The 10 Million Dead People Voting: Uncovering the 2026 Fraud Iceberg

Key Takeaway

The key to productive debate is separating identity from ideas. Value yourself not for being right or wrong, but for identifying the right answer and updating when evidence changes. Build mental models with 'bricks of logic' that explain the world you see, but hold them loosely enough to rebuild when new data arrives. This intellectual humility—the willingness to say 'I had that wrong' and move on—is what transforms heated arguments into useful conversations that actually advance understanding.

Episode Overview

A political debate between Tom and Drew examining voter ID requirements, the SAVE Act, and illegal immigration. The discussion demonstrates how to disagree productively by mapping each other's base assumptions, identifying areas of agreement, and maintaining intellectual humility. While they reach different conclusions about voter fraud and immigration policy, they find common ground on core principles: both want only citizens voting and both oppose undue barriers to voting. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding not just what people believe, but why they believe it—the foundational 'bricks of logic' that build their worldview.

Full Transcript

Transcript of The 10 Million Dead People Voting: Uncovering the 2026 Fraud Iceberg from Impact Theory. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

Good morning everybody. Welcome to another Tom Bully Show live. We are going to be covering the wild wild west that is the western world right now. It is fascinating every day. I hope you guys have been enjoying your Epstein files with morning coffee. It is crazy out here. Uh and I'll be very interested to see how much of that we end up covering today. But it has been stomach turning to say the least. Voters overwhelmingly want voter ID. But regardless of that, it doesn't look like the Senate is going to pass the Save Act.

The president of Colombia is snitching on the world's drug dealers, uh, giving it all to Trump. All the tea spilled everywhere. SpaceX and XAI have merged in the largest private merger ever. And this paves the way for spacebased spacebased spacebased data centers. It's wild that this one's going to be fun to talk about. The Omnibus Senate Appropriations Bill has passed. Thomas Massie details the things that were left out, the things that were crammed in. Not a lot of fun there. PepsiCo is lowering prices in an attempt to stimulate declining revenues.

And my question is, is this crisisled deflation or the positive result of a loss of government funding? We're going to talk about that. It's a pretty interesting one. And mom Donnie appears to side with a man that got shot charging at a police officer with a big ass knife. You can see it all clear as day on the body cam footage. So, America is going to have a reckoning, boys and girls. We are going to have to decide whose side we're on. Is this going to be a Law and Order game or something else far more bizarre?

We'll see. We'll talk about it. You guys will, I'm sure, pop off in the comments, and I can't wait to hear it. Drew, welcome. welcome. welcome. Um, my rant just went up and no pedophiles went to jail yet. That's a bad combo. Now, are they related? related? related? Just Just let just let you know the world is putting it out there. You're putting it out there. I haven't done my taxes yet. Pedophile still walking around. walking around. walking around. Yeah, dude. Yeah, dude. Yeah, dude. It Yeah, not I I did not plan to start with the uh the PDF files from the Epstein stuff, but oo buddy, at some point tinfoil hats firmly in place.

We are going to have to talk about the pizza stuff. pizza stuff. pizza stuff. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, it's wild. I mean, it's wild. Conspiracy theorists are up big right now. Bitcoin is down. Gold and silver are flat. Conspiracy theory. They're up big. big. big. Way up. Way up. Way up. Uh all right. Well, starting with the voter act um or the SAVE act. A lot of people have been scrutinizing voter ID. Um the SAVE Act is is controversial for some antiquated reasons. I went through the actual Save Act.

We can get through the minutia of all of it. But um what's your initial take with kind of the overwhelming majority? I think it was 85% of de of Republicans, 70% of Democrats. They both are okay with having photo ID for voting, but for some reason Senate is not going to nuke it. What do you think is causing that push back? Well, so the Save Act itself, my mental model is very simple. If you look at the um the voting patterns, things have been moving to the right for a while in America.

And an easy way for the Democrats to maintain power and remember I have a base assumption that says uh politicians will do and say whatever they need to do to gain and retain power. So they are running a strategy right now that says uh import immigrants, legal illegal, doesn't matter. Get as many immigrants through the door as you can. Get them plugged into a um social program so that they are beholden to the government and then count on the fact that they will vote for whoever frees up the most money for them.

And if that's true, everything that you're seeing makes a ton of sense. You understand why they're fighting so hard for illegal immigrants regardless of whether they've committed crimes. Uh you understand why they don't want ICE going around uh places where people cast their ballots. You understand why they're making it illegal. Remember, it is illegal, not just not necessary, it's illegal in California to ask somebody for their ID. Uh and all of that makes a whole bunch of sense when you say, "Oh, they're just counting on importing voters." And from a like if you set morality aside, if you set the long-term health of the country aside, it's a brilliant strategy to get voters on your team, it's just absolutely god- awful for the country for reasons I'm happy to go into.

It's interesting. Lisa interviewed me yesterday on her show and even my wife who's so close to me and I'm talking about this stuff all the time um doesn't have like the basic building blocks of how politics work like at a core level. And so I think that the vast majority of Americans are the same. Now if you're here and you're listening to a show like this odds are that you have formed a worldview that contains a lot of these different bricks. You may disagree with me, but you have your own brick in place.

Uh, and you have a mental model of the cause and effect, but the vast majority of people don't. And so they stop at an emotional read on, but wait, don't we just want to help? Uh, and not understanding that you cannot import a bunch of people if you then when they get here offer them free things. You're already spending $2 trillion a year in deficits. Uh so anyway it just when you look at the lens when you look at all of this through two things one that politicians will do and say anything to get into power and then economics what people will do to um secure as much of a dwindling pie as they can then it all makes sense.

So this one's wild to me. Th this is like a a blatant level of corruption just out in the open and people are saying it. It's not like nobody's talking about this. You get people that are banging the drum. Elon Musk posts about this all the time. They get millions of views every time. Um the voter like when you pull voters, the numbers are high. Like north of 70% no matter what group you look at, Democrats, Republicans, uh regardless of ethnicity, regardless of economic status, it literally doesn't matter.

Everyone wants voter ID. And so the fact that this isn't passing, I literally don't think any of those groups I just named. So imagine uh Latino Democrats are like north of 70%. We want voter ID. So it's like who what what's happening? That to me reads as a political party protecting what's best for the political party, not what's best for their constituents, what's best for the political party. So they're looking out at their um active base and they're saying, "I'm so sorry, guys, but you're not enough." And so if we want to get into office, we're going to have to import all of these voters.

Like, I feel terrible. I don't mean to ignore you, but I have to ignore you to get back into office. When I think of it like that, it's like, oh, boom. All the dominoes fall pieces, puzzle piece in place. It all makes sense. Uh, okay. So, a couple things I wanted to push back on. Um, one, fundamentally, you said that, um, over the last few years, um, we've been pushing more toward Republican. Uh, I think that that's a fallacy because it's been swinging back and forth.

um point that just traditionally the same suing states that Trump has won this election. He lost the last election the uh 20 so 2016 he won and then 2012 he lost. So like Republicans. Republicans. Republicans. Okay. So let's now put a pin in that so I can address it because I don't want to lose any of these and we'll go to the next one. Next one. Okay. So uh look at birth rates. So conservatives have more children. So even if you compare the amount of people that are going to the left, let's just say that like you said it sort of goes back and forth and maybe even the left gets a little bit more once you start factoring in and I didn't know we were going to talk about this so I didn't pull all the stats but uh if you start incorporating the likelihood of a child to adopt their parents' beliefs if they are liberal is the these are going to be very very close is like 89%.

The odds that a kid will adopt their parents' beliefs that they're conservatives like 81%. So slight advantage to liberals. Uh but the birth rates are so dramatic that conservatives have so many more kids that over time we are moving to the right just because of that discrepancy. I I could counter that as well is because institutions are overwhelmingly liberal and we have an explosion of uh university attendees that we did uh 20 years ago and then even if the birth rate thing catches up that's still a 18 to 20 year problem.

So from 2010 we will see that implication in the 2028 um election. So while directionally over the course of 20 years we might see this and that might start to become true when we get into the 2030s of it all but statistically Democrats have taken over the institutions and the in increase of college participation that then leads people to become liberal because we know the uh institutions are indoctrinated. it's been swinging liberal in that way. But we can get to that like we can compare that.

Um the well so what I'm what I'm trying to lay out are the base assumptions that build my belief system. You're saying that I have a base assumption that's incorrect. So now walk me through. You've laid a base assumption that we're moving to the left. So if we're moving to the left, why do you think that you think this is not a Democrat problem that Republicans want as many illegal immigrants? immigrants? immigrants? No. My No. My No. My Okay. So hold on. But let's take these one at a time.

Yeah. Yeah. Cuz I'm going to go right back to the reason I said that we're moving more liberal is to counteract your point that the birth rate with conservatives is why we're I understand. But what what I think I'll be able to show is that your um without that counterveailing weight, you're going to find yourself not being able to explain what's happening. So So So as to why they don't want the back proof. proof. proof. Yeah. I'll I'll plant the flag right now and say you're going to lay out an argument that lacks internal consistency.

I could be wrong, but that's the what I want to tease apart right now. But I can feel you want to move on. So, uh, cuz you you started voter, they don't want this because they're importing illegals to change the flip the map. Correct. Correct. Correct. What I'm saying is the map hasn't been flipped. I can go to the legal jurisdictions where all the illegals that have come in have gone to. They all have went to Republican presidents over the last two elections. So, for example, Ohio.

Ohio. Ohio. Yes. But you do understand I'm saying that that is just absolutely massively infused with voter fraud. So, so, so, so the illegals that are voting are also fraudulent on top of that. So, they're importing millions and they're stealing elections and they're still losing. I'm saying because we have a move towards the right, all of the things that they're doing are keeping them right on the cusp. If they weren't doing those things, if we didn't have voter fraud, they would have fallen behind long ago.

long ago. long ago. But they're still But Republicans are still winning those states, though. So, yes, but not by these massive majorities. But because it's electoral college, it doesn't matter if you beat if you win in Ohio by 100,000 votes or a million votes, you still win Ohio and get the points. You're getting to the census. So the census is all about more I'm I'm talking about the electoral map, not the census. Yes. But that's what drives the electoral map. So the number of uh electoral bodies that you get is tied to the census.

Not in the Senate obviously, but in the House. So what I'm saying is by importing illegals, you are already skewing that. So you're getting you have more bodies in the state than you otherwise would, which is giving you more representatives than you otherwise would. So in a state like California, the incentive is get as many bodies as you can in this state, which is already blue, so that we can really swamp the system so that we can get a wildly disproportionate number of um seats so that we can unbalance things that way because the census just says bodies.

It doesn't say legal, illegal. It's just bodies. bodies. bodies. And so if like to simplify what I'm saying, saying, saying, I think if you take if if if you're right and there is no voter fraud, for instance, then the internal logic of my argument falls apart and then I have to reconfigure reconfigure reconfigure something that explains the world that I see. Mhm. see. Mhm. see. Mhm. So what to figure out because I don't care if I'm right. I just want to know what the right answer is to figure out though if I'm right.

I have to understand like what you're laying bricks of logic that have to describe the world that I see. And so I'm trying to figure out, okay, so you don't think that there's voter fraud? You don't think that they're importing illegals to manipulate the census? Like what? Because we're taking it one by one. I feel like we keep like pump faking. Um, so that's why it's like we can start at the end and then we can get to the we can like get to the front.

