference to um what I was saying earlier. So Ro was like, "Mark, listen. Just come with me. You're going to see that people all over America hate business leaders." And so Mark says, "When you talk to voters in Cali and you propose Prop 40, the wealth tax, do you tell each voter how they will benefit? The estimates that it could generate a hundred billion, which will be paid over the 5-year term or $20 billion a year, give or take.

The state lost about 30 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which means even if you took 100% of the Prop 40 funds each year, and by the way, I'll add this. assuming that you can actually raise those funds, which I will say you will not be able to. Certainly not 100% of them. But if you took 100% of the Prop 40 funds each year to subsidize the loss in funding, it doesn't cover it. The good news would be that, okay, sorry, that was me fixing his grammar.

He actually said the good news is that a few million people who lost coverage could get it back and people working at providers that accept medical could keep their jobs. That's great. But it also means that only a few million Californians will benefit. Great. The rest get no benefit. None at all. Zero. Anyone you talk to that didn't lose Medicaid won't get [ __ ] Affordability? Nope. Lower health care costs? Nope. Lower gas prices? Nope. Lower home insurance? Nope. Wildfire protections? Nope. Here is the math as I see it.

And feel free to correct me. Right now, Cali collects 13.3% on any income above $1 million a year. You also collect 8.8% on Cali corporate earnings. Which would you rather have? 13.3% and 8.8% that people have been paying annually, or a one-time 5% tax, which probably equates to about 20 billion a year, plus some unknown number of wealthy people leaving and taking their companies and jobs with them. It's a math problem, not an easy one. Now, if you were if you went to those same voters and told them you were going to cut their health care, food, housing, home renters insurance, and more, which do you think they would prefer?

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

It does not. So, they're not even contemplating anything beyond 10-year time frames. So, how do you keep this train rolling? And the answer is you keep taxing the billionaires. Now, if it worked the first time, of course, they will go back to that well. But the odds are it won't work the first time. And whatever amount it does work, it causes more people to leave and it just makes the next Silicon Valley guaranteed to be built somewhere else because smart founders realize I want to go somewhere when I have nothing where if I build something, then I'm going to be able to capture the upside.

That's how people are incentivized. So they're going to go elsewhere. And when they go elsewhere, slowly over time, that state just ends up declining in its ability to generate tax revenue. And so if people actually understood, you should want to be the place that business flocks to, which is precisely why California has the economy that it has that Newsome keeps trying to take credit for. But the reality is this is something that started, I think, back in the 60s. You had guys leave Bell Laboratories uh which was on the east coast and they end up going to the west coast and building what is now Silicon Valley and all of that infrastructure built up around it.

As this generation gets taxed into oblivion, the next generation is just going to build somewhere else. This is so self-evident. And so they instead of thinking long-term, how do we make sure that we are the place that people want to be? We're going to be like the film industry and we are going to tax it to death. And so the film industry, if you guys know how this played out, the film industry went anywhere other than California. I think it was Mark Wahlberg that said in his entire career as an actor, he's only filmed, I think, two movies in Los Angeles.

Think about how many movies Mark Wahberg has been in. Two of them were in LA. That's crazy. That's because everybody else realized, oh, to get this film business dollars, we're going to provide tax incentives rather than tax the life out of people. California took the opposite strategy. They taxed everybody. When you tax something, you get less of it. So if you tax billionaires, guess what you're going to get less of? Billionaires. Now, I get it. People hate billionaires and they think they want fewer billionaires. But the reality is when you're a billionaire on paper, you become a billionaire because you've created a company that's adding value to the world.

And that company is incredibly valuable. And that person that owns that company may one day be valuable if they're a ever able to go public or sell. Okay? If you get less of those companies being founded in your area because you have taxed the life out of it, then one day 10, 20 years down the road, you become the film industry, which basically doesn't exist in LA anymore. It is crazy. And yet, California is going to run that same experiment on Silicon Valley. It didn't work.

It never works. And yet, people keep doing it because in the short term, it may generate some money. And in the short term, it may plate the people who have misunderstood who's actually creating their problem, which is bankers and politicians have created the problem that they're in. And nonetheless, all they see is, well, this guy is winning in the game that's being played right now. And so that makes me very angry. It will make their problem worse, not better. Where do you think this disconnect comes from?

where politicians are pushing something that they think their constituents want. But ultimately, like I think with Ro Kana, he's hopping on the wave of what's popular right now cuz I feel like he sees that the DSA wave and he's trying to split that between the establishment Democrats. Like he has no aid to Israel in his bio. Like all of a sudden he's Israel hawk. But I do feel like the Senate in general completely Republican controlled the last two years. They passed like two bills. And I think that the things that they have passed, their constituents haven't felt it.

Democrats are now going through their thing. What why is it that they're not listening to us? Like is it do we need to flip the power dynamics? What is the thing that would make our politicians more effective at what they do? Well, you'd have to get money out of politics. So, part of this is that the game is working really well for one part of the K. Uh, and they are funding people that are going to be pro their agenda. Uh then you've got things that are um just so important to the psychology of the cycle of youth to adulthood, namely the ability to um buy a house, raise a family, and we've damaged that at a cultural level and at a policy level.

So housing is just insanely uh expensive. and kids are coming out of college with so much debt. And we've hollowed out the middle class by sending jobs overseas. So you would have to do several things. You would have to be fiscally disciplined so that we stop taking on debt so that servicing the debt can start reducing over time. You have to grow the real economy. So rather than just growing the part of the economy that's financialized, you've got to start building things here. You've got to build things that the world wants.

So you're going to have to take on China from a manufacturing perspective. Uh you've got to bring back uh middle um middle class jobs. So making things, you've got to stop sending everybody to college. Not everybody's going to be able to make that debt back. Uh you've got to let students discharge that debt. So if you come out, they should be able to declare bankruptcy. So that that will force discipline on the banks who will stop lending money to people that they shouldn't have lent money to, which will put those people in a position where they have to go, well, I can't get a loan to go to college, so what am I going to do?

I'm going to go into a trade and do something that is actually beneficial that the world wants. you need to make sure that you stop bringing in uh low-wage workers so that we find out what the real appetite for things is in terms of um yes, I want my burrito delivered to me, but I don't want a $60 burrito, which would may be like what it would have to be if you were going to say um this is a job that is taken by somebody who's treating it like a career.

