Latest / Elon Musk Thinking / Latest Interview of Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr, Reclaiming Democracy.

Transcript

Latest Interview of Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr, Reclaiming Democracy. · Elon Musk Thinking

• 0:00
  You're most welcome. This is a great opportunity for the public to hear directly
• 0:04
  from you and really looking forward to what you have to say. I also
• 0:09
  just want to thank you for your leadership on the just breaking this the whole
• 0:14
  of the censorship. In fact, I say one thing that Twitter was always
• 0:19
  kind of the last refuge for those buds who are trying to talk about issues
• 0:24
  that departed from the official orthodoxies that were being censored on the other platforms.
• 0:30
  And the first real amportate censorship happened in February of twenty nineteen when Adam Schiff
• 0:36
  done a letter all to the heads of all the social media sites of Google,
• 0:42
  Facebook, Now Meta, Instagram, YouTube, pintrest, and others and
• 0:48
  demanding that they'd start censoring information about vaccines that was non compliant with the official
• 0:56
  narratives. And the only place, the only group that resisted shift at that
• 1:02
  time was ahead of the Intelligence Committee. So that was kind of the first
• 1:06
  indicator that the Intelligence apparatus got an interest in public health and the only one
• 1:11
  of the social media sites to resist those imprecations was Twitter. When Jack was
• 1:19
  running this, and he for some reason he was able to say no to
• 1:23
  them, and the rest of them aren't. So I'm very happy, and
• 1:26
  your arrival at Twitter Elon has been I think a breath of fresh air for
• 1:32
  our country. You somehow understood, although you're from South Africa, you somehow
• 1:37
  understood the tradition of free expression and how important that is to American democracy.
• 1:42
  So I'm very grateful to you. He most welcome. Yes, I think
• 1:45
  it's absolutely essential to have a robust democracy. We must have free speech.
• 1:51
  In the absence of that, democracy is simply account function. Yeah, it
• 1:56
  is free speech. And the free flow of information is the water, the
• 2:00
  sunlight. It's a fertilizer, it's the soil. Democracy without a democracy withers
• 2:06
  and dies. There's never been a time in history when we look back and
• 2:09
  say that the people who are censoring free speech with the good guys, they're
• 2:14
  always the bad guys. They're always it's always the first step toward totalitarianism.
• 2:19
  But also, you know, it's one of the things that the constitutional framers
• 2:23
  understood that totalitarian systems have a huge advantage over democracy because they're more efficient.
• 2:30
  Democracy is sloppy, it's slow. It is it advances two steps and then
• 2:36
  retreats one step. It is the product of a lot of debate, and
• 2:40
  which is which is slow moving and laborious. And the only advantage, the
• 2:46
  big advantage that we have over totalitarian systems, is that the ideas that that
• 2:53
  mature into policies are first annealed in a furnace of debate, and the best
• 2:59
  idea then triumph in this marketplace of ideas, which does not happen atalitarian system
• 3:05
  And that's one of the things that the dynamics that the framers of our constitutional
• 3:09
  understood that we would be able to outcompete totalitarian systems and outlass them because of
• 3:16
  this, this dynamic that produced policies through debate and through discussion and conversation rather
• 3:24
  than through dictation. Absolutely, I couldn't agree more that the thing about democracies
• 3:30
  and free speech is that it's like washing your laundry in public. Yes,
• 3:32
  you see things that have to you know there's dirty laundry, but at least
• 3:37
  you see it. It's not hidden. And it's essential to have that debate,
• 3:39
  even if you disagree strongly with one side of the debate. If you
• 3:44
  don't allow such debates, the thing is, I think people who are in
• 3:47
  favor of censorship really need to understand is that unless people that you don't like
• 3:53
  can say things that you don't like, it's not free speech. And if
• 3:57
  you if you start censoring, it's only a matter of time before that censorship
• 4:00
  is turned upon you. I mean, the First Amendment was written not for
• 4:04
  easy speech and likable speech and lovable people. It was written for hard times
• 4:11
  and to protect speech that nobody wants you to say. And I remember in
• 4:15
  ninety seventy seven when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, which
• 4:20
  was a Jewish neighborhood, and the liberals in this country and the ACLU turned
• 4:26