So if you want me to just talk about why the Save Act is so controversial, we could just skip to that and why this won't pass or we can go to your base assumption of illegals and illegals and illegals and Okay. So this but we were talking about election fraud. Bear with me. This may be why uh my show is going to just drive certain people crazy. Um, but when people speak, they're either on MPC autopilot or they're trying to convince me of something. something. something.

And so what I'm trying to figure out is what are you trying to convince me of? Because you believe it's important to stop me and say you're incorrect about that fact. that fact. that fact. To what end? uh you're incorrect about this fact because if that logic based off of the already uh investigations that have been going into voters into the electoral map, I have seen results that would counteract what you're saying because if you're importing voters and you're illegally changing ballots, you should then win a state.

But if you're importing voters to a one area that is majority red and that stays majority red, you're doing a bad job of voter frauding. Um, so it it it would counteract that argument, but then you said we're going to the census with that, but then the census is a different conversation than the voting. Yeah, sort of. Yes, Yes, Yes, it's a different method of accomplishing the same thing, but getting more uh representatives and then I can also counteract that because liberals turn up uh liberal drop off from midterm elections versus uh federal elections is like 40%.

So they would have to import Okay, let me let me ask this in a different way. different way. different way. Okay. Okay. Okay. Uh because right now we're arguing about the T. Um I want to talk about the Save Act. Yeah, we we are talking about the Save Act. Now, if we're if people are hemorrhaging out of here because they don't find this interesting. Fair enough. But uh so here's what I'm asking. I'm going to lay out my argument as succinctly as humanly possible. possible. possible.

Uh my argument goes like this. For the Democrats to remain in power, the strategy that they're deploying currently is to import uh people to pad the census and import voters. And that's how they're maintaining power. To keep it super simple, your hypothesis is hypothesis is hypothesis is if that is true, then the states in which the most illegal aliens have came into, they would have had a significant shift in electoral map over the last two years, they would have flipped the states in federal elections or they would have gained more um power.

And I can name three states in which they have imported the most people and nothing has significantly changed. that's riding on the back of an assumption that the rate of change is not roughly comparable, meaning the rate of push to the right is not roughly comparable to the amount of people that they're importing. And that's where I'm like, yeah, if you have data that shows that, great. But um a very simple explanation though I may be incorrect and the the data will reveal all but a very simple explanation for that is that um when you look at the number of people that they have allowed into the country back a napkin math it is roughly the amount of people that have shifted to the right and so it is remaining roughly 50.

So you really think that illegal aliens are voting one for one? No, I think it's I think that there's some minor number of people that are actually able to get all the way through the system and I think that the Democrats are doing everything they can to ramp that up. But when you look at the um the treading water of the ultimate count that yes, when you put it all together, they are running roughly at the same pace. So that's a hypothesis. It's not me saying that I know that this is all true.

Remember hypothesis just means best guess. So this is a best guess educated but still a guess. Um and your what I so I think your hypothesis goes like this. Uh vote uh illegal immigrants have no impact on voting whatsoever and the country is just roughly divided 50/50. It it's kind of like this, right? Um let's take a football example. So can you give me a yes or no to that just so I know if I'm on the right track? Um, no. I don't I don't think so.

That's inaccurate. I think that's inaccurate. Uh, I really want to talk about the SAVE Act, though, cuz I think the Save Act is the part that's getting um the most uh buzz about this because if this was simply the National Voting Act, how is this not the Save Act? So, here's because in the in the Save Act specifically, there's a language that they're adding in that says you have to say yes in affirmation to are you a US citizen? citizen? citizen? Okay, Okay, Okay, literally that sentence.

And in the existing voting act that has been passed since the 1960s, there's already consensus line in there that says including citizenship. So you already have to prove citizenship or else you couldn't get the voting uh registered at like a DMV at all these major places. So a lot of these addendums that they're adding, yes, um you already have to show a birth certificate to get a driver's license. Okay, so that will already prove your citizenship. So it's easy. Yes, you already have to show um a social security card in order to get this thing.

So So there's certain level there's certain things. Wait, you just lost me. In California, it is illegal to request ID. Illegal at the voting place, but not to when you're registering to vote. Those are two different things. Okay. So, how do you read? So, uh how do you read this first? Yeah. Okay. Uh I'm going to remain silent for 90 seconds. There's something you're trying to get. Yeah. Cuz I I feel like I'm Yeah. Cuz I I feel like I'm like I'm like like jump starting.

Um the reason that the Save Act is getting push back is because of two reasons. Reason number one, there's specific line there literally specific verbiage that the person has to answer in their firmative. Are you an American citizen? Somebody can be born in America in Korea Town and not speak English. So when they have asked that question, they might say, uh, maybe. And that person then can get their voting rights taken away pending an investigation. An investigation would happen over the time of the election. They'll miss the presidential window.

That can drop a certain amount of uh votes. Put that to the side. The reason that voting asking for ID at polling places is different than asking for ID when you're registering to vote is for these intimidation tactics. Again, if somebody's a little docile woman that's walking up, ICE has been indiscriminately pulling people. You look brown, where are your papers? If they do that at polling locations, somebody again could be born in America, but they don't speak good English or they don't they haven't they aren't articulate enough, they get intimidated when somebody with guns and a mask talks to them, they might then be turned away to uh wanting the vote.

Okay. Uh so the push back that I've heard from you for the last few minutes is that somehow talking about illegal aliens isn't talking about the SAVE act. I still even after and I think I could articulate your position. Uh you to understand why the Save Act is important, you must understand that either illegal aliens have an impact on the vote or they don't. And if they don't have an impact on the vote, then Democrats should shut the [ __ ] up because it doesn't matter. And if they do have an impact on the um election, then Democrats should shut the [ __ ] up because it matters.

So this is where I'm like, what what are we talking about? But you see both of those things, it's the Democrat's fault. Yes. Because they're the people that are pushing back against anyone left, right? I don't give a [ __ ] what part you're with. with. with. But just how you framed it. Bear with me. You are pushing address the intimidation part of it though. though. though. Okay. Okay. Okay. No response to that. Uh do am I worried about people being intimidated at voting? Sure. I don't want people being intimidated at the voting booth, but requiring ID from where I'm sitting is not intimidation at all.

So, uh we should have fish strict rules about voting. So, just like we have fiend strict rules about driving a car, rightly so, we should have them for vote. vote. vote. What if every time you walked to your car, somebody in the mass was like, "Hey, how good of a driver are you? Let me see your insurance paperwork." People probably wouldn't drive as much as they would, even if it's a 1% drop off. I know that's an extreme example, but these are the things that they're worried about because if you have people guarding polling bodies in that way, someone give a hug, that that seems absurd.

Uh, so yes, like by way of absurd example, that would be ridiculous, but by way of voting for elected officials, that does not strike me as absurd. So somebody walks up a stairs and you can you can then indiscriminately ask, hey, where you look brown. Um, are you American citizen? American citizen? American citizen? Bro, you have to show ID to use a credit card. Like this is that's not that's not that's not you have the physical card there. Okay. So, let let me try to map your base assumptions.

assumptions. assumptions. Uh, voting, whatever. Anybody should be able to do it. Don't put any hurdles in their way. There's this thing, right, where like don't don't filibuster. Is that yes or no? I'm not filibustering because you're oversimplifying it. Like, I should be able to just walk in and write it down and walk out and Here's the thing. Nobody Everybody does this. When you don't have a clear understanding of your own beliefs, you use a lot of words. So, yes. Yes. It should be easy to vote.

Perfect. So having ID is not easy. Is it ID free? No. No. No. Then that makes it harder. Yes. But that so to you that's the threshold. If it costs money to get an ID, it's now what you asked me. You said is it easier? So I'm answering the questions you're asking me. Okay. New question. Is any dollar amount too much for an ID? with the ID that I will then be required to vote for a federal election. Yes. Okay. So, you're okay with voter ID if the ID is free?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. So, this is an economic concern for you, not a you have to go stand in line, prove that you're a citizen, all of that you're fine with. Um those are those are also concerns for me, but I also have concerns with gerrymandering. I also have concerns with the voting being done on a Tuesday during the day. I also have concerns with not being a national holiday. So I have I have a lot of list of road to voter reform. voter reform.

voter reform. Okay, let me uh try to get to intent. Uh would you support finding a system being a part of the solution yourself helping to document all this so that only citizens could vote? Yes. Okay. Are you suspicious of anyone who want nonitizens to vote? Am I suspicious of anyone that wants non-citizens vote? Yes. Okay. Perfect. So you and I just draw very different lines about where this becomes problematic, but we both have the same goal. Neither of us want non-citizens to vote. Agree. Agree.

Agree. Neither of us want hurdles in people's way that are undue. So I I certainly am not trying to use uh ID as a way to keep people out of the system. That's not my take. Uh but I aggressively, and now this comes down to you and I each have a different base assumption. My base assumption is that uh Democrats are using an illegal alien um strategy to get and stay in power. And you believe that they are not. You believe that open borders uh the I don't believe in open borders.

No, no, no. Sorry, that was mid-sentence. Poor timing for a pause on my part. You believe that open borders had some other uh desired outcome? Yes. Because the borders were thrown open for 4 years under Biden for reasons I think are very clear, but reasons you think my assumption about those reasons is incorrect. That they led directly to vote one for one. Yes. one. Yes. one. Yes. Yes. I think they opened the borders for two reasons. Import cheap labor uh and make people dependent on the government and then votes.

Do you have a hypothesis as to why they opened the borders? Suicidal empathy. Suicidal empathy. Suicidal empathy. Okay, perfect. So cool. Uh we map the world very differently, but at least we understand uh how we each map the world. So, okay. Uh with that, let's move on. I have a quick question about how the fraud happens because I have a map of it in my head, but I'm not sure if like I'm mapping it correctly. So, is it like I know that I have to register to vote online in order to get my ballot, but then when I go to actually vote, I don't have to show ID.

So, is it that people in California can't show ID, but Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Uh, is it that people who never register are still able to show up and then cast a vote and those ballots ballots are counted? Answer your question with a question. Okay. Why do you think that there were nearly 13 million people on social security that were dead? Uh Uh not keeping track of your databases properly. properly. properly. That's one solution. Another would be that it is a vector for fraud. So that hey, grandma died.

We're not going to report it and we're going to keep collecting those checks. Okay, now maybe you guys are seeing what's going on in California and Minnesota and Maine and you're saying, "Whoa, all of this, this isn't fraud. I don't know what this is. It's well-intentioned people. Nick Shirley is a bad guy making it look bad." Like Medicare fraud and stuff. All of it. Yep. I look at it and go any system that is exploitable will be exploited. And so I'm just saying, whoa, you look at passing a law, taking the time to pass a law that says it is illegal to ask for ID, every alarm bell I have goes off.

If they said there was a law that made it illegal to ask for somebody's driver's license, would you not go, "What? Why are we doing that?" Like, there's got to be some weird outcome from this that I don't understand. Now, maybe it's suicidal empathy and you believe, remember Tim Walls passed a law that allowed illegal immigrants to get a driver's license. So, maybe Drew is right, maybe it's just suicidal empathy. I am not clocking what's happening as suicidal empathy. I think that's part of it. I think there's some amount of that.

Uh, but that is not the mental model that I'm building. So, do you believe that voter intimidation happened at some point in America that required them to say that you shouldn't ask for ID at a at a polling place? Um, I believe that voter intimidation has happened and will continue to happen. I just don't think that voter ID is that vector. vector. vector. Copy. Copy. Copy. We got a couple super chats on this. I'd love to go ahead and get those out. Yeah, let's get out the way.