Also, um this is pure intuition. One should never trust their intuition. Use it as a starting point for research. Don't trust it. I just went to D23. D23 is like a comic book convention for Disney. You went? Yeah. Oh, that was selfish. You ain't tell nobody. Uh, well, I did it to spend time with my mom and sister, so otherwise I wouldn't have gone. Okay. Uh, but I find myself there and I was struck. Okay, it was a Friday, so this is not the weekend. But Drew, when I say and but it's a Friday in the summer anyway.

It was I'm gonna say 3% under the age of 25. 3%. This is Disney. 3%. I was like, "What is happening?" Now, the far more terrifying thing, because that's just bad news for Disney. The more terrifying thing is that there were no teenage employees at a convention for Disney, which tells me either kids just don't care about Disney, so they don't even think to apply for a job there. uh or teenagers aren't getting jobs like that anymore. And when you walk into a cheap thing, a thing that is meant to be inexpensive, which fast food was meant to be inexpensive, okay?

When I was broke, uh you would just time the dollar menu. So, you would go when McDonald's had something where was like three burgers for 99, you would go there because you couldn't afford other things. So, you could get a full meal for like $3. And so you would go and you would time that. I did these things called Tina's burritos. I don't even know if they exist anymore, but they were three for 99 cents, but you actually had to go to the grocery store. Uh, and I terrible ingredients for sure, but they were cheap and they kept me alive.

Uh, so anyway, you're when you go to an establishment that's meant to be cheap, you should see teenagers. And what we're seeing now are middle-aged people to old people. And so it's like what what are kids doing for jobs? They're either not getting jobs at all and their parents are just shoveling them into the college pipeline. So it's like during the summer just take it to play during the summer study or whatever. Uh at least in my age group where I grew up, I from the time I was 13, technically I started when I was 12, but from the time I was 13, I had to have a job.

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

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

And I think those distortions are the things that I already laid out. College, the expense, the debt, all of that. And just this cultural belief that everything should be cheap and free. Uh and but we're doing it now with immigrant adults rather than teenage citizen kids. Uh so yeah, we we have created a very strange feedback loop that is causing all kinds of problems. Yep, that is very true. Uh I have noticed that as as well. Um especially at amusement parks cuz when I grow up, I have worked at Six Flags.

That was the high school job and now you go to amusement park and it's a bunch of adults there. Uh, all right. Let's jump over to the Iran war. And the 60-day ceasefire was set to run out today. Some early reports are saying that they extended it. Uh, just to remind everybody, today is day 170 of the Iran war. That will be over in a couple of weeks. Yeah. Uh, the reality is I don't think that this is really nice. Uh, I don't think this is ever going to be over.

Uh, not in anything the way that we expect it to be, but just to lay this all out. So, the 60-day window that Trump signed back in June uh expires today. So, 60 days to end the war and settle the nuclear question has now drug way on. Uh two months later, the two sides are honestly further apart at this point than when we started. But that's based on messaging. The reality is I think that we were always that far apart. I think that this was always going to be the strategy that Iran was going to run.

um six ships have transited the straight of Hormuz um yesterday during the the yesterday period. Before the war, the average was over 130. Uh the blockade put on by the US is still in force. So nothing is in or out of any Iranian uh port without their say so. Iran's answer has been to just keep blowing things up. Uh two adno tankers were hit on Thursday, a third Friday night. Saturday, um they had one log a projectile through the hole of a bulk carrier. Abu Dhabi is calling uh all of this piracy by the Revolutionary Guard.

So, there's not even agreement among the GCC nations. Um there have been 16 of the 18 strikes uh recorded since July 6th happened on the southern route. Uh the one sentom that uh keeps insisting is open, of course. So basically they're hugging the Ammani coast and that's exactly what Iran is looking out for because they want to force everybody to go through the approved channels. And by the way, you've got the Houthi problem in the Red Sea. They put three ballistic missiles into Yemen uh a Yemen vessel last week.

They that killed six people, by the way. Um these are the first shipping deaths off of Yemen uh off of Yemen, excuse me, uh in a year. So all of this is such a big mess. Now, what I don't expect to happen, even though this has run out, would be a return to the February bombing campaign. Trump told Fox News he has no timeline. He isn't in a hurry. He's trying to get on the other side of the midterms. He's betting that the blockade is going to break Thrron before Tyrron is able to break him politically.

Um though, he's also threatened uh this morning to bomb Oman if it gets in the way, which I mean, that is the most Trump thing ever. Uh, I know you used to do nice things for me, but what have you done for me lately? I'm gonna hit you with some bombs just to keep you in line. This is obviously a long-standing [ __ ] show at this point. Now, what I do expect to happen is that Iran is going to make a play as we get towards the midterms.

So, control of the Senate uh, and the House is on the ballot in November and Democrats are running on gas prices, on DSA style stuff, uh, and this war. And so if they can really create problems for Trump right as the midterms are going take it to a fever pitch, make him get out over his skis, um then the odds that he loses control of the House and the Senate go up. Will it necessarily happen? No, of course not. But the odds of it go up.

And you had a Revolutionary Guard adviser already floating the idea of prolonging the fight until Trumpish is out of office. So, they've been saying, "Yeah, this is going to keep going until Trump is out of office in 2029, at the beginning of 29." Uh, so that's basically their play. So, I'd be very surprised if something like that doesn't happen, but we'll see if the US can actually uh break the blockade. Now, as um luck would have it. Uh, one of my former employees is Iranian, and he ended up several years ago, he moved back to Iran, but has now escaped.

I I'll use the word escape. I haven't clarified from him yet if it was really an escape or if he was just allowed to leave. Um, but the vibe is that countries are divided, so you've got to take this with a grain of salt. This is one person. But he was saying, "Yeah, people really are more afraid of the regime than they are afraid of the US bombs." And I was like, damn. So anyway, take it with a grain of salt. That's one person. But uh, I did find that to be an interesting factoid.

So, I'm hoping I can speak to him more and get a clearer sense cuz he was like, "Listen, you're being propagandized hardcore. Uh, only people that are actually living there can give you a real account of what's going on." And of course, they are constant. Cuz I was like, "Dude, I tried to reach out to you." And he's like, "Bro, our internet was shut down." Uh, so, um, yeah, very hard to get a true sense of how close the Iranians are to actually breaking. So, we'll see.