  out in force to support that right. Even though they were appalled and disgusted
• 4:30
  by what the Nazis were saying and doing, everybody agreed that we had to
• 4:36
  be willing to die for the right to do so. And that was That's
• 4:41
  the whole base of democracy is that we allow people to talk. And one
• 4:45
  of the things you know that and one of the things that prompted me to
• 4:48
  run for president, is what you were talking about, is the end of
• 4:53
  transparency in our country the government. There's so much going on now that it's
• 4:57
  done secretively that where this you making is opaque, where there are people who
• 5:03
  are who are making decisions, who are not necessarily elect officials, that the
• 5:09
  public is fenced out, and so many Americans today feel like the promise of
• 5:13
  democracy has been a bait and switch, and that we're no longer living in
• 5:18
  a democratic system where we are actually the sovereign of our own destinies, That
• 5:23
  the sovereign, that the deciders of our own faith, that people over whom
• 5:28
  we have no control, that money interests, that large corporations have taken over.
• 5:33
  This kind of merger of state and corporate power that's happened in Washington,
• 5:39
  DC and the state capitals has not only turned our regulatory agencies into predators against
• 5:45
  the American people they're supposed to be are protectors, but also that all the
• 5:49
  decision making, the real decision making, has been taken from the American public,
• 5:55
  and that you know, you see so many people. I'm in rural
• 5:58
  Pennsylvania today and I'm surrounded by people who feel despair about our country, or
• 6:03
  are disillusioned, or are struggling with poverty for reasons that they don't understand.
• 6:10
  But they feel like they no longer are the masters of their own destiny and
• 6:15
  I think a lot of that is because it's true, our government has become
• 6:18
  an instrument of corporate power and it is not telling and because of that,
• 6:24
  it has to lie to us. You know, you can't afford to be
• 6:27
  transparent because they've actually told us what it was up to and why it was
• 6:30
  making certain decisions. People wouldn't put up with it. So everything has to
• 6:35
  be cloaked and bear and deception. And I think, you know, Americans,
• 6:41
  even though they don't understand it, they understand that something very wrong is
• 6:46
  happening to them absolutely. The thing actually I find truly bizarre and very different
• 6:49
  from the past is that it's not just large corporations and government that are in
• 6:55
  collusion. Has actually been the case for a while. I think it's Eyes
• 6:59
  and how that warned us about the military industrial complex, for example, and
• 7:02
  he's someone who really knew about it. But the thing that I find difficult
• 7:06
  to forgive is that the legacy or traditional media is also almost entirely, with
• 7:13
  some exceptions, working in lockstep with the government and with corporate America. And
• 7:17
  it is really their obligation to question the government, not to go along with
• 7:24
  it and be their mouthpiece. In the United states. This is insane.
• 7:27
  I mean, the function of the media traditionally is sposed as the guardians of
• 7:30
  the First Amendment. They're supposed to speak truth to power, and instead they've
• 7:34
  become propaganda vessels for the powerful, for you know, the big the military
• 7:40
  industrial complex, or the pharmaceutical companies, and for other large corporations. You
• 7:46
  know. One of the mechanisms by which that media capture has taken place is
• 7:50
  buying through advertising, and particularly in the pharmaceutical realm. In nineteen ninety seven,
• 7:56
  we changed the law in this country. We had always forbidden the use
• 8:01
  of the media to sell pharmaceutical products. There was no direct to consumer advertising
• 8:05
  the pharmaceutical products. It was against the law. FDA changed that law in
• 8:09
  ninety seven, and it launched a tsunami of pharmaceutical dollars into the advertising space
• 8:18
  and gave the pharmaceutical company controlled not only of the platform for advertising their products,
• 8:24
  but also control of content on nightly news. I had this weird meeting
• 8:28
  with Roger Ask. Roger helped the founder of Fox News, and I had
• 8:31
  this very strange relationship with him because I spent three months in a tent with
• 8:37
  him in East Africa when I was nineteen years old, and even that was
• 8:41
  before he started Fox News. Once he started Fox News, he became kind
• 8:45
  of this Darth Vader fake air for me. Despite the fact that all the
• 8:48
  things he was doing to our country were anaesthetical to what I believed in.