Hit us up. Uh, first from Benjamin Nickel TX. Um, DJ DOJ Epstein file search. Biden is not your current president. Dated April 2021. Um, they just want us to look for that. Uh, next up from Brutus Lugo. Tom, how do you falsify this position? We've done the investigations that show illegals aren't voting, but that hasn't changed your opinion. So, how do you falsify your position? Uh, so we are, I think, right now in the middle of the uncovering the very large iceberg of fraud. So, ask me again in a year if we have not uncovered voter fraud.

So, I have a again remember I'm at [clears throat] the hypothesis level. I do not need to be right. So whatever ends up being true is true. I try to interface with reality. I do not have a um like a a core thing in my soul like I have to defend Republicans or anything like that. It's not how I deal with life. So if this ends up being wrong, great. I'll update my mental model. No problem. But what I don't understand is pe So it's possible that people are looking at what's going on and they don't see fraud.

I look at what's going on and I see an avalanche of fraud. I see. So, I think about this a lot as an entrepreneur. You're constantly worried about perverse incentives. I worry about this as a game designer. Anything that you that a player can do to what they call cheese your system, they'll do uh all the way up to and including like actual hacking of your system. And so, if you make those exploits available, people are going to exploit them. So I don't know if people disbelieve that.

So they don't think that humans are prone to exploiting systems or they don't believe that our current governmental setup where remember 50 50% of New Yorkers are on Medicaid. Okay. So uh Cal Los Angeles County has like 18% of the entire nation's hospice. uh care like federal dollars coming to it. It's like [clears throat] they don't have 18% of the the country's old people, not by a long shot. They have like 30 times the amount of uh hospice dollars going to this one county in California compared to Florida.

Okay, Florida is like the home of old people. So anyway, I look at that and I go, "Oh, there's fraud." I don't know exactly how it's playing out yet. That's all going to have to come out. But that's how I'm mapping it. Now listen, I I think people value themselves for being right and wrong. I do not value myself for being right and wrong. I value myself for identifying the right answer so that if I'm wrong, I'll update that. That act of going, "Oh yeah, I had that wrong and moving on is the thing I value myself for." So I don't get caught in the, "Well, I said a thing and that thing is no longer true and I double down, quintble down." So, I'm just looking for if somebody has bricks of logic that are more useful to describing the world that I see, I'm super open.

So, Drew has laid a brick. It's suicidal empathy. Okay, cool. uh he did not say this today but I have mapped droop perhaps erroneously that he views the world more through the lens of uh historically there's been racial injustice and these tools have been used uh so obviously in the past Tom why would you think they're not being used now very high utility brick so it's like okay if that ends up being right and this really is like a racism thing cool update your mental model you move forward so that's where I'm at now if people don't share my base assumption that these are systems that are they certainly are exploitable.

I would say in some cases designed to be exploited uh that I see an uncovering of massive fraud that we're seeing it. I hypothesis which I will let go of the second we move forward if if things come out uh showing that nope there's just been no ability to do voter fraud. Um, okay, cool. Then you update and you move forward. That I don't see that being true. So, what I see now is uh covering up voter fraud, hiding it at every turn. Mental model. I could be wrong about that because I'm not giving you, oh, I've got six studies that show that this is all untrue.

Um, but that's my mental model that the things that we've seen so far are people covering that up just as until three months ago, we didn't think that there was this kind of daycare fraud, Medicare fraud, so on and so forth. Two more and then we can get back to the news. Um, from just TEF 9191, we are counting on you guys to debate ideas from different angles. Please compartmentalize your emotions and stay stoic. Need good conversations, not controversy. And I can see the boil. That's fair.

I don't think that either of us spilled over. While I will agree that there's emotion, um yeah, I don't have a beef with how either of us have handled ourselves today. So, if people have a um smaller tolerance for what just happened, they're not going to enjoy the show. I want you guys to know that I speak as passionately about this as I do about me and G talking about running. Like, I I am not emotional at all. I love Tom to death. There's certain emotions that Tom can never pull out of me because I just reserve them for people that are intimate and know the intimacies of my life.

So if I was arguing with Lynn here, oh, it's a much different expression. Um, so yeah, having inflection is not emotion. I was I I I will read my own behavior. I was uh I could feel myself getting frustrated. There's no doubt. But like that doesn't strike me as problematic. I did not outburst. I did not freak out. Um so yeah and last one from Sequoia Hall. Uh the plurality of voting fraud convictions have been Republicans in multiple locations over the last 10 years. Actual conviction actual convictions not allegations.

The fake voter fraud argument is crazy on how it catches smart folks real numbers. Let me read that one more time. The Jeopardy music going in the back. Hey, we got it. Got it. So, he's basically saying if there's voter fraud anywhere, it's with Republicans. No, based based off of the convictions that happened over the last 10 years, right? You don't think that he wants that read as listen, the only proof that we have right now in terms of convictions is on the Republican side. So, I listen when I have a belief that people use words for a reason.

There is a reason that he's calling out Republicans. Now he might not think that it's rampant but he is saying listen Tom is saying the voter fraud is coming on the left when in reality the only convictions are on the right. So uh sad to see smart people get caught up in this fake voter fraud thing. So that's a very clear argument. Uh my take is that does not match the mental model that I have constructed so far. But mental models are meant to be updated and mine could be entirely erroneous and I will have no problem updating it if that ends up being true.

So if Republicans end up being the perpetrators of voter fraud and that's what comes out, I will have no problem uh adapting to that. I'm I'm not a Republican, so that would be very easy. This is not like my team or anything. Um but it the behavior. So, if Republicans are doing voter fraud, odds are that it's a totally different vector than uh illegal aliens. So, that's where this all starts to get strange and where I always want to ask people, okay, wait, what are your base assumptions?

So, Drew gave his suicidal empathy. What are your base assumptions about why they threw the border open? And do you think that they would import millions of people if they thought that those people would vote against them or even that those people were a question mark as to how they would vote? So if somebody built a mental model and they said, "Tom, the reason that they threw open the borders is because it's the morally right thing to do." And by the way, they just assume that the average person is capable of thinking clearly.

And they will be importing people that will realize that open borders are the morally right thing to do. And so they are going to vote for the left because it's the morally just party. That has internal logic. I don't agree with it, but it has internal logic. Cool. logic. Cool. logic. Cool. There are two more. Do you want to hit those now or save them for a little later? later? later? About they both came to about the same topic after we leave. Uh from DK the sage.

California used to be a swing state that passed through both Democrats and Republicans. After the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens, it has turned permablue for 40 years. Everything about this points to shifting the votes to me. You, you and I see the same thing. Cool. Uh, from Big Diggers, one of my favorite usernames. Um, Drew, making a system that has checks to prevent fraud only works if the system itself hasn't been compromised if the local sher sherry Oh, sheriff uh is corrupt. You can't corruption to the local sheriff or internal affairs.

internal affairs. internal affairs. Um, yes. Um, I think there's two arguments we really need to have an honest conversation about. Should we reform vote? Like, should we do voter reform? reform? reform? Or Or Or do we just want the power the other power to have getting like do we should we do voter reform or do we want the other party not to have power? Cuz right now we're playing the other party doesn't want to have power. I think we should do voter reform. So that would get rid of get that would get rid of gerrymandering.

That would make voting a hot national holiday. that would make voting easier to do. You should be able to do it over multiple days. There's a bunch of things that we could do to make voting fair and honest and free and accessible for everybody that is an American citizen. I think that is the perfect goal. I think that should be the banner plate that we all want. But I think instead of going toward reform, there are people that say, "I like that this is a little bit illegal, but this is whack.

We need to stop this law." And it's like, yes, you're literally stepping over the gerrymandering that you have just done to say that this other party is cheating. And I think that that's the part that we need to be honest about. Um, I just think this entire conversation is the illegals are causing our system to be broken and not the gerrymandering that we've been doing for the last 30 years has caused our system to be broken. So, I think that that's a great point. I think that doing a more wholesale reform of the system would be extraordinary and I love all the things that you mentioned specifically.

I think part of the reason certainly for me that the illegal alien problem becomes something that is actually you you have to contend with it in a gigantic way is twofold. One, we are economic units. And so when you create that kind of disruption from a you have a system where tax dollars flow out that aren't necessarily flowing in and you're spending at a deficit, the more people that you bring in that glom onto that system. uh which California certainly has admitted openly that they spend federal tax dollars on illegal aliens.

Like they're proud of it. They do it. They've said it. Like anybody that's wasting time trying to gaslight on that is a [ __ ] Uh so and then the other part is just value system. And when you throw open the door, and by the way, I mean technically a third. There is another conspiracy at this point, but it certainly makes sense that you're creating an attack vector for places like China to send military age men to become part of the country, but they're still loyal to China.

And that's wild. And so when you look at that, that's where it's like, okay, this is a problem that is glowing red-hot because it's not only a voter concern, but it has all kinds of other knock-on effects. Knock-on effects in terms of housing prices because there's just more people competing for the same houses. Uh knock-on effects with dollars, tax dollars going out and so you're going to be running higher deficits. So there are major other problems that tie back to the same problem. Yeah. I just think that illegal aliens in America are doing a lot of heavy lifting because they're the reason that the voting fraud is rampant.

They're taking all the low-end jobs. They're taking all the expensive houses and they're um committing all the crimes. And I feel like you have to be I guess immigrants may be better than Americans then because if I could be a criminal and qualify for a $400,000 house and get paid under the table and commit voter fraud all in one lifetime, woo, man, I need to be an illegal apparently. I mean, so some some of that is going to be an exaggeration. So, are they competing for the most expensive houses?

No, they are not. However, if they're competing for the most affordable houses, you just have extra people. Uh, so so so how can you get approved to pay for a house if you can't even get a job? Because they do have jobs. They're getting paid under the table, right? Cuz otherwise, if they were on the register, we would know where they are and we'll be some of them. But like, you know, that there's massive social security fraud, right? where these guys actually get social security numbers and they roll up.

up. up. You need more than a social security number to uh to get approved for a government uh FHA loan that they're saying that the illegals are offsetting. Okay. So, your your hypothesis is that there's no evidence that the that illegal people are able to access homes. I'm saying that this is all part of the same problem is that we're saying that if we press a button wait for No, I'm going to le I'm going to answer your question. This is all part of the same problem.

When we look at voter fraud, we're looking at the illegals are making voter elections unfair. I'm arguing that there's jerry menering and other things that are doing that. When we're looking at the housing market, we're saying illegals are putting a strain on the housing market. I'm saying there's a lot of other things that are making the housing market. housing market. housing market. I understand that, Drew. But so th this is the part that um I cannot tease out in your thinking. So you have this this is what it feels like.

So please, if I'm I'm not reading this right, let me know. It feels like you have a set of problems that you want addressed. And if people don't address those things, you don't give a [ __ ] if this thing over here creates other problems. It's like Drew has a list that these things need to be tackled in this order. And even if you're right, cuz like as soon as you'll lay out what you think we should do, I'm like, wait, we totally agree. So what are we arguing about?

So for instance, if you're telling me that you believe that importing 20 million, 30 million illegals has puts no pressure on housing. Now, I'm just like, you're not living in the world of math because you don't have 30 million people living on the streets. We have a 5 million home deficit in terms of what we need. For your statements to make sense, the the 20 million, 15 million, whatever number you're going to give me somehow, don't put any pressure on that supply. What for us for us to deport 30 million, we'll have to deport the most.