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

Of course, everybody's saying what they think is going to happen next and it's their fault, it's our fault, we need to take over things like that. But at the very surface level, whether it's Saudi fault, Iran's fault, whoever, it seems like we're stuck. Like we don't have a solution out. We don't have a clear path out there. We don't know what the necessary next steps are. Is that to oversimplify? No. This you live in a world of force. If you can't force someone to do what you want, whether that is violent force, whether that's economic force, if you can't force them to do what you want, then odds are that they won't do what you want.

And this is a thing that we see repeat all throughout history. You can conquer a people. You can even take them over. But that doesn't stop them from um starting to undermine you, become terroristic, making ruling over them near impossible. Look at England and uh what happened in India. Ultimately, they're able to boot the British out of India. So even if you are there and you've got the monopoly on violence, there are ways that people can make it absolutely impossible to govern them. And so uh I mean that's a really interesting thing with the Palestinians.

Man, look at Egypt. Egypt's like, "Nope, hard pass." Uh anyway, fascinating thing that people can become impossible to govern. And so if you are unable to truly defeat somebody militarily, if you're able to defeat them militarily, but you can't rule them in a way that they're willing to accept, then you're going to be perpetually in these big quagmires. This is a big part of the reason that um you didn't see Genghaskhan take over the territory and then it stay. Uh Alexander the Great, you know, conquers the known world, but he can't keep it.

Uh, obviously he dies, but I'm saying that these things always just break apart because people don't agree. This is the thing that I come back to with the DSA over and over and over is ultimately the reason I know that the DSA policies are never ever ever ever ever going to work is communism will fail forever because you can't get everybody to agree to working hard and then distributing that to people who aren't working hard. They will start speaking up and then that will threaten your system and when they threaten your system then you have to use violence to keep them in line.

And so now you have a system that is worse in terms of the outcomes that it delivers and you have to use force. At least capitalism makes life better for I mean when you look at it as a totality it makes life better for everybody. Uh it does not create equality but it makes life better for everybody. And so that's why it becomes easier uh to govern people in a capitalist system because you have to use much less force. It's not that you don't have to use any force but you have to use much less force.

And so whenever you have a system where you can just look at it and go, "The human mind is going to reject that. So I know you're going to have to use extreme force. Therefore, this is not going to work in the fullness of time because people will do everything they can to undermine you." There was a famous saying back in Russia, uh they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. And so that ends up stalling out your economy because nobody's going to do the extra thing, push, go the extra mile.

Uh it becomes this um predictable doom loop based on just human psychology. So that's the position that Trump should have been able to predict that well if you can't beat them militarily and then govern them in a way that they want to be governed or get them to rise up themselves, you're going to end up in a quagmire where they're just going to keep um hitting enough ships that try to transit that now nobody wants to go through the straight. And so you have to keep your blockade to try to pressure them to hope that you can break them.

They're willing to endure a whole lot of economic suffering and they've got a lot of guns and their citizens don't have guns so they will shoot their citizens in the face they have as they have already proven to keep them in line. And so it just becomes a losing proposition where diplomatic solutions won't work with the theocratic regime and you don't have enough munitions to break them militarily. And do you even have the moral um authority to do it? will your country back you? And so you're stuck in this position where the war games that they ran leading up to this should have asked one question, which is what will you do if the uh sanctions and the um the their ability to hit the ships going through the straight lasts for three or four years?

What will you do? And if you don't have a compelling answer to that, don't go into it. And so um as we now look at it, it just becomes clear we should not have entered this. And I get the impulse like if you grant that the real impulse and trust me I know there are reasons to not believe this but if you grant that the real impulse was to stop them from getting nuclear weapons it is clear that whenever they started burying things and I don't know if Trump won would have been early enough to go after them but once they started burying things it made it impossible to completely disarm them without a ground invasion.

And we're clearly not going to do that which means the game was already over. So the time to play this stop them from getting a nuclear weapon was when they started burying things and we didn't make that move. And so it's just one of those well we should have done it then but we didn't and so here we are. Now if he breaks them and survives politically then uh people will look back at this and be like they saved us from a nuclear Iran but right now it just looks quagmirey.

Yeah very quagmirey. Um but you brought it up the DSA. Let's jump over to the newest primary seat holder of the Democratic Party in Michigan, Dr. Abdul Elid. He was sat down with CNN. Democratic voters are frustrated, as I don't need to tell you. They don't think that your party's doing enough to fight Donald Trump on these issues, especially like affordability. If you're elected as a Democratic senator with a Republican president in November, what can you actually do about that? Well, look, let me just tell you the picture from my state.

We've been up and down the state now. I've been at this for 15 months, been to 110 cities, over 500 public events. Everywhere I go, people say the same thing. It just shouldn't be this hard. Shouldn't be this hard to afford your groceries or fill up your tank or worry about getting sick without having to worry about losing everything, too. And we ran this campaign to do three things. Get money out of politics, put money in your pocket, pass Medicare for all. When I'm elected to the US Senate, the first thing we need to do is start holding the Trump administration accountable.

You know, when we win, God willing, I will uh take my seat as a member of a Senate majority. That gives us subpoena power to be able to investigate all of the ways that this administration has used their power for their gain and enrichment and against ours. And I think that means hauling them up to really understand all the conversations that were had about who got to get refunds after this terrible tariff policy, who got to get excluded from those refunds. It means hauling up people like RFK Jr.

and holding them accountable for the dozing of our public health apparatus for which we now need to be dodging lettuce across the state of Michigan for fear of getting explosive diarrhea which nobody ever thought uh would be a consequence of electing Donald Trump but here we are. So, it's those powers and then the ability to set up to build the runway for a president in 2028 who can come in and start doing the things to hold big corporations accountable, to start enforcing uh antitrust policy, uh to start rethinking our tax system so it's less burdensome on everyday people and we're taxing billionaires their wealth and to stand up for unions who have been critical to winning fair wages.

Okay, so this is one of those things where he's got some good points. you absolutely should hold government accountable. Government should have to answer for themselves. So, I love anybody that's saying that. Uh, subpoena them. Get them there. Find out what's really going on. All of that I love. Um, once you start talking about we have to tax billionaires their wealth. That that obviously is the one for me that's just completely discrediting. And I remember when my initial reaction to um Kla Harris saying that she wanted to do these top down grocery stores where we were going to control prices.