• 8:54
  I kept this very fond personal friendship with him, and he would allow me
• 8:58
  on I met work, and he would require his hosts like Hannity and Neil
• 9:03
  Cavudo and Bill O'Reilly to put me on to talk about environmental issues. I
• 9:09
  was the only environmentalist during those years who was regularly going on Fox News.
• 9:13
  And in twenty sixteen, I had done a documentary on the mercury in vaccines
• 9:20
  and I showed it to him and he was very interested, and he had
• 9:24
  a family member who he thought had been injured by a vaccine, and he
• 9:26
  said, unfortunately, I can't help you with this. He said that any
• 9:31
  of his hosts who allowed me on TV to talk about this, that he
• 9:35
  would be forced to fire them. And he said that of his advertising revenues
• 9:41
  for the nightly news shows were at that point coming from Pharmam. He told
• 9:45
  me that on average, there is twenty two advertisements on a nightly news show
• 9:50
  at eight seventeen to eighteen of those are typically pharmaceutical ads. And he said,
• 9:54
  if any of his hosts allowed me onto their show without checking with him,
• 9:58
  he would be forced to fire them, and if he didn't, he
• 10:01
  would get a call from Rupert. But he said from Rupert within ten minutes,
• 10:05
  and of course he met Rupert Murdoch, who is the owner of Fox
• 10:09
  News, and that kind of gave me insight to you know, why nobody
• 10:13
  on TV wanted to talk about these things, because, as I said,
• 10:16
  the pharmaceutical industry not only is dictating, is using those shows the platform to
• 10:22
  advertise its product. But there's only two countries in the world that allowed direct
• 10:26
  to consumer advertising. One is New Zealand, the other is the United States.
• 10:31
  And largely as a result of Act, we take three times the pharmaceutical
• 10:35
  drugs of any other Western nation. We have, and we have the worst
• 10:41
  health outcomes. We pay more for healthcare than any other nation, and we're
• 10:46
  I think we're seventy ninth in the world. We're blind. I think Mongolia
• 10:50
  and Cuba and Costa Rica and our health outcomes and pharmaceutical drugs are now the
• 10:56
  third leading cause of death in our country. After can and art disease.
• 11:01
  And it's not just pharmaceutical companies. I was watching the other day Good Morning
• 11:05
  America and there was an advertisement I think it was by General Dynamics on Good
• 11:09
  Morning America. There's nobody in the audience of Good Morning America who is buying
• 11:15
  killer drones. And so why is General Dynamics advertising on Good Morning America.
• 11:20
  Well, of course they're doing those advertisements because they want to dictate the content.