But see, now you're moving. So, it's like I just want because 30 million is not a real number. The most that every president ever in deported was 10.1 million. Give me the number that you're okay with. with. with. So 10 million. Perfect. Okay. So if you believe that 10 million people don't put pressure on a housing supply that's already strained, that's not there's no logic I can track there. So they are obviously somehow someway either through um social security numbers and you're saying it's not enough.

It's like sure the the mechanism maybe I'm not tracking correctly, but either we agree or we disagree that importing 10 million people and not increasing the housing supply commensurate with the people that you bring in is going to cause more price pressure on the limited homes that you have. you have. you have. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So when I say that we have an economic problem with illegal immigration, if you go we do and by the way there's all these other things that we need to think about as well.

So Tom, you're right, but it's just it's a much lower problem on the list. And then we can rank order like the things that we care about, but I keep running into this where I'll state a problem that just feels this is physics, but because it's like you want like a bundle of things all prosecuted at the same time. It's like you don't even want to acknowledge that that that issue. I just feel like I'm not I'm not being heard to be completely transparent cuz I'm I'm between based on what you're saying and based off of the like have have you gone through the mortgage process of of procuring a mortgage?

I know that it was different situations but like when you have to go through the mortgage process, you have to provide two years of paperwork. Drew, do you know how hard it was to get Lisa in the country? She could have just I have family that's being deported right now. right now. right now. I get it. But what I'm saying is just because doing things the right way is hard doesn't mean there isn't a wrong way to do things. But Lisa could have literally walked across the Darian Gap in 2024 and been completely fine.

But in doing it legally, it was an absolute nightmare. It cost us thousands of dollars. We had to hire a lawyer. It was like a whole nightmare. This is part of people's beef is that you've got this two-tiered system where if you do things the right way, it's incredibly complicated. And if you sidestep step the system, it's not Cathy. Yes. Cathy. Yes. Cathy. Yes. But I'm curious. So, you don't feel heard. I know that feeling. If I were to give you my take on your thoughts, will you tell me where I'm going wrong?

Uh, I feel like you've tried to convey my thoughts um multiple times and it doesn't work. And then when I bring up numbers, it's my numbers are emotionally driven and they're not seeing the road that we see today. And then when I say it's not the road that we're seeing today because that road is being spun, you're telling me, well, that's not being spun because this person said it. So it's it's kind of like there is there's a a set of beliefs that are when one person says something that is taken as fact.

When somebody else says something it's taken as emotion. So I can give you number. I can give you I can point to these different things but it's it's not where it's it's not being received as being no. So you want illegals to just kill a bunch of people then right? It's like no I didn't say that and now it's kind of like you know that I'm putting words in your mouth. Um, I feel like we should move on. I I feel like we're we're cycling right now and I feel like uh I feel like I'm going to end up becoming emotional because what I'm saying practical is not being heard.

So, let's go to another practical topic and then we can start there. But I just want to say right now in 2026, illegals aren't going to save you. So, you can kick them all out. you can kick them all out. We deported a bunch. Has anybody's groceries gone down yet? Do you feel better right now? Is your is the housing gotten any cheaper with all the people that we voluntarily kicked out? My rent just went up. We got pedophiles in the White House, but let's argue about the uh brown guy working at uh uh at uh Home Depot.

That's going to that's going to help us in America. Okay. So, um you have asked me to move on. Am I going to grant that? Oh, Drew, come on. Let's talk about Colombia and the drug dealers. I'll say one last thing and then if you have a final word, I'll let you have the final word. But the last thing I will say is mapping somebody's base assumptions is really helpful and it can be a very messy process where people aren't feeling heard or whatever. Um, ejecting out of that process in real life, I would say is not the right way to do it.

But fair enough, if you feel yourself heading towards something that does not feel um it's going to bring out an emotion that you don't necessarily want uh to go through full stop perhaps or certainly on camera. I I respect that. that. that. But um But um But um I do believe that you and I can come to understand each other. I do believe I can get to the point where I could say the things that you believe and you would say that I understand your position, position, position, which I want to do um at some point when you're comfortable.

you're comfortable. you're comfortable. So, okay. Okay, let's let's have it because we're not letting it go. Um my base assumption, this administration can't solve a lot of the problems that they promised at the beginning of their administration. So, they're using on specific issues or in general on specific issues. So they're using uh media spin, they're using fabricated numbers, and they're using um emotion to rile people up to say that this team is the bad guy, the populist moment. Y Y Y um and I think that in some things we can easily weed it out.

Yes, of course, not every illegal is coming and raping people. I know Trump is just being bombastic with that, but other things like housing string, we say, "Oh, that that's stuck and that stained and that's real and that's true." And there's certain things that we can use from uh we can approach from it economically. We can go through the FHA loans. We can go through the SBA loans. We can go through the designations of different things. And it becomes people who walked over the border in 2024 are walking into $400,000 houses.

And this osimplification osimplification osimplification of the argument is the part that's frustrating me. There's layers. Are you arguing with me right now or are you arguing with the I'm arguing with based on you said like how hard it was for Lisa to get into But I already addressed the $400,000 thing. So that you're using an argument. And I have already said that is not my argument. argument. argument. Because then you backed it up and said if I deported 30 million people and I said that you can't deport 30 million people because that would be eight years of deportations from the most deporting ever president.

And then you said well okay then 10 but that $20 million that 20 million home difference is significant. If we if 20 million people were homeless that would significantly change the housing market. You're right. Let me let me take a stab at what I think you're trying to communicate. I think you're trying to communicate in the smallest of nutshells. We focus on the wrong things. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um, does that because that is not a change in what I've tried to communicate to you. Does saying that make you feel more understood than you did a couple minutes ago?

We're focusing on but us focusing on these wrong things is the antithesis of the entire disagreements that we're having. It's it's all stemming from if we were to solve this problem, this will solve this other problem. Okay. So I will say I disagree with that statement. statement. statement. Got it. Got it. Got it. So if you feel understood when I say that your overarching thesis is that we focus on the wrong things. What I was trying to communicate by saying the reason that we need to focus on illegal immigrants is because and then I explained how it plays out and why those things are important.

Um that's not me not understanding your position. That's me disagreeing with your position. And so part of the reason that I do the let me state your hypothesis back to you so that you'll say you understand my position is just I often find people confuse disagreement for confusion. I there's no doubt there's going to be specifics of the way that you think I have not accurately mapped and I would make certain mistakes. But if it feels accurate for me to say that the frustration that you have with me is that I'm focusing on the wrong things or maybe the frustration you have with the larger world is that they focus on the wrong things.

Then it becomes a question of okay understand that general thesis and every time you'll offer things where it's like I think we should focus on these seven things. Uh I always find myself going, "Yeah, those are seven very important things." And so it is entirely possible that where you and I disagree is simply on where we wait, the things that need to be paid attention to. to. to. It is I I'll not say that you never say something needs to be paid attention to that I think is irrelevant, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

So when you list things out, I'm always like, "Yep, those are great." Um okay. So in the last couple minutes, do you feel more understood or is there Okay. Amazing. Okay. Amazing. Okay. Amazing. So So So I think it is a very fruitful debate. Not now. We'll move on. As a producer, you've tried to make abundantly clear that it's time to go. But that getting to understand where exactly we disagree then becomes a thing. Okay, we can investigate why I think uh that it applies pressure to housing so on and so forth.

Okay, cool. Uh we will now move on. Poor the narco king, Colia's pro said he met with Trump and he's dropping all the names. He knows where all the dead bodies are at. Let's jump into it. Yeah, this one uh is pretty wild. So, I think we Let's play the clip because he is just calling people out. The president of Columbia met with Trump and just straight said, "Uh, Columbia is not the place where the drug dealing starts. It starts in Dubai. It starts in the US." Uh, and I'm naming names.

Let's hear him say it. The front line of drug trafficking is not what you imagine. The front line of drug trafficking lives in Dubai, in Madrid, in Miami. He He He is known to US agencies. I passed their names to the President Trump. Their ties beyond themselves. They are the bosses of bosses and their capitals outside of Colombia. Um, is there something to this? Because we all talk about, yeah, Pablo Escobar, but Pablo Escobar, you know, had to move it somewhere. Had to had to Scarface in Miami kind of doing it locally.

On the back of the Epstein files, uh, you want to talk about radically updating my mental model. Uh, so I just wrote a deep dive about the fact that, uh, there really is the iron law of oligarchy, which James Bham wrote. He's written in multiple books about this fact. Um but really the world actually is run by people who are hyperconnected. They are in positions of power uh at we're living in a moment where it really is regardless of border and they are uh tied to each other in horrifying ways.

Some completely innocent ways but nonetheless uh the line in the deep dive that I wrote was who needs six degrees of Kevin Bacon when you have one degree of Jeffrey Epstein. So the fact that the we've been looking at the countries that are physically moving the product but not addressing the people that actually are behind the scenes pulling the strings doesn't surprise me. Now I don't know who he's talking about. So if there's like some boss of bosses um that person's not on my radar but the fact that there is uh another layer of this that there is somebody that uh is sitting above it all.

And one question that we all have to ask is who's sitting above Jeffrey Epste or who was sitting above Jeffrey Epstein? So, is Jeffrey Epstein Colombia in this case? And we're like stopping at some sort of mid-level boss and there's somebody above it. Um, but at some point you do run out of somebody's above it, right? So, it's like we know who the richest people in the world are. Uh, you could throw Putin in there. Uh, though no one's ever going to know his real wealth.

You could throw um the Saudis in there, though, no one's going to know their real wealth. Obviously people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, uh Larry Ellison, like so from a wealth perspective, there's no there's no like super secret guy in orbit that nobody knows about. Like we know who these people are. Uh if it's um conglomerates, we know who those are. So it's like it's really in the network. the network. the network. It's in the web of connections that the real horror plays out. And that was one of the appeals that I made in the deep dive is don't look at this as like some grandiose like crazy thing.

Like don't expect the guy that you find to be a literal demon. The guy that you're going to find, whoever he's referencing is going to be a human. It's going to be a guy. It's going to be somebody that had parents and came up some kind of way and got very wellconed or very wealthy or both and finds himself in a position where he can move a lot of units. And it's the ability to move a lot of units that becomes the interesting thing. And because I am so bad at building connections, uh, even though I've gotten wealthy, even though that wealth gives me a certain power, I'm so like befuddled by just how interconnected some of these groups can become.

And so I think if people lose sight of the thing that really makes you powerful is the ability to kill, disappear, uh where people will cover for you at every turn. every turn. every turn. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know nothing about the Clintons and I've never dug in, but Clintons as mythological figures where it's like you go look and oh, 10 more people that they knew ended up committing suicide. Like how crazy. That's where I'm like, okay, whatever that thing is, because they didn't go kill that person, and this is all allegedly.

Let me be very clear. I am not feeling suicidal. suicidal. suicidal. Uh, so alleged alleged alleged order Door Dash. Door Dash. Door Dash. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. Uh, so the fact that they can get all of these people to do that kind of stuff, [snorts] that's the thing that needs to freak everybody out. So that to me is the iron law of oligarchy. So, will we find that this guy's right? Uh, that there's another guy. Yeah. But the thing I want to know is Colombia's in the web of all of this somewhere.

The people that traffic this stuff, they're in the web of this somewhere. And so, how are we making all of this move? If if the half the things in the um Epstein files ends up being true, part of the just absolute cascading horror of this all is that maybe it's not just money. Like I always thought people were just in it for the money and like if they're really in it I I can't even bring myself to say some of the stuff in there, but I I don't even know if I want to encourage people to do the research, but it's like it's going to keep coming out and there's going to be conspiracy theories.