And I was like, hold on. Do you guys understand where this goes? It was like, "Oh, Tom's overreacting. Like, she's I can't remember if people were saying she's just spitballing or whatever." I was like, "No, no, hold on. If you can even make that suggestion, you are so economically illiterate. We cannot have you in the White House." The level of danger that that poses to the American economy, if you want everything to get worse, [ __ ] up the economy. And so now we've got so much energy on the left for breaking the economy at the most fundamental level.

It is completely disqualifying. Now, this guy has said a whole host of other crazy [ __ ] that you can certainly pin him down on, but I'm telling you, when somebody is that economically illiterate, when they are coming from a populist vibes perspective of people hate billionaires and so we're going to tax these guys their wealth, which I assure if he understands the first layer of uh okay, yes, I understand the difference between wealth and money, he certainly does not understand the knock-on consequences of what that's going to mean to the economy.

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

If you want the th the middle class to thrive, period. End of story. If you want the middle class to thrive, I better hear all kinds of talk about you're going to tighten up the border. I better hear all kinds of talk about we're not going to keep importing cheap labor. I better hear all kinds of talk about we need to be fiscally disciplined. I better hear all kinds of talk about we've got to get rid of fraud in the government. We cannot have people fleecing us simply because we are the world's reserve currency and we can run these insane deficits and now people are just taking insane advantage of that.

I better hear what is the plan. Do you understand why um Hamilton had the thesis that he had about when you're in a position where you don't have good manufacturing, you are going to have to protect yourself from other countries that are you have to build up your own internal manufacturing base, you're going to have to temporarily use a minor amount of debt, but then you've got to cut that off and let the engine of prosperity do what the engine of prosperity does. Like if you don't understand how why that was true then why you have to reverse course on so many things to get us back to something that looks more like that today.

Uh if you don't understand we're already he was saying to stop taxing everyday Americans. But who will these guys ask us to say I'm not a communist says the DSA I'm like the Nordic countries. Who do the Nordic countries tax the life out of? The middle class, the working class, the wealthy, everybody. They all get taxed to death. It is the only way to have a broadbased tax enough that you can actually support these policies. So there is no way if you're just but and just as a reminder the corporate tax rate is lower in the Nordic countries than it is here in the US.

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

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

Then it will cause people to actually understand the economy to start buying gold to get out of US debt which then puts you in this insane spiral. Uh Tom, I don't understand how you said all that and you just haven't described the economy right now. We are increasingly more socialist. We are collecting less than tax revenue. We are increasing the deficits. We are losing our spot as the global reserve currency. We are having the central banks pent right that all that is happening today. Right now currently yes I did explain why it's happening today.

So what do you mean I'm not explaining the economy? Because you're saying if we elect these people, we're just going to have an economy that's increasingly more socialist. So you're saying you want somebody to break the current trajectory that we're already on. Yeah. So let me I'll give you an analogy. Um let's say that you are a couple's therapist and um there's two couples therapists. Coup's in trouble and part of the reason that the couple's in trouble is that the um husband's beating the wife and you're like we need to have less domestic violence.

No, no. because this cuts through all the [ __ ] And I'm going to keep using this example because there's nowhere to hide because this is what's happening. So in this, the politicians are the husband. The wife is the middle class. Mhm. And you've got a husband, let's call him a Republican or Trump, and he's clearly beating the wife. Uh this is a bad idea. And he's going, "Okay, but hold on. I want my wife to be happy and healthy. I need to beat her a little bit so that I can get everything moving in the right direction.

I can tariff. I can do all that stuff. I can get things back. I'm going to buy some of these companies. Like therapist like hold on. That is that's beating your wife. When you hit her like that, that's bad. We don't want to do that. Oh, even with just with my open hand. Yes. Yes. Even with your open hand. Then the other husband that she's considering marrying, which is better than saying the other therapist. The other husband that she's considering getting in a relationship with is like, um, I have a rubber mallet and it's not wood, Drew.

It's a rubber mallet, but I am admittedly going to put her hand on the table and smash it with the rubber mallet. And it's like, wait, that's worse. Is that the Democratic party or is that the That is anybody who wants to tax wealth, anybody who wants to control the economy from the top down. These are a a level of abuse that is so much higher that it's like what the [ __ ] I'm not if anybody thinks they hear me defending Trump, I that person is full [ __ ] You can do a super clip of me saying all the dastardly things that Trump is doing.

You will not find a super clip of me being like, "He's amazing." So that's where I'm like, I'm not defending Trump. I'm saying the bad things that he does are bad, but they are not as bad as the proposals. And so the ideas that people are putting forth are so economically violent that it's like, guys, you you've got to cut through the [ __ ] and understand how bad this is. So this isn't about going, "Oh, one of them is good and one of them is bad.

They're both bad, but oh my god, one of them is much worse. So Trump is trying to profit off of a a functioning economy. the DSA out of resentment, an absolute economic illiteracy, and a hunger for power and a deep reliance on um feminized, weaponized compassion, want to take control of everything and run it from the top down. And that leads to mass starvation. I know people don't like this, but it leads to mass starvation. So your best case scenario is Soviet style breadlines. I I am always going to be more animated by that because the level of destruction is so much worse.

Um as we played this clip, were you reacting to the clip or reacting to him as a representative of the DSA? I'm reacting to the clip. He says to tax billionaires their wealth. Okay. Um because I I want to break a couple things down because in the clip he talks about holding the Trump administration accountable for that I liked. Yep. Cool. Then he talked about the tariff refund policy. We haven't talked about tariffs on the show in a while. How do you feel about the tariff refund policy and how certain corporations got it, certain?

It's almost certainly true that um what the government should be doing is passing laws so that Trump doesn't have to do this outside of the system thing that he's doing. So he's going about the right thing in the wrong way. So did the uh Supreme Court do the right thing by the letter of the law? I haven't looked closely enough at the law to know the answer to that. So I'll just assume that they did. Mhm. Now, let's talk about fundamentally what does a country have to do.

Um, I was in the UK recently and I saw BYD as a car company now more frequently than I saw traditional uh British car companies. Now, that's anecdotal, could have been the neighborhood, whatever. But the fact that they let BYD into the UK is one example, I would imagine, among many of where they're letting China undermine their ability to manufacture. That is a terrible idea. It was a terrible idea back in the '9s, but we couldn't see it clearly. And so we ran the experiment of what does it look like when you go the whole world is going to hold hands forever and since the whole world is going to hold hands forever, there's no reason for us to be the manufacturer.