• 11:26
  They want to be able to have an editorial control over the kind of
• 11:31
  overtin window that that Good Morning America is permitted within which discussions on Good Morning
• 11:39
  America are permitted. So they want to make sure that word that Americans are
• 11:43
  enthusiastic about our wars and about you know, a belligerent national policy, so
• 11:48
  that they can continue selling weapons. And unfortunately, those are those are the
• 11:54
  forces that are dictating a lot of what the official narrative that we hear from
• 12:00
  network TV and the corporate own television. Yeah, in fact, Twitter has
• 12:05
  seen extreme pressure from advertisers as and as at least in the West, seeing
• 12:11
  a advertising book boycott from a lot of companies. I would like to,
• 12:16
  for sure to thank for those companies that have stuck with us, like Apple
• 12:18
  and Disney and many others, but we have in it. For North America
• 12:24
  and Europe scene, roughly half of our advertising disappear overnight simply because we insist
• 12:31
  on free speech. So what you're talking about, I think the Republic does
• 12:35
  not realize the magnitude of the pressure, extreme financial pressure that is placed upon
• 12:41
  organizations to toe the line by advertisers. And I think this is fundamental corruption
• 12:46
  of democracy and the public should be absolutely outraged by this, and something's going
• 12:52
  to be done about it. It's insane that they're literally current drive Twitter and
• 12:54
  groph Well, you know, I was really curious about, you know,
• 13:00
  your decision to release the Twitter files because that I mean, if I had
• 13:05
  been your attorney, you know, and I wouldn't be because I'm not a
• 13:09
  corporate attorney, but I can't imagine that any attorney for Twitter told you that
• 13:13
  that was a good idea. And there was a time, you know,
• 13:16
  we were suing the social media companies for the censorship, and when we heard
• 13:22
  that you were taking over Twitter, our attorneys came to us and said,
• 13:26
  you know, Elon Musk seems very sympathetic for your speech. Maybe we should
• 13:30
  tell him that we're about to sue them all, but that we'll drop Twitter
• 13:33
  from the if he releases the you know, the records of his communications with
• 13:39
  the White House. Because and for people who don't understand this in the audience,
• 13:43
  companies like Twitter are regarded as essentially publishing platforms, and if you're a
• 13:48
  publisher, you can print anything you want, and you can refuse to print
• 13:52
  anything you want. The government doesn't control that, and nobody else's If you're
• 13:56
  the New York Times, you have an absolute right not to print an editorial
• 14:01
  by Robert Kennedy. That's not censorship. Answorship is when the government tells you
• 14:05
  to do it. So Twitter, So we could not sue Instagram for deplatforming
• 14:11
  me, but if we could prove that the government pressured Mark Soccerberg to have
• 14:18
  Instagram deplatform me, and then the First Amendment is implicated and it becomes illegal
• 14:24
  under American law. We had that proof for some of the companies, but
• 14:26
  it really it was right on the borderline of whether judges would accept it or
• 14:31
  not. And it would have been very valuable to us at that time,
• 14:35
  the kind of information that was released in the Twitter files. But it would
• 14:39
  be I at that time to my attorneys. I don't think Elon would do
• 14:43
  that because his attorneys are going to tell him it would be insane because it
• 14:46
  would subject Twitter to a litigation, to a liability risk. And I was
• 14:52
  so surprised and delighted when you did that on your own. And you know,
• 14:58
  clearly you've been purchase trade as somebody who is kind of this this sinister
• 15:03
  ridge end, but you're doing step after step that is not in your self
• 15:07
  interest, and that is clearly designed to protect freedom of speech and is designed
• 15:13
  for you know, is coming out of some deeper place than financial self interests
• 15:18
  for you. And I just want to tell you how much I admire you
• 15:22
  for that eon and how grateful I am on path of my country you would
• 15:26
  come here from another country and be the key instrument for rescuing American democracy and
• 15:33
  freedom of speech during the time of you know, when a lot of people
• 15:37
  were turning their backs on our constitution. Yeah, it's it definitely has been
• 15:41
  actually difficult if we at Twitter simply towed the line and did everything that the
• 15:48
  advertisers and especially advertised the sort of various nonprofits that pressure the advertisers, and
• 15:52
  you know the whole sort of g D DEI movement, which is sort of
• 15:56
  having a much bigger effect on the actions of corporations and people realize. I
• 16:02
  mean, if we simply go the line like everyone else, we would have
• 16:06
  it's billions of dollars a year in difference. Basically, our revenue was cut
• 16:08
  in half because we didn't know the line. So just at the magnitude of
• 16:12
  this is extreme, and it's frankly a struggle for Twitter to break even,
• 16:18
  and we're hoping to break even, but we're not there yet. But I
• 16:22
  don't care how much it costs or what it takes. If we lose free
• 16:25
  speech, lose democracy, America fools, America, fools. I don't know
• 16:29
  what happens to the world, but it's not a good thing. I mean,
• 16:30
  I'd loved it here. Any kind of details about did you talk to
• 16:36
  attorneys before you release the Twitter files? Did you talk to anybody else?