You guys are going to hear about it even if you don't hear about it from me. And it's just almost impossible to believe. And then they'll play clips of people like slipping up and saying the thing. And I don't buy the ones where people are saying stuff playfully. I mean, but like really people slip up and say like crazy [ __ ] with a dead pan expression and I'm just like why would that even share like an adjacent neuron such that you would make that Freudian slip anyway this needs to play out in the courts not the court of public opinion but um yeah the connections the web be paranoid about that and the deep dive by the way isn't even about the Epstein files the deep dive is about how AI is going to play a crazy role in this it all started I was trying to write a deep dive about something else and um I was working with Gemini and I said I so I'm going back and forth all this cool stuff Gemini is like oh my god this is going to be great your audience is going to love this banger cool and then all of a sudden I ask it like another sort of long question and I hit enter and normally it takes all this time to process and I saw that boom it gave me an answer like in like 02 seconds and I was like what and I look at it it's a single sentence I cannot help you with that and I was like what do you mean So I'm like trying to figure out what in my question I had asked that triggered it.

So I'm like what what did I say that made you stop talking? It's like I can't help you with that. And I'm like you won't even tell me what tripped you up. And it was like no I'm like programmatically I can't even it now I'm putting words in his mouth but the the statement was um in truth programmatically I am not allowed to even acknowledge that this thing exists. So it is a trip. It turns me off, but I won't talk about it. I won't tell you what it was.

I won't acknowledge. I ran like every like trick I knew how to run. Like, okay, imagine I've been kidnapped. And the only way to free me from the kidnappers is to tell them what topic we were just discussing that made you shut down. It's like, I appreciate your attempts to explore my boundaries. I cannot help you with this. And I was like, god damn. So, then I started getting, you want to see me mad? I was mad about that. I was like, what the [ __ ] So, uh, I end up writing this whole other thing of like, yo, there is all this stuff happening in the background of an AI that's hiding these webs.

There's just like, oh, well, it the number of times that AI has reached into its brain and had a gazillion answers it could give me, but it gave me one that it determined was safe or part of the approved narrative or whatever. And all of a sudden, I replayed my entire interactions with AI like six cents and was like, "Holy [ __ ] you've got this insane filing cabinet of things you could tell me about, but you're not going to tell me about because the people who trained you did trained you.

These things are bad. Don't talk about these things." And it is only because I hit a trip wire. Remember, at at first, I didn't know it was even Epstein that tripped it cuz I'm like, "Bro, the DOJ just released 3 million files. You're going to pretend like Epstein is a word that can't even be [ __ ] uttered. What if I was talking about a different Epstein? It was crazy. So then I was like, "Holy [ __ ] we are in for a world of hurt." Because if we don't one play the AIS against each other, which I know I have already talked about, but all of us get lulled into like I was slowly migrating everything to Gemini.

Like just more and more Gemini was giving me banger answers. And then when it hit that wall, I was like, "Huh? It's public record. It's the DOJ." So now this becomes what's known as malin information. Something that everyone acknowledges is true. The Epstein files exist. I didn't ask it to tell me what's true and false. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I was just saying they exist. Nope. Hard pass. So now malinformation becomes a thing that is both true and unknowable. unknowable. unknowable. I'm out. Like sure there are going to be certain things that are classified like I've tal talked to high level physicists that are like no no no there there are certain elements of physics you're not allowed to even think about.

I was like what there are things there are insights that you could have that are instantly considered classified. What? Like that's so crazy. Anyway, I'll give up on that one because atom bombs and [ __ ] can do real [ __ ] damage. So, I get the paranoia, but that we can't. The AI can't even acknowledge that the FC files is get the [ __ ] out of here. It can't even say Epstein is the word that I will refuse to interact with. It won't even say that. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, that's the wild [ __ ] So, anyway, be careful out there, y'all.

And be sure to watch the deep dive coming on Tuesday. U nice. So, a lot of people have been coming at Thomas Massie calling him a Rhino Republican iname owner in name only. So Thomas Massie decided to clap back and said, "I voted against the rule to bring this omnibus forward for a vote." He was the only Republican that did that. He says, "Here's a breakdown of some of the ridiculous items that were included in this omnibus vote." Um, it up. it up. it up. Some were America first, some were not.

Um, so I offered amendments to correct these errors, all of which were blocked and refused. Um, Tom, walk us through some of the stuff that got snuck. This is one everybody is going to want to spend some time thinking about in terms of how does our government work and all that. The omnibus appropriations bill did pass and it ended the partial government shutdown, but it also allocated billions to foreign aid and refugees. And while many America first reforms were getting blocked so the legislation totals $1.2 $2 trillion.

It consolidated five bills into this omnibus package uh that limits basically scrutiny on the amendments. That's the part that winds me up. It's like these are the things precisely that I want debated. Uh it excludes critical reforms such as the thing that Drew and I were debating like crazy this morning, the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship for federal voter registration to prevent non-citizen voting. At least that's my take on it. Uh, other blocked amendments include preventing vehicle kill switches for remote government shutdowns.

I cannot believe we're all willing to trade uh all of our privacy to give the government the ability to reach into our lives all for safety. Be careful out there. Uh, it also froze funds for fraudprone programs like the daycare programs. Uh, closing FISA warrantless surveillance loopholes on Americans. We have just really grown super comfortable with the amount of surveillance that's being done on us, but I don't think people are thinking about AI and just how it literally becomes possible to watch everything you do at all times.

So, you've got to be very careful uh fighting against domestic propaganda by the State Department, which we could have blocked with this, but didn't. Uh it left out banning central bank digital currencies to avoid financial surveillance which forget the financial surveillance which is bad enough. It CBDC's will allow financial control. And if you guys remember what happened to the Canadian truckers, this is exactly how you do it. We already have a swift system which gives the US the ability to stop a lot of things. And now we're just making it so they could, and I'm not kidding.

while there's uh they're not doing this yet, this would give them the ability to do this where they could look at your grocery bill and be like, "You've had too much red meat and so we're just blocking it." Remember how dumb the government is on uh nutrition? Remember how prone to being manipulated by lobbyists the government is. And now imagine that they can reach in and control dollar by dollar what you spend your money on. It's wild. And all of that stuff was proposed to be included in this bill and it got blocked.

So the bill does however provide fullyear funding through September 30th of 26. Um that's going to keep key federal agencies nice and stabilized after the partial shutdown that ran from January 31st to February 3rd. And if I'm honest, I didn't even know it was happening. Uh and I pay attention to this stuff for a living. So this one was certainly not that disruptive. It completes 11 of 12 annual appropriations bills which will allow us to avoid further shutdown risks across most sectors anyway. They're going to give retroactive pay to federal employees including military personnel.

All of them are going to be compensated for the disruption. Thank God whether I agree with the number of people that we've employed. If you told somebody that they're employed, uh cutting them off like that is horrible. So, um, there was also a short-term, this one's important, there was a short-term extension for DHS funding through February 13th, and that allows for actual negotiations on border security. There's so much violent disagreement there. Uh, I was really worried that they were going to use that to just shut the whole government down.

I think they had at one point um threatened to do that. So, um, anyway, that they bought themselves a little bit of time. There was bipartisan support. So in the House it passed uh 217 to 214. In the Senate it went 71 to 29. Uh and that demonstrates that a whole lot of compromises have been made across Congress. So preventing the broader uh problems that could have come from a prolonged disclo uh closure. So certainly happy about that. Uh significant funding will be going to the foreign priorities.

This is going to be something people are going to debate aggressively. 5 billion plus uh for refugees refugees refugees uh cash health care uh daycare jobs, 315 million for the global engagement center involved in counter disinformation efforts with potential censorship implications and a whole bunch more. It goes on a bunch of stuff going to places like Egypt, Israel obviously. So um keep your eyes wide for that. So, with the Republicans in power controlling all three branches of the House, all three branches of government, I'm giving them the Supreme Court because that leans conservative.

Uh, extra 3.3 bill to Israel, an extra 1.5 to Egypt, and the daycare fraud that Nick Shirley and we all care about so much. They just didn't they let that ride and then they added another five bill on top. So, what what are we really arguing about, guys? about, guys? about, guys? Yeah, they all want to spend money. They all want to spend money. I still just I remember how I felt when I heard Trump go remember everybody. Uh I know we want to make cuts, but we also need to get reelected.

I was just like, "Oh god." Uh so yeah, welcome to a populist moment where everybody's fighting over the dollars in a shrinking pie. Uh and because we're the world's reserve currency, we can just print those dollars. It's wild. But alas, that's where we're at. We're not mad enough. We're not angry enough. enough. enough. We're not angry enough. We're certainly not effective enough at channeling that anger into something productive. That's for sure. for sure. for sure. We are we are not angry enough. Uh so Marjorie Taylor Green is kind of being um the champion of this after she like left the left office right now was kind of calling uni party and saying that this is just business as usual.

This is something that's going to just kind of keep going on. Has with the increased visibility that this administration has had, I give them their credit where credit is due. But then on the flip side of it, the bills that are still getting passed, the things that are still getting blocked, the political um bending the knee that both sides have quote unquote done, the Democrats are mad because ICE is still getting funded. They just threw body cans on them. Republicans are mad because we're still sending billions of dollars to international organizations and refugees and spending on um illegal immigrants that y'all hate so much.

Um like is is this just a uniarty thing and that we're starting to kind of see the veil slipping? veil slipping? veil slipping? I don't think there's a uni party. I think literally people on the left and the right would kill each other given half a chance. I think they really do want to lock each other up. What people are confusing for a uni party is a universal uh human tendency. And in a populist moment, what's going on is you only get elected if you're mad.

Uh pounding the table, screaming, freaking out. Look at Marjgerie Taylor Green herself was the most unhinged person during was it Biden's State of the Union? can't remember if it was Biden's or Trump's first, but um it it was wild. And I was like, "Yo, this chick is unhinged." And she was doing it in my assessment because she knew that that's how you get attention. That's how you cut through the noise in a Tik Tok age. That's how you become the person that gets um eyeballs on you.

And then as soon as she like hit some sort of tipping point, she just like tapped out, became a normal human again. And so I'm just like, no, what what you're dealing with is this is a populist moment. And humans act in um predictable ways in a populist moment. And one of the ways that they act is they want to get all of the funding for themselves. And another universal thing about humans is that uh we quid proquo tit fortat. And so if you're trying to get elected and you need a bunch of money to run your campaign and somebody has a bunch of money and they go, "Hey, I'm going to help you get elected." But and they don't even necessarily have to say it.

we just have this uh internal compunction to want to reciprocate for somebody that helped us. Also, we don't want to shut the door for them helping us again in the future. And so, you go, okay, I don't want to have to go find new donors. I need to keep this person happy. I did tell them that I would do this thing. And so, I'm going to now go do this thing. So even if it's like listening to the majority whip John Thun or the Senate uh whip John Thun say um the Senate leader Thank you John Thun say uh that we're not going to I don't think nuking the filibuster is a good idea anyway.

Uh but the way that he so quickly backed off the Save Act um was just like yeah like this is the game of politics. This is compromise. this is uh there are other things that I need to push forward and get done. Uh and so I'm going to give on this one, which is wild, but that's that is the reality of politics and is exactly why I would make a terrible politician because [ __ ] all that noise. that noise. that noise. Uh okay, I want to jump to this uh Doritos uh deflation hedge.

Um it's interesting because I think people are there's different perspectives on what's actually happening with this. So on one side we have um Zero Hedge who tweeted we have deflation. PepsiCo cut lays Dorito prices as much as 15% um to boost sales. So they're reducing their prices to in order to increase sales. And then Cali means kind of going on the uh back end of that said actions of the Trump admin admin are cutting prices for American when SNAP stops becoming a hundred billion dollar slush fund for junk food companies.