Let's go where the labor is cheaper and then we'll teach them how to manufacture. So we send over a couple smart people, they teach them how to do it, and then we bring our smart people back and we we let them do their thing and then we all get a much cheaper iPhone. and the fact that people try to commit suicide at Foxcon, let them put up the nets so we don't have to deal with that. Uh we'll let them do that and then we all benefit from the things that are cheap.

But over time, you begin to realize, uh-oh, our middle class is weakening. And our middle class is weakening very for a very specific reason. That very specific reason is um they don't have good jobs that match their desire and their skill set. and we're forcing everybody into an elite pipeline, meaning highly educated um academic pursuits. So they are not moving electrons in the real world. They are ideiation and so there's not enough jobs for people to ideate. So then those people become revolutionaries and the middle class suffers ever the more because you get things like um the woman Tracy Rosenthal who ends up um doing everything she can to bankrupt her landlord uh who almost certainly was not if my understanding of the story is correct.

He's an immigrant trying to make ends meet. Owns a building. I don't know if he owns multiple but the odds that he's like some wealthy billionaire are effectively zero. Uh and so in terms of take-home pay on paper he might be worth more money because he owns the building. But in terms of like actual um equity in the building, like how much does he own there? Anyway, uh you get that and a whole bunch of other things that end up eviscerating the middle class. Too much debt for them because of college, can't afford a house, because of things we've talked about a thousand times before.

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

And so all of these economic pertubations are racing in the wrong direction from El Say personally. Um he is very clear to say he's not the DSA, but they have overlapping violently overlapping ideologies and policies. So to me that is a distinction without a difference. But he he is putting forward very specific policies that you can point to and say this will be worse for workers. This will be worse for the middle class. And to me it's you can just take them literally policy by policy to show how this is nonsensical.

On to the next one was um holding RFK responsible for dozing the FDA through his leadership at the HHS. That's where he had the explosive diarrhea with the um lettuce and stuff like that. We've had had an increase in outbreaks. Taylor Farms has been the proponent of a lot of these things. They are Trump donors. I haven't looked at the data closely enough. And so if we look at the data and we see under RFK like bad things really are ticking up. Uh then fair enough.

But I if you look at even just what he's done from the food pyramid perspective, that's revolutionary. And so we have a government that has a history from the 60s or 70s of abusing the populace so horrifically that to say that he's like some unique evil, it is a a claim I will not tolerate. So this is somebody now again he's either evil or ignorant. I don't care which. But he's one of them. And he knows he knows or he's ignorant to the fact that the American government has put forward that you should be eating glucose sugar as like the base of the pyramid.

That that is a I'm not joking. That is a crime against humanity. And every administration, Republican, Democrat alike, have had the opportunity to unwind that and they haven't. Now, have they not because of lobbies? Almost certainly. So, back to money and politics and how um corporations are leveraging that to get at people, which is why I say uh break up monopolies. I've championed that a gazillion times. Get money out of politics. I've championed that a gazillion times. I am not for um corporations should just be able to do what the hell they want.

But to make out like, oh, the government is who needs to be in control. Uh, and we've got this rogue agent over here that's come in and he's like [ __ ] everything up because there's a parasite in the lettuce when my entire life there have been outbreaks of different things. Again, maybe there's a trend here that I'm unaware of, but I remember living through the E.coli outbreak. So, food is very hard. And the fact that we have gotten as far as we have by scaling this stuff up as far as we have is breathtaking already.

So, I'm going to need to look at the evidence again. Maybe it's there and I just haven't seen it, but I don't see any evidence of that. The rates of um autism are skyhigh. It's crazy. There is a problem somewhere. We need to figure out what that is. Now, JF or RFK may be wrong about what that is. That's entirely possible. Let's have that debate in public. But before RFK, it was shut up. You're going to be erased from society because you have views that we consider to be false.

So, people are acting as if everything was normal. We weren't being abused by government policy before RFK. Now we've got a lunatic in there and we are being abused. Hard hard pass. Hard pass. So, um, this is not me saying RFK is right about everything. I don't know if vaccines have anything to do with autism whatsoever. Uh, but that is certainly an area where having somebody that has a heterodox view, I'm all for. give me more heterodox views on couldn't we use this analogy though of the open hand versus the rubber mallet again of in this current administration where we have had an increase in outbreaks this is a rubber mallet in this specific yes if if that really is true I would be all for that and if people are saying listen RFK is provably doing bad things great like go after it but when somebody de facto says that listen what we finally need is because keep in mind he wants bigger government not smaller so a guy was like, "We need more government, bigger government, more tax dollars, wealth.

Give us everything. Now we're going to go implement these policies and we've got to hold this guy to account because insert bad thing happened here." It's like, you should always want politicians that have the conviction of their beliefs. If RFK really believes that he the things that he's saying, yeah, great. Then that's exactly what you should see. You should get somebody that believes it, pushes the agenda of the thing that they believe is true. If you have somebody that's lying, Fouchy, and they are actually taking you down a path and you can prove that they're lying, go after that [ __ ] all day.

If that's RFK, if RFK is knowingly [ __ ] kids up for some reason cuz he's in the pocket of Big Farmer or whatever, [ __ ] that kid. Put him in jail. Love it. But if you have somebody who sincerely is saying, "I see a problem." and that person goes through all the confirmation hearings and all of that. Uh, and they're acting sincerely. That's as the system should work. So, again, I'm not saying the RFK is right about everything. I don't know. I haven't looked at all of that stuff.

But I will tell you that we have been abused by the government so aggressively that you have a population where life expectancy is going down. Morbid obesity has set in. the way that they've told us to live, the um ways that we have abused the food supply, all of that have been absolutely horrific. And it has been on the back of science that was blatant manipulation. That fat became the enemy again is a crime against humanity because I believe the people were knowingly lying and that the problem was obviously and known to be sugar and they buried it.

And so that that to me is unconscionable. And so the fact that RFK has spoken for that, the fact that the Trump administration has actually at a minimum gotten that changed. Great. Now, are they [ __ ] up vaccines? Maybe. And maybe that's a real problem. And maybe we're going to see huge consequences. Maybe this is rubber mallet and people need to go in get these [ __ ] guys out. Very possible. But show me. Show me that that's real. Gotcha. All right. We got a story time with AI and how it got a court case thrown out.