• 16:40
  I told you you must be out of your mind to be doing this.
• 16:42
  Oh yeah, absolutely everyone. I mean every lawyer advised against it and said
• 16:47
  it was insane. We'd get a huge trouble and I would be sued to
• 16:51
  hell and gone, and your massive disaster yeah, I don't care like I
• 16:56
  don't care. I mean, I just you know, it's easy for people
• 16:59
  to take for granted the system we have here in the United States, but
• 17:03
  it really doesn't exist anywhere else, you know, not even Canada. I'm
• 17:07
  half Canadian, and you don't have the free speech rights in Canada that you
• 17:11
  have in the United States. You know, perhaps and you governing Canada at
• 17:14
  some point will enact those rights because it's incredibly important. But you know,
• 17:18
  I think if we don't protect free speech at all costs, we don't have
• 17:22
  a functioning democracy. If we don't have a functioning democracy, nothing else matters.
• 17:26
  Let me ask you another question. What is it in your background that
• 17:32
  you know that you think gave you such firm convictions where you'd be willing to
• 17:37
  take this huge, massive, unspeakable economic hit on behalf of a principle for
• 17:42
  a country in which you weren't even born. Well, I should say I
• 17:45
  do very much consider myself an America. So well, what do you think
• 17:48
  it was in your background and your childhood or whatever? Were there any was
• 17:53
  there something that you know? Was it in the Civics Lesson was a professor?
• 17:59
  Was it? Well? I love studying history, the history of civilization's
• 18:03
  history of all kinds. And while of course the United States have made mistakes
• 18:10
  and it is not perfect, and it has the times done things that are
• 18:14
  wrong, I am of the firm belief that the United States has been the
• 18:18
  greatest force for benevolence in world history. And this is again not to excuse
• 18:25
  mistakes or bad things, and but that is I think the evidence for the
• 18:30
  United States has been a benevolent force in the world is overwhelming. You look
• 18:33
  at things like, you know, the Marshall Plan after World War Two.
• 18:37
  You know, at that the end of World War Two, the United States
• 18:40
  had overwhelming military lights, had the nuclear bomb, and the United States could
• 18:44
  have taken over the world. It could have acquired whatever countries it wanted.
• 18:48
  And yet it didn't do any of that. In fact, it gave money
• 18:52
  to the to the countries that have been finding I'm not sure if that has
• 18:56
  ever happened in history. It helped rebuild the unice has helped rebuild Germany,
• 19:00
  and Japan, helped rebuild Japan even after things like Peul Harbor. I mean,
• 19:04
  this is one it has to really maybe this has happened before. She
• 19:08
  I'm not aware of it, and so you know, so I'm very favorite
• 19:12
  of America. But again it's not saying we can't do better or you know,
• 19:15
  we need to do We do want to do better. We want to
• 19:18
  maintain that. But anyway, so I'm a huge manment and I don't you
• 19:21
  know, I also want to point out, you know, I don't have
• 19:25
  any homes outside of the United States. I do not carry in any other
• 19:29
  passport, and I will live and die here. Well, that's very moving
• 19:33
  and very admirable, and thank you for you know, thank you for your
• 19:37
  servants and commitment to our country. You know, I've been watching you and
• 19:41
  watching the way that you've been mischaracterized by the press, mischaracterized by people in
• 19:48
  my party of the Democratic Party, as somebody who is a threat to democracy,
• 19:52
  when everything that you have done has indicated a Hey, you know,
• 19:57
  you're just incredible. Commit have been. You know, during the revolution,
• 20:02
  they were We lost between twenty five thousand and seventy thousand people during the revolution
• 20