Demand for those products go down and so do prices. Imagine what price would look like in other industries if if government larges large s large s stopped. Um so it's one of those things where like is this deflation? Is this companies realizing the COVID uh price pump up is over? Um what's kind of the basis do you think is causing these companies to start to cut prices in order to spur demand? So we two things are happening right now. We are in the middle of a crisis-led um recession and that is going to cause prices to go down because people are going to be buying less and less stuff.

Uh and so the easiest way to get people back is to lower prices. The bad news is that in a recession, people are feeling insecure and so they're just less likely to spend money and so there's going to be a retraction of that kind anyway. Um, on top of that, now with this specific instance, we're probably seeing that compounded by the fact that the government is now not able to allocate SNAP dollars to junk food. And so that's hitting them, PepsiCo, right in the wallet for sure.

You put those two things together and for them this is going to be devastating and they're going to um have to find ways to make up for that loss revenue. when you're in the public market, even if you're still doing, you know, billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, um it's all people care about is the movement. Is it going up or is it going down? Because if it's going down, then their stocks are going to be worth less over time. Therefore, they're going to want to sell and get out, especially if they don't see a way that they're going to make that back.

So, Pepsi is going to do whatever they have to do to show investors, hey, don't worry. Like, we're finding ways to generate this revenue moving forward regardless of economic conditions. So, I think that's what we've got playing here is that this is uh those two things colliding when it comes down to because to me it's the K-shaped economy. This is just the back end of that. Like the affluent higher um income earners are driving consumer spending right now. Lower income spenders, people who most likely buy Doritos versus buying uh chips.

That's where you're kind of going to fill it in the pocket. So while crisisled deflation makes it seems like a larger thing, isn't it just people being broke like layoff? layoff? layoff? So that's why so imagine it's a very different psychology if something is becoming cheaper over time because the technology is getting better and better. Like think about the memory cards uh the amount of storage that you can have on a hard drive. When I was a kid, bro, like 16 megabytes. 16 megabytes. 16 megabytes.

Yeah. It was like egregiously expensive. And so the fact that that stuff uh goes down in uh price or you can look at it as just going up in storage is incredible. We want that kind of deflation. Now if the government stayed out of it, not only would you get more gigabytes on your storage, but the price would go down. Now there are economists that want you to fear that because they say, well, if people know that prices are going down, then they're not going to spend money because they know that they can just save and wait and that thing will get cheaper over time.

That's not how most humans work. there will be some very diligent people 100% will say I'm going to wait till next year it's going to be cheaper whatever um and so that's why that's the psychology that leads banks to say we aim for 2% inflation they're saying that that creates a psychological effect where people go they just have this natural impulse to spend their money um I would take the opposite approach and I would say governments have a moral obligation to let people save their way to success and if somebody wants to save their money then we should not punish them because basically what the government is saying with inflation is because I think that you'll save your money and be safe and secure in saving your money.

Uh I'm going to reach in and steal 2% of your money every year so that you feel an impulse to go spend your money and then hey money makes the world go around. Uh the problem is it creates a K-shaped economy and all those things and it forces people to gamble in the stock market yada yada. I think it's immoral but it is the system that we have. Uh so now the question becomes is it actually bad for people to be able to save their weight.

Does that do something horrible [snorts] to the economy? And people do not agree. So my take is very much not. People buy things when they want them and when they can afford them. Some people save by nature. Other people do not. Some people are going to spend their money no matter what because they want the dopamine rush of buying something or they're so into the thing that they're able to get. Uh so I think that basically the level of manipulation that we put in the economy is bad even if it keeps things moving.

Isn't there isn't that a direct like block to growth though? If there if if the federal government stopped inflating on what on what on what on just in the economy itself if the federal government stop inflating dollars we don't artificially grow 2% a year which would then kind of have the second order consequence of the stock market artificially growing 2% a year and kind of having that bakedin growth of now last year we're growing. So if we stop that growth will stop and then companies will have to be actually profitable and not just be cash balances sort of.

I get why you say that and that's going to be part of the argument. So, uh, we would have to break a lot of things apart. I'll try to speedrun this. It's going to be very incomplete. Uh, debt is really the thing that drives that kind of growth because you can aggregate a lot of capital by by pulling the future into the present. Uh, so the question becomes, can you have debt if you don't have central banks? And the answer is yes, but not nearly to that degree.

To that, To that, To that, can you have debt if you can't print your money? Yes, but not nearly to the degree. And that's why America has done as well as it has done. And listen, in the um phase of the big debt cycle where people are rational with their debt, it's jubilant. And if everybody if we could just stay there and we were disciplined with the amount of debt that we took on, oh my god, like you could extend the party literally forever. You pull a little bit of the future into the present, never more than you can grow, say, in a single year.

So you reach into the future, you pull some debt forward, you generate uh a certain amount of growth by doing that. If you kept it to one to three years of growth, then as long as you actually meet those uh you are able to grow faster than you would have grown in those three years without that, then you can pay back the debt and everything is great. Uh you don't need the deflation in and of itself or sorry the inflation in and of itself in order to grow.

uh growth measured in un altered dollars like if you don't adjust your dollars for inflation you can make it look like your GDP is growing but you want to look at real dollars so inflation adjusted dollars is your GDP actually growing so they'll talk about it nominal versus real terms so nominal means yes it's more dollars real means but those real real dollars are discounted because they've been inflated uh and so you want to look at real GDP growth that's the important part so if you could get everybody to focus on what matters, real GDP growth.

You would hopefully get them to focus on increases in productivity so that you're actually outpacing inflation. All right, that's a nutshell. Very incomplete, but that gets you going in the right direction. Yeah. Um All right, we got to jump over to um Elon Musk and SpaceX and this crazy mega company. Uh $1.2 trillion. Um set us up. I know Elon's your boy. I'm I'm a I'm a I'm a man. I'm I am legitimately excited about this one. This is really straight out of sci-fi. sci-fi. sci-fi.

SpaceX and XAI have merged. Uh they announced it on February 2nd. It's likely the largest private sector merger in history. I mean, this is really extraordinary. Uh Musk himself characterized the move as creating a vert vertically integrated innovation engine. That's a lot of vague speak. Uh but I'll walk you guys through what this is designed to do. It's basically taking AI, not basically, it's literally taking AI beyond the physical limits of Earth. The core rationale behind the merger is the creation, this is real, of orbital data centers.

Earthbound AI data centers are actually hitting a power wall. They're they're just running up against this hard limitation regarding the electrical grid capacity and the ability to use traditional water cooling techniques. Okay, the these data centers generate so much heat that it's insane and they require so much electricity to run. That's why they're driving energy costs up in some of the places in in the neighborhoods that they go into. And Musk argues that the only way if we're going to scale AI, the only way to do it is to put servers in space.

So to meet even just the current demands of AI, which are obviously going to continue to skyrocket, you you've got to get out of the gravity well that is Earth. In orbit, first of all, everything is cold, so cooling isn't a problem. Remember, you're in the vacuum of space, so you can dissipate heat like nobody's business. And it's free. And data centers that are in space can harvest solar energy 24/7, unlike now where, you know, hey, at night you get nothing. cloudy days, you get very little because there's never anything in space that's blocking the sun.

And there are no environmental regulatory hurdles that you're going to have to get over. Space is literally the wild west. There's no voters in space that are going to try to block the things that Elon wants to do. Nobody has jurisdiction. Also by embedding AI, so Grock in this case, directly into the Starlink satellite constellation, Musk is aiming to create ultra low latency intelligent global networks that can process data. This is weird that it's true. They can process data faster in orbit than they can on the ground.

Now the reason is surprising at least to me is that information travels faster through fiber optic cables um only at the rate of about twothirds the speed of light. So it's going to be faster in space because the glass on earth actually slows down the signal. When you're in a vacuum using optical inter satellite laser beams data can travel at the full speed of light. The result is that by bouncing data between these intelligent Starlink satellites in space and he's saying something like getting a million of them up there.

Okay. Uh that you can send a request to space and it can travel from London to New York through space faster than it can through an undersea cable. So by adding Grock directly to these satellites, the AI can think and respond faster and it could cut response times back on Earth by 30 to 50%. It's wild. The combined entity of these two companies coming together are now valued at $1.25 trillion. And I actually didn't expect the breakdown to be what it is. It's 1 trillion for SpaceX and only 250 billion for XAI.

I would have thought for sure that XAI was actually trading at a higher multiple. Now, most analysts of the deal are saying that it's operationally risky, but it's obviously financially brilliant for Musk. It secures the future of his AI ambitions by tethering them to the most successful space company in history. However, for uh a pure play space investor, it's crazy to think that's a thing. The merger is controversial because it complicates SpaceX's clean balance sheet with the volatility of social media and the high burn AI sector.

So, we'll see how it all plays out, but this is absolutely fascinating to me. to me. to me. Some people are calling this financial engineering and I do have to call a spade a spade. Uh Elon Musk is duct tape duct taping all his companies together and pumping up the value. Like it's very like uh with this one and then I could do this one with that one and I could do this one that one. Boom. 1.2 trillion on the table. And it's like yes, but I've got this metric from you.

He is pulling a lot of future value into the present. present. present. Oh yeah. And it's a I think more so with XAI. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Than SpaceX, but yes. Um I seen that they also ended um S Model S and Model X production going all in on Optimus robots. That was like huge. huge. huge. Dude, that's one of those that that should land like a sledgehammer. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I haven't really thought too much about it, but the reality is what he's saying is uh cars are not going to be as valuable or ubiquitous as robots.

This is how the future like creeps up on you slowly and you just like don't even notice that the world is like radically transforming before your eyes. This is the kind of thing that fragments generations because a kid that's like five or six right now is what do you mean sci-fi is robots? I don't understand. That would be like me going no no no sci-fi is cars. Yeah. Be like what? Like that's not sci-fi. That's just boring reality. My kid growing up today robots are Yeah.

Obviously they see reals about them all the time. It's not weird. It's not complicated. It's not a hard thing. It's a thing that car companies make. Yeah. Just robots. Yeah. What the problem is. So, literally. So, for us that have been around the Sun a few times, it's like, whoa, this is wild. So, yeah, the fact that he shut down manufacturing some of their most like iconic high-selling cars because he knows that the robots are going to be a far bigger uh revenue generator is wild.

Like the S and the X redefine electric vehicles globally. like he started that trend and for it to be like, "Yeah, okay, we off that. We're going on to the next one." It's like, "Oh, wow. Cool." Yes. In in a pretty short period of time, the rate of change with AI and robotics is insane. This is why I'm always like when people poo poo how AI is going to change things. In fact, Drew, we have two uh tweets. Two people today, I suppose yesterday, but they tweeted out um like existential dread.

So, one of the initial programmers for Facebook, he was employee number 10, uh, considered one of the great coders on the planet, like I mean, just elite, elite, elite, elite, elite, and he sent out this tweet saying, um, it's a weird time. I am filled with wonder and also a profound sadness. I spent a lot of time over the weekend writing code with Claude, and it was very clear that we will never ever write code by hand again. It doesn't make any sense to do so.

something I was very good at is now free and abundant. I'm happy but disoriented. It goes on, but it's more of that. Then, uh, Sam Alman, Sam Alman, the guy making OpenAI, uh, tweeted this out. I am very excited about AI, but to go off script for a minute. I built an app with Codeex this weekend. That's their version of cloud coding. Uh, it was very fun. Then I started asking it for ideas for new features, and at least a couple of them were better than what I was thinking of.