I was at the shops yesterday and I overheard two girls talking and one of them was talking about how she had jury duty and it had gotten cancelled and the whole jury had been dismissed because some guy decided one of the other jurors had decided to go home and put all of the information from the trial that the jury had received into Chad GBT to try to solve the case. and they had to dismiss the whole jury. So, yep. Okay, this is first let's be very clear.

This is anecdotal. This is overheard. We don't have the firsthand thing, but it's a wonderful thought experiment in terms of what's really going on. What are we going to have to get to through all of this? There is some weird assessment that people have about AI that AI is like worse than Wikipedia, which is what like this is crazy. Now, AI is very fallible. So, you should be using it to put together what is actually happening. So, if you dump in the here's the information from the trial, who do you think is guilty?

That's insane. But if you're using AI to figure something out like, hey, I need to understand is this thing true? Doing your own research figure, but using AI to do research, AI is the single most profound research tool that has ever existed in humanity. And by the way, it is only going to get better. And so we have to be very cognizant that the different makers of AI are coding in biases. So you cannot take it as just like, oh, whatever it tells me is going to be true cuz it's riddled with the human bias.

However, dude, when I look at, okay, my goal is to get to cause and effect, and so I need a quick way to find out what's going on. even just as having a resource that will go out into the universe and pull in sources and say here are the you know 14 uh reports and studies that you should be looking at cool give me those okay that was way faster than it would have been historically so um also everything on the internet right now which I don't think anybody's saying don't use the internet to do research so everything on the internet carries the same bias Wikipedia is ridiculously biased uh social media is obviously ridiculously biased and so people are now saying as if somehow AI is like this unique thing.

Again, I've said this before and I will keep saying this. All of people's anti- AI sentiment, I think, is detached from what it is actually like to engage with AI and is based on anxieties that AI is going to eliminate their jobs. The reality is AI has wild limitations. They become very easy to see the more you interact with AI. But AI is an extraordinary tool for going out and bringing information back by being able to then go through that information, ask questions based on the information uh to have a debate partner.

So you can say, "Okay, here's what I think. Prove me wrong." And then it will give you arguments and then you argue back those points. You can get AI to go, "You're right. I was wrong about that. Um here's why I was thinking that. Here is the juxaposition that I did that I shouldn't have done." It will even tell you why it now believes that it's wrong. And so there are ways that you can use AI as a debate partner to sharpen your own thinking. Now, whenever you're saying something where you can't enumerate the cause and effect steps of why you believe that you're right, what the consequences are going to be, then I'm not going to take your information anyway.

I need to understand what are you actually saying? Like what is the cause and effect? What is the first principles from which you were building up from? But if you use AI to help you build first principles thinking, holy [ __ ] Drew, because I use AI every day in different disciplines. So, I'll use it on Kaizen. I will use it on um uh preparing for what's going on in the Iran war, all of that stuff. But I'm not just like, tell me what it is, and then I run with it.

It's like you're debating it back and forth. You're trying to figure out, okay, what's this? What's, you know, not that. like uh we're going to be talking um shortly about what's going on in China uh how their housing crisis intersects with this lending crisis that they're going through and so it's like okay you're taking a gigantic topic and like how does it interface with the US so it it is absolutely staggeringly large and so there are going to be facts as you go through you're going to need to be like wait does that work like that in the US and then it's like okay here's the information here's the data that I'm pulling this from it it's like it that is a miracle of being able to do it The what I liken it to is you have your best friend is the smartest person in the world on every topic and you can just ask some questions, but he's still a [ __ ] human.

Like he's going to have biases. He's going to be dumb to something, right? And so it's like if what your friend tells you doesn't make sense, ask more questions. And then your friend might be like, "Yeah, actually I don't know a lot about that." Okay, fine. Cool. Now I know. So when we march into the future, there will come a day where I will consider it um a miscarriage of justice if my jury isn't forced to dialogue with AI where I'll be like, "Wait, you let 12 people that don't know anything about whatever insert uh thing that I'm being accused of here." 30 odd six uh bullet ballistics.

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

I'm not saying today, but eventually, just like the attorneys battle for what jury uh members are we going to select, they're going to battle over what AI becomes the like dialogue partner with the jury. And so, yeah, like this is we're going to get to a point where AI is the closest thing to an arbiter of truth that we're going to get. Now, I don't think any of us ever want to fully remove humans from the equation because that's just not how human life works. But having AI there to be able to help parse information or say what something means, I think will be very important.

And then for people to know that they can argue back. Yeah. Um, we'll see the future of the adoption of AI in different industries and how it becomes normalized in different sects of society. So, this was just really interesting. Um, yes. And the the future of AI is going to be very surprising, very weird and it is going to touch areas of our lives that we are not yet thinking about. Uh up to and including right now the gets a jury dismissed in the future. Um I think there will be other things related to AI either not using AI, AI goes rogue, AI uh pulls information from some crazy site and people disagree with it.

like all of that is going to get in the mix and there will be a day where it will be considered a hot topic of debate that they're not allowing AI in the courtroom. So, get ready for that. Um, yeah, there's been a litany of stories about crime offenses this week. Um, starting with the New Mexico House leader Cheryl William Stapleton convicted of diverting public education funds to her friends and getting kickbacks. Massachusetts Mayor Brian Deenna charged for stealing COVID relief funds. NJ Councilman Councilwoman Gina Laal La Pasha charged for faking signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Georgia Rep. Sharon Henderson pleaded guilty to stealing CO funds. Missouri City Executive Philip Leavota and indicted for bribery charges. Vice Mayor Columbus, Mississippi Josh uh Joseph Mikins charged for rigging a city contract bid to be awarded to his own company. That last one's funny. The party of fraud and corruption. Yeah. So, I hate the last little bit because this is obviously they're being selective about pointing out the things that Democrats have done. Broaden it out. It's just right now, man, this is really heartbreaking to see Americans just absolutely mired in a level of corruption that as a kid I just could not have believed.

You heard in other countries that this kind of thing was always happening. But man, to see it happening as much as it's happening now, and I think a big part of this is because we're in a populist moment where everybody thinks the other side is so wrong that it's right to if you're stealing money to empower your side. Like um the guy from Black Eyed Peas, uh no, sorry, not Black Eyed Peas. um the Fujis. He ended up getting uh convicted and uh sentenced to 14 years I think in prison for um illegally funneling foreign dollars into Obama's election campaign.