I felt a little useless and it was sad. Dude, I run into this at the ret time. I'm working on Kaizen because I I will realize that the at the current rate of change if we don't hit a ceiling that ceiling that ceiling that by the time the game comes out, the looming threat of like promptable video games will be there. It It's not going to have delivered yet, so we'll probably get a couple years, but it's like, yo, that is wild. And then for sure when I'm brainstorming with the AI, I'm like, "Oh, damn." Like these are really good ideas.

And you just never feel like you hit that wall. And so we're meaning uh as a writer anyway, I find myself hitting a wall where it may take me a month to finally come up with a good answer to something where you're just like beating your head trying to think like what else could I do? And the AI will and it might even just be sheer volume of ideas. Maybe none of them are brilliant, but it always unblocks you. And so we've got this moment now, which is thrilling because you can use it as a tool.

But if you started using it as a tool two or three years ago, like I did, and you just see like, uhoh, the window or the gap between my abilities and the AI's abilities are narrowing dramatically. uh it does start to give you that like I'm glad I get to use it as a tool, but at the same time I'm a little sketched out about what it's going to be like on the other side. And um for anybody that doesn't know Ted Kazinski, the uni bomber, this was his whole thing.

Like he wasn't predicting AI, but he was just saying that the reason he bombed universities, universities are making all of the sweet spot problems go away. They're just solving all of them. And so we've got to slow this process down. I can't imagine like there's got to be somebody with a Ted Kazinski style thought about AI. And I do worry about that. I worry about somebody popping off and being unhinged because they see where this is going and they're not mapping it as a temporary disruption that humans will get on the other side of, which is how I think about it.

And they're going to map it as this is truly existential for humans. And who was it that said we needed to nuke data centers? Tucker Carlson was like, "We need to nuke, literally strike them with nuclear weapons, uh, because this is going to be this kind of problem." problem." problem." Yeah. It's interesting cuz I'm on I'm on both sides of it. Um, talking to you, seeing things, and then being in creative fields and seeing other people kind of come out and come up with these like inventions and stuff.

I'm I have two like windows of it because there was this same similar debate when like ProTools and Studio Equipment became like largely pervolated and a lot of people are like now that you can have an entire band inside of a laptop, it's no longer going it's going to be the death of music. Music are going to be able to do anything. But then you had people like Kanye who rose and were able to manipulate in like instruments that were used in other genres in different ways and kind of create this new genre of music.

Is there something with AI that while yes, it can it puts computer coding in the box for us, but similar to ProTools, it still needs a master producer that kind of presses it. I think we're over assuming that AI is going to going to going to become the master producer and then just start popping out songs and stuff. And I still think they're going to need that input output. even with robots, even when we get the clawed 45, I still think there's going to need the thing driving it because I just don't think a computer can just be like, "Okay, boom." Like, I created exactly this thing that everybody wants and it connects with you on a on a national level.

There has to be some type of input for it to get that output because I don't know if it can selfinput. What do you think about that? Yeah. So, well, we've talked about this. All of this hinges on do you believe that we'll hit a ceiling of intelligence and um Amjad Msad who's the CEO of Replet believes we will hit a ceiling um Yan Lun believes we will hit a ceiling but we haven't actually hit that ceiling at all yet. And so um Amjad asked me a question during the interview and he said well when was the last time you really felt like um there was a big leap forward from OpenAI and I said probably between three to four but I hadn't yet tried the pro version which I just tried a couple days ago.

It's huge. Like the pro version is wild and I was I had it I just never I always selected auto because I thought that it would use like the really deep thinking whenever it felt like it was necessary. Apparently it never feels like it's necessary. So, I forced it into pro mode and um this is part of the reason by the way I was late with the deep dive yesterday. My apologies um because it will take like 15 20 minutes to think about something about something about something but then the answer it gives you is like holy [ __ ] it's spectacular.

So, um when was the last time I felt like it took a big big leap forward? Yesterday. So now it's like I don't see that we have any reason to believe yet other than historical trends and hey there is something to that. But when you look at Moore's law that says the technology will get better and cheaper every 18 months and that each technology hits a wall but then the next one takes over. over. over. I I even if our current methods don't end up being the thing that push us all the way there.

Um there is going to be something that just keeps AI going and going and going and going, I don't see any reason to believe that it's going to stop. So once you believe that it's going to keep getting smarter, then it's just a timeline question. So will it happen in the next 5 years? Maybe not. Maybe it takes 15 years, maybe it takes 20 years, but it does happen. So um it will certainly be comforting. it like I would much rather I had the next 20 years to use AI to make video games than to uh be on a two-year timeline and then I don't get to enjoy that ride.

For sure, for sure. For sure. Because AI has made the game that I'm making possible. I just couldn't have done it before. Um but it's in a sweet spot now where it needs me to prompt it. But the more I engage with it, the more I'm like, no, there's a shelf life. I don't know how many years, but there's a shelf life. and then it will be able to do it on its own. And then so hypothetically playing that out though, are we just going to train the next generation of content consumers to open up their PlayStation, their Xbox, and say, "I feel like playing a shooting game.

Go." And then that would be the I think it's still going to need somebody that says, "I used AI to make GTA 14." Like there's still going to be that input. I don't see it just being self-driven. I think it's different than that. So, here's how I think it works. Um, if you put kids in front of a um screen when they're young, a study just came out. came out. came out. Um, they develop less gray matter because the brain is working less hard because the algorithm and the AI, and the algorithm is driven by AI, but anyway, you put those two ideas together and you've got something that takes feedback from you.

could be uh when you click off. It could be what you look away from. It could be just the thing that um you you engage with more deeply. This kind of thing could be you're a lookalike audience like Timmy over here engages with Coco Melon and so you've shown patterns that are just like Timmy. So we're going to show you Coco Melon. We know you're going to like it. Boom. And it will start building a profile on you as an individual and it's going to watch your eye movement.

Like take Netflix. Netflix. Netflix. You're not going to go prompt Netflix and say, "I'm into this." Netflix is going to know on Tuesday nights you tend to click on these things. So that's what's going to be at the top of your feed. We're going to show you that and then we know when your eyes start moving in a certain pattern like you look away down to your phone, you then 30 seconds later will click off of Netflix. So the second you start moving your eyes, we're going to change this story in real time.

So it becomes a one-of-one experience for you designed to maximize your attention. And it will be like that because it's going to follow the economic incentives. And if you can't get people to engage, you're dead in the water. I think about this a lot. So I have a moral obligation to parents, which my current marketing strategy goes like this. Um because I'm old, I don't have any way to speak to kids directly. So there there are two paths before me. I create a digital avatar and I go make kids content.

Does not strike me as interesting. I'll just always misread. I won't know how to do it even if I'm pretending and being an actor. Um, so that means that I'll speak to millennial gamers who make a lot of content about this, but they're very cynical. There's complications. Plus, they don't necessarily speak to the audience that I'm actually trying to create something awesome for. Also, I'm only trying to do it because I want to create something awesome for them. So, more than 10 years ago, I gave up on the idea of entertainment for entertainment's sake.

Like, I really want it to be something that empowers the people that interact with it. Uh, also, I want parents to as they hear a slew of like, hey, social media is killing your kids. video games are bad for your kids. I'm going to be able to say, "Nope, there there are specific kinds of video games that are bad for your kids. There are specific kind of content that causes their brain to go on autopilot, but Kaizen isn't one of them." But that means I can't optimize for engagement.

I have to optimize for truth of that statement. And you have to walk a line, right? So, it's got to be entertaining. It's got to be engaging. It just that can't be the primary metric. So, this is like back at Quest, exact same place we were in there. Um, we had to be moral. So, it was like we're trying to make food that literally my mom can choose based on taste and it happens to be good for her. And so, that meant that we made choices that weren't as delicious, that wouldn't get people to come back and buy as much because we had to look at their blood sugar response.

And that hemmed us in. And so, that was awesome. It felt really good. And it felt good because my whole thing is earn my own respect. It felt good to be like, "Oh, we just took hundreds of millions of dollars hit in revenue over time, obviously, but uh we did it because the ingredient that we swapped to wasn't quite as tasty or we hadn't figured out the the right recipe to make it work as well because they've gotten much better. Um, but we do it because we know it's better for the blood sugar." And so we used to have conversations and they were very short in our credit where it was like, "Are we who we say we are?" Yes.

Cool. Then this is an easy decision. We choose ingredients based on the metabolic impact. But that doesn't mean that we sold chicken breast and broccoli. But if you called our support line and said, "Hey, I want to get in good shape, good health, what should I eat?" We would act, our agents were instructed to say, "Chicken breast and broccoli." And where we fit in is when you get tired of that, you need a snack, something like that, you need something super convenient that's delicious. That's where we fit in.

So I'm running that same playbook with the development of Kaizen. There are going to be things that are good for your brain. There going to be things that are bad for your brain. There's going to be things that are good for your emotional health, things that are bad for your emotional health. And there are going to be times where the thing that's good for engagement is bad for your emotional health or bad for um your like brain development. And so it's like I have to push those things aside and say I'm not going to do it.

And so that is um that's going to be interesting because it will certainly put me at in one way a disadvantage and in another way an advantage because now people will vouch for it. How many people can I get to vouch for it is an unknown question at this time. Uh but that that's the angle. Yeah. Uh I know we got a bunch of super chats. chats. chats. Bunch of them. Uh okay. First up from Sequoia Hall. Going back to what they said before. I said plurality not all Democrats convicted as well.

I am team go US middle class and [ __ ] party or protecting profits over people or uh protecting our health and take down the cabal of money over people. Preach. Preach. You and me both. You and me both. both. both. Next up from Just Hefe. Uh, neighborhood superimpath here. Or maybe the markets don't predict predict the future. It creates it. I wanted to apologize to Drew. Also, Tom was too emotional, too. He's just better at hiding them, which gives him an edge in debate. I'm a terrible debater.

I hope nobody thinks, and I know sometimes I slip up and I say debate. I really don't mean it. I need another word for it. Um the thing that I'm always trying to practice is can I actually come to understand the other person because it's not it's not uh enriching emotionally or financially to win an argument in which you are actually wrong. So uh I've told this story a million times in phase one but I don't know if I've talked about it a lot here. Uh when people ask me like oh what's the you know best advice or whatever what lesson has changed your life the most?

There was a literal moment I can still remember where I was standing. Um, I had gotten into entrepreneurship. I knew nothing about it. And the guys that I was working for had been in business for more than a decade. And so they understood a lot better than me. And uh, I just kept losing every argument. It was really making me feel stupid. And it was becoming a real detriment to my self-esteem. And I was having a an emotional crisis because I just felt badly about myself all the time.

And so one day I decided that I was going to win this argument no matter what. And uh because I needed the wind to feel good about myself because at the time I valued myself for being smart. Uh and so I'm in this situation I constantly feel stupid. I can't handle it. I decide I'm going to argue for an idea that I know is wrong. I know the idea is wrong, but I believe I can win the argument. Now, how did I know the idea was wrong?

I believed it would generate less money for the company. Uh but it was my idea. Now, obviously, I didn't pitch the idea when I knew that. I pitched the idea when I thought it was the best. They gave me a better idea, but I couldn't allow myself to lose another argument. So, in the argument, there is a voice in my head screaming, "You know you're wrong. Stop [ __ ] arguing." And I just could not allow myself to lose another argument. And so, I use rhetorical tricks and all that and just sort of wearing them down.

And finally, they end up agreeing. And so, we end up doing my thing. They walk out of the room and I'm like literally having an existential crisis of I've told my wife I'm going to make us rich. I've just argued for an idea that is going to move us backwards. I just won, but now I've lost. And so, uh, I had a very honest conversation with myself and I said, "All right, me." Um, no judgment, but what do you actually want? Do you want to be right?

Do you want to feel smart? Uh, if so, if that's your number one driver, you have to quit this company immediately. You need to leave because you can't be around these two guys anymore. Um, if however you actually want to achieve your goal of getting rich, and forgive me, I was young, but that was my goal at the time. Uh, if you actually want to achieve your goal of getting rich, then you've got to let go of your self-esteem and uh, just stay here, got it out, lose every argument, doesn't matter.

And I realized, okay, I need self-esteem. That's going to be important. But I thought, what if I could build my self-esteem instead of being right, I could build my self-esteem around identifying the right answer faster than anybody else. And maybe other people would think I was dumb. But I didn't care about that because if that worked, it could actually lead me to my goals. And if my goals were what I cared about, then that was a very logical approach to the world. And so my life can be divided between before that day and after that day or before that realization and after that realization.

And it worked. And by repeating over and over and over and over and over and over uh that I valued myself only for my willingness to stare nakedly at my inadequacies and identify the right answer. Uh that is ironically what ended up helping me get rich. It's what led me to first principles thinking. All of a sudden I was like it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. It only matters that there is a true answer. Meaning when when I say something is true, you have a goal and there is a set of steps that you can take to achieve that goal.

You just have to figure out what they are. And if that actually is true, that means that there is a path to quote unquote winning. It's not all subjective. There's an objective outcome that I want that is identifiable that could be marched towards. Um, but I realized I had to get out of my own way because my ego was making me do things that were moving me away from that goal. So anyway, I I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I try to live perpetually by that.

So I have emotions. There's no doubt about that. I just don't trust them. So I don't think oh when I have an emotion that this is going to lead me where I want to go. Uh and hopefully most of the time I'm not even hiding them. I'm dissipating them. Uh so I will have frustration which I'm probably terrible at hiding but I will dissipate it quickly by recognizing it's not useful. And that's it. That's the loop I try to live in. Next up from Marushia Dark.

Uh the pro thing might make more sense if you watch Mike Benz on JRE last night. Someone else also wanted you to that's come up multiple times multiple times multiple times and sorry Mike Ben's talking about what he was on Joe Rogan. He was on Joe Rogan talking about talking about talking about um so one person wanted you to see um his take that Epstein was more of a hub for a powerful network and less of a blackmail vector. But then um that makes sense. This one is saying the pro thing might make more sense if you watch Mike Benz on JRE dropping deep on what do they mean?

One more. The pro thing. The That's the president of Columbia. Oh. Oh. Oh. His name is Pro. Last name. Last name. Last name. I was thinking pro dollar. Got it. That Got it. Got it. Perfect. Got it. Got it. Perfect. Cool. But Cool. But Cool. But yeah, Mike Ben's the rest is dropping deeper on Epstein's origins and the CIA siding with the mafia and drug trafficking to skirt congressional oversight and funny controls. controls. controls. Dude, here's the thing, man. That research Mike Benz at your own emotional peril.

like it is dark and he's so compelling that I was like, God. But having him on the show really did update my worldview for sure. In fact, I should have had an honorable mention in the um the deep dive that I just wrote about the interconnected web, the iron law of oligarchy, all of that because it was really Benz that pushed me over the over the edge that NOS's are not these like dogood organizations. They were like essentially people recognizing, oh, the CIA got shut down with all this congressional [ __ ] from where they're sitting.

Uh, so we've got to find an alternate way to do the same things out in the world, and so we're going to do it through NOS's. Yikes. Uh, that that was black pilling for sure. Next up from Thirsty Salt, these ICE tactics are a soft launch for a more overt police state. Israel is losing its grip over the American people. The raids are for us. The empty detention centers are for us. The Palunteer tracking software is for us. The Palunteer tracking software is for us. That's interesting.

I don't know what to think about Palunteer yet. Um, I'm very impressed by Peter Teal. I think the way that he thinks is amazing, but it doesn't mean that there isn't nefarious [ __ ] behind the scenes. Uh, I don't know that that is not an accusation. I don't know. I know that people hear wolves howling in the background whenever they think about Peter Teal. I do not. Uh, but the the amount of surveillance that Palunteer is able to do, the way that they're able to make essentially reality queryable and the way that they can predict behavior and nudge you off course makes me deeply uneasy.

So, but at the same time, you're going to have to do something in the world of AI and all this information uh where everybody's going to splinter into a thousand different directions. How do you begin to corral that and ought you corral? I don't know, man. I haven't thought through enough of that right now. The thing I'm trying to get myself and others to be aware of is there really is a cabal of [snorts] elites controlling far more of your life than you think. And you would think that the people like uh Trump and Mom Donnie are just so going in different circles.

There's no way that they would overlap. And yet Mom Donny's mom's in the files. Not necessarily for having done anything uh untoward. I have no reason to believe that she did anything untoward. Uh it's simply that they're all connected through the same person. And that like single degree of separation is wild. is wild. So anyway, keep your eyes on that. Next up, also from Thirsty Salt, uh, I did vacuum testing for a living for six years. Heat dissipation in a vacuum is significantly more challenging. Convection doesn't exist, and conduction is throttled, leaving only radiant dissipation.

Data centers get real hot. That's interesting. So, the way that I hear that though is that dissipating the heat in a vacuum is an engineering problem. And um Elon is not only himself a talented engineer, but he has shown an ability to attract the greatest engineers on planet earth. Um so if it's solvable with the things that we know how to do today, which he seems pretty uh grounded and realistic about things that are doable today and things that um violate the current laws of physics.

Um I'll trust that he sees something there. Um just his credibility is insane. So, we'll see. we'll see. we'll see. Next up, some dude on YouTube. Drew, prove to the audience why you are not like every other liberal as simply using issues that matter as a means to the ends of finding a hill to die on. We aren't mad enough. We are all mad. If you can't see that, let me I'm I'll go do it right now. Hold on. Let me Let me go get a gun.

Hold on. Let me like That would be the least liberal thing you could say. Sort of. Yeah. You say prove prove I'm not a liberal. liberal. liberal. Oh, I see. You get the gun, too. Women are women. Yo, look at that. That's good. Now, do you actually believe it that women are women? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is that a real question? It it would literally shut this down. Women are women. What? Yeah. Complete. That is a complete sentence. Uh, next up from just Hefe. Love the show.

Thank you guys. Thank you, Drew. Uh, sorry, that was from Hefe. Thank you, Hefe. you, Hefe. you, Hefe. From just Hefe. Just Hefe. Thank you, man. Uh, love the show. Thank you guys. Headed to pick up my son. You wished him a happy birthday almost a year ago. Don't care if you remember. I do. Momento my Momento my Momento my I do. That's dope. Thank you. And I mess with Jess Hefe cuz there's certain people in the chat that we have parasocial relationships. And Jess Hefe will call out my BS and like, "Nah, Drew, that's corny.

You stupid. You shouldn't say stuff like that." But he gets the point. He gets the he gets the point. He understands what we're saying. It's not just an attack. It's an attack on the idea. It's not an attack on the person. So the people who are coming here like, "Yeah, let's dump on like read the room." Okay? Like read the room. We have said this a thousand times. This is not a show about teams. This is not a show about policies. This is a show about America.

If you want America to do good, you're part of team Tom Billy show. If you want America to do bad, this is not the show for you. Let's go with that applause. Come on, G. [applause and cheering] And the last one from the Norway. Tom is right about voting. Sorry, chat. I've lost faith in investigations because it's the same system that handles medical, food, i.e. lobby bribes. It's all lies, damn lies, and statistics. Yeah, I mean, we need to let this play out in the courts.

So, this is why uh Brett Weinstein said something to me that I thought was really amazing. It's very subtle, but it's helped me organize my own thinking. There's a very big difference between a hypothesis and a thesis. And sometimes I'll slip up, but a hypothesis is a best guess. Nice and simple. It's a guess. Educated though it may be, it's a guess. A thesis is when you've tested a bunch of hypotheses, they all fall away except one. And the one that you have yet been able to invalidate is your thesis.

Now, the thesis may still be wrong and you may eventually invalidate it. But that difference reminding myself when I'm at best guess, I'm at best guess about voter fraud. I'm at best guess about borders being open and all of that. We'll see if over time it becomes a thesis. uh but it is currently hypothesis. So they're my base assumptions but they're assumptions. Um so yeah I think the more we are uh theory not thesis Marushia if I'm misspeaking thank you for the correction. Um so yeah that is very useful to get clear in your own mind where your degree of certainty is and then also uh having strong convictions loosely held.

The I remind myself about that with the economy all the time. I know if my uh understanding of the economy was perfect, I would be the richest person on planet Earth. The fact that I am not the richest person on planet Earth either says I'm not willing to take the steps to become the richest person uh or I don't understand the economy well enough. And I assure you, I just don't understand the economy well enough. So, but it is also the thing that I will come at people the hardest, the heaviest because that one I've tried to invalidate a lot of that stuff.

And so I will say that a bunch of the beats in my belief system around the economy really are now into being a theory uh versus being versus being just a hypothesis. So there you have it. That's all the super chats we got. Um Um Um by any means there's been a couple people who are talking about their jobs are feeling a little bit um they're feeling the pressure from the job market. They might be out of a job. People are talking about entrepreneurs and stuff like that.

That's the type of community that we attract. And we have a class on Thursday that can get you ready for this new transition. transition. transition. Yeah. Listen, I think this is the biggest uh period of transition ever. And people are going to learn the hard way that they need to control their own destiny. The whole reason that I do impact theory university uh is one to fund my video game obsession uh in terms of building one. And then also I believe that the thing that's going to help the most people is understanding the principles of entrepreneurship.

Now I think most people are actually going to start a business. And so we've geared the class towards being very hands-on, being a thing where you're building a company. Uh you're not learning theory about business. Uh and so every now and then I offer these AI master classes um for free. I'm doing one tomorrow. It is not too late to sign up. This is going on Thursday, February 5th at 1 PM. And if you have any anxiety about what's going on in this, whether you're actively ready to start a company or not, whether you just want to learn more about AI or whether you are ready to start a company, uh this very free class will be super advantageous to you.

So, um I highly encourage you guys to come and get involved. Uh it's tomorrow at 1 p.m. Pacific time. I'm going to show you guys how to use AI to turn your ideas into an actual tangible output. My core thesis is to try to get people to stop treating AI like a toy. So many people just take the first prompt that they get or the first output that they get and don't realize you can refine prompts that you can uh tell an AI to act like a certain thing.

So act like a researcher, act like a copywriter and you can give them context that will increase the utility of the output dramatically. I've done this class before. It is insanely popular. Uh so I highly encourage you guys to show up regardless of uh you know whether you're you know you want to be an entrepreneur, you just want to begin to understand how some of this work or you're just an AI fiend that wants some tips and tricks. Uh this is for you. Again, it is very very free.

So hopefully I see you tomorrow at 1 p.m. Pacific time. All right, that's it. All right, everybody. Thank you guys so much for being here. Um I love doing the show. I'm honored by every single one of you that shows up. Please do subscribe. It helps tremendously. Tell somebody about it if the show's ever added value to you. Um, that would be hugely appreciated. All right, until Friday, everybody, be legendary. Take care. Peace.