And so um he just reported to prison and it's like dude that is when and I I have no reason to believe that Obama was in on that just to be very clear. Uh but he faced a trial and got sentenced. though I will assume he legitimately did it. He failed to declare himself an actor of a foreign state. When you believe that it is so right and so just that my side win that I will do whatever it takes. I will violate whatever law I need to uh to get this across the finish line.

That's when people derail. And for me this is happening on both sides man. But what we need are people absolutely obsessed with bipartisan uh uncovering of fraud, uncovering of waste. Like that should be the single thing that everybody can come together on and we're not able to come together on that and we as taxpayers are just being milked. Like this is so crazy. So I'm admittedly very happy to see that people are going to jail over this. I'm very happy to see that people are being pursued legally over this.

I'm very happy to see that it's just being brought to the surface so that people are more paranoid about their leaders. And man, do this is never going to happen. But I really wish that both sides were looking at their own team and being like, hey, what is my own team doing here? Because I I want my own team playing from a place of honors, honor, and integrity. Um, and Warren Buffett talked about this in a really interesting way and he said when you're hiring somebody you should look for integrity, um, intelligence and energy, but he said if they don't have integrity, you really hope that they're, uh, stupid and lazy.

And I was like, yes, that is absolutely true. But unfortunately, certainly right now, politics is attracting these like Mchavelian types that are dark triad, that are smart, but just completely unprincipled. uh and high energy motivated to get their side to win. It is that is one of the things that's most scary about a populist moment is people are just win at all costs and that will erode the moral fabric of our country very fast. All right, we got some super chats. Yes, we do. First up comes from Marushia Dark.

Would love to see you interview the guys from the China show and trade notes on what you think the CCP's capabilities are. Also, I sent you a video. China show. Hold on. I don't even know the China show. Uh, I don't know what the China show is either. I think it's just two guys who are in China, though, if I'm thinking of the right thing. Hey, send it my way. Um, Mike Rose's guest giving a masterclass in destroying socialism and communism. Ah, interesting. Mike Row. Yes, that's the video that Marushia sent in Discord.

Oh, okay. Got it. Got it. Got it. Mike Row is not the guy expected to be doing that. He's the bluecollar guy, right? Like the dirtiest jobs or whatever. Oh, I don't know, Mike. Yeah. Yes. I'll have to check it out. Marushia Dark also says, "So, thank you for the 40, Marushia. I asked Grock about how many illegal immigrants are in New Jersey. Pew estimates 600K. GOP says 892K, but even the leftwing estimate was 450K to 500K. That means between 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 people here are illegal immigrants, which is a damning statistic." Yo, 5% on the low end.

Yikes. That's wild. That's wild. Island inversion says, "Morning. had a thought that like Friday funies you could do a segment on Mondays that's inspirational like tech breakthroughs you're going to uh your game updates etc. Thanks for everything you and the team do. Man, do I I love the idea of trying that. We'll see if it's popular but uh I love it. That'd be great. Thank you for uh paying money to support the channel to give me good ideas to support the channel. That that is a double whammy that I'm grateful for.

Tension Field says, "How is such a young nation already speedrunning uh late empire problems like hyper financial financialization and extreme economic inequality? It took ancient empires centuries to reach the decline we're hitting in decades." That's not quite true. So, um empires tend to last between 150 and 250 years. So, we're really right on schedule. Um so, yeah, that's just how long it takes that loop to play out. So much to my dismay, um, depending on sort of where you clock our ascension, if you clock it from day one, obviously we're right on for 250 years.

If you don't clock it until, you know, let's say we've been around for 100 years, we're still right at the low end. Uh, so yeah, much to my dismay, this is very typical, very typical. You're thinking maybe more of civilizations, but just to give you an idea, America is substantively older than Italy. We're not older than the Italian region. That part of earth having people on it. Uh but Italy as a country is very new. So I think people confuse like they think of well Italy is Rome.

No, very different. Graphs tube says Candace is now on camera saying uh quote 0% chance Tyler Robinson was the killer and quote I'm not saying Tyler Robinson is a psy literally her prompt. That's worth a lot. Maybe not 300K. Come trial time, credibility hit to one of the two. Yeah, it won't. Here's how this is going to play out. Uh she'll always be able to say that no, no, no. There's there are so many questions here that um these guys just didn't get to the truth.

And the people that believe like her that if something feels wrong, it is wrong. And then you can marry it to but we've been lied to so many times in the past. So, what makes you guys think that this really is true? And so, if you've completely rejected all systems, all um institutions, and you're just like, they're all corrupt, they're all prone to lying, why would any of you guys fall for it? You guys are the suckers. You it it is unfalsifiable. Because it's unfalsifiable, Candace is going to get to the other side of this absolutely unscathed.

And when people go to debate her, she's going to do exactly what she did here. She is going to reject their frame. They are going to expect somebody that will topple easily. She won't. And it would be very interesting to see her debate destiny if she debated destiny. And they just went fact for fact. And he was able to meet her on the facts that she puts forward. And so he's done more research on the movements of the Egyptian plains than she has, which is his superpower.

Uh then at least people who are fact-minded are going to be like, "Oh yeah, she's Looney Tunes." But the people that already think that that's just all [ __ ] and he's just an Israeli propagandist, which of course is what they will roll out, it's unfalsifiable. And she is very good intuitively or otherwise. Here, here's what I really think about Candace. I think Candace is sincere. I don't think she thinks her audience is dumb and she's just trying to milk them, which is why she is so calm and so confident.

You're not going to be able to catch her out. And the reason you won't be able to catch her out is people are trying to catch her being insincere. and she's being sincere. And that's the thing. She may be wrong and she will update her um specific talking points and all of that, but she's being sincere, man. And because she's being sincere, she'll keep getting people because she won't adopt their frame. She will invite them into hers. They will try to catch her out with like, "Did you get a text message?" That kind of [ __ ] And it's like, "Bro, I just I'm really I'm about this life." Candace is about it, you guys.

She's about it. And you trying to catch her out like she's a grifter. you're gonna keep having that one backfire in your face. You have to assume that she believes what she's saying, that she's done an insane amount of research, that she won't accept your frame of reference, that she actually believes, that it means something to have a dream where somebody talks to you. Drew is not going to like this one. But the second somebody can believe in God, all bets are off. You don't need proof.

You need only faith. And so now once you're like, "Yeah, like my entire world view is predicated on faith." She has faith that Charlie's in heaven and is speaking to her. Yesesh, that's tough to overcome. Silent Night says, "What sacrifices our system going to have to make to avoid a majority of disenfranchised people from moving to socialism or trying to break it?" Uh, which one's going to be harder? Break more people? What was the beginning of that? Uh which sacrifices our system going to have to make to avoid a majority of disenfranchised people to avoid okay that's a very specific ask to avoid disenfranchising people from moving to socialism or trying to break it I feel like the whole sentence matters so okay so how do you bring people back to the middle is that the real crux of the question what sacrifice has to be made to avoid all these disenfranchised people moving to socialism or trying to break capitalism going for a full Oh trying to break capitalism I thought it was trying to break socialism Oh yeah that's how I read I mean probably capitalism Okay, that that at least becomes uh easier to answer.

Okay, so the sacrifices that would have to be made uh you would need to immediately let people declare bankruptcy on student debt. You would need to uh unleash the ability to build housing so that housing prices can come back down. Um you would need to in the longer term you have to keep focusing on bringing middle class jobs back to America. That's going to be critically important. Um, what would be like another really fast speedun? Um, you you have to do some austerity. You're going to have to defancialize.

That one's too vague. I'll stop there. There are going to be more that you would need to do. That's probably going to look like some of the um things that China is doing to incentivize people to hold real assets to try to create incentive structures where people are able to have sound money basically so that you you have to put people in a position where they can get a good job and that they can save money uh as a way to get ahead. And right now everything is breaking that.

The distribution part isn't working. So, I don't think that the redistribution of wealth is going to play out the way that people think. And the reason because Ray Dallio has talked a lot about that. He's like, "Yeah, you're gonna have to redistribute wealth." And it's like, "Ray, it won't work." And here's why it won't work. We've created a social belief that people are going to give me something. And you've got to create the social belief that I can get ahead by working hard. Right now, people don't believe that work, they think working hard is for chumps because you're just enriching the billionaire.

Uh so they don't believe that they're going to get ahead. Um but then they also actually can't get ahead because the things that they think about uh are just too expensive. And so the things that they think about are housing being the easiest one. And then we have a real cultural battle that we have to fight around families. There's a thing there. We don't have time to go into it now, but there's a thing there about when you create a cultural incentive to be a revolutionary, you're going to create revolutionaries, especially when you have the economic thing to be a revolutionary as well.

So, overproducing elites, not being able to buy a house, and uh thinking that having kids is a thing that you either just don't do or you don't do till you're in your 30s or 40s. It's like all of that energy. This is a Heather Hying uh thing that she's like, "What ends up happening, this is Brett Weinstein's wife, if you don't know who she is, when you take all of that energy that used to go into being a mother and the mama bear instinct and all of that, and you then tell that person that you're basically in complete control, you can have as much sex as you want, but you're not going to have kids." Uh, what you find is all that mama bear energy goes into I want to protect the uh illegal immigrant.

I want to protect the environment. I want to protect the, you know, very um compassiondriven uh policy. Insert that here. And they bring that mama bear energy fight to that. So then marry that to I'm an overproduced elite who's drowning in debt, can't afford a home, and now all of a sudden they just go all in on that. And yeah, it it is creating distortions. And it's so weird. remember I'm married to um a entrepreneurial-minded woman who doesn't want to have kids uh who is um like really in that zone who doesn't want to be put in a box doesn't want to be told that she can't do you know insert thing here and so I never want to see a woman not have those choices but we have to accept that at a societal level that there are knock-on effects to these things and so how do we mitigate how do we deal with those how do we accept that we should never take choice away from somebody, but that there are going to be these things that happen downstream of that.

And so, how do we make sure that we don't accelerate those things by making housing too expensive, burying them under debt, overproducing elites, etc., etc. Uh, so we'd have to unwind those things, right? That was a very long answer. Riley J. Sixers says, "Have you heard of Dr. Charles Buer and Andrew Arrigma? They claim they made a propellantless electrostatic electrostatic propulsion engine that could make a trip to Mars in three days if scared. Chinese bank loan. What? Uh, okay. Um, that I mean that would be so close to the speed of light.

I I am very curious to know what the math is on that. Maybe I'm just way off and it's actually not. And you 10% of the speed of light gets you there. I have no idea, but uh that sounds terrifyingly fast. I would be shocked if that were actually true. Uh, but I don't know them and I haven't looked at this. So, I am in the realm of vibes, so I'd have to look at it. Uh, but I would immediately go to what do the most credible voices say against this thing?

Um, but hey, maybe it's the breakthrough we've been waiting for. We'll see. All right, I think we got one more super chat, right? Uh, yeah, we have one more. Last super chat comes from Sedona Bear. The debate frame was there uh was there was overwhelming evidence TR did it. AW changed it to convince me. There is not any evidence that TR did it, but rather the opposite. AW was supposed to prove his point. Who's TR? Isn't it Candace? Candace Owens and Tyler Robinson. Oh. Oh. Oh, got it.

Okay. So, basically, uh, read that again now that I know what they mean by TR. The debate frame was there. Uh, the debate frame was there was overwhelming evidence TR did it and AW changed it to convince me. There is not any evidence that TR did it, but rather the opposite. AW was supposed to prove his point. Gotcha. There we go. Okay. Yeah, that that makes sense to me. There's no way that you're going to be able to do that when you define that this is all vibes, which is what Andrew Wilson did.

So, he his definition was something along the lines of uh by overwhelming evidence, I mean that I believe that it's um self-evident or something like that. And so, it was like wait that you believe, huh? like what's the actual, as he would say, positive evidence that you have. That positive evidence hasn't come out yet. Uh so anyway, the trial has to happen before that debate can go forward. It was just crazy weird timing. This is internet people trying to score internet points and uh Candace Owens from that perspective, I think came out way ahead.

That was it for Super Jets. Awesome. All right, boys and girls. Thank you so much for joining us once again. Much appreciated. We've got a new master class coming out and it is Thursday, September 10th at 1:00 p.m. Pacific time for free. It's all free. Free, free, free. I will show you how to build a business using AI. Link is in the description. Sign up now and I will see you guys on Wednesday. Until then, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.

Go deeper

• All Impact Theory episode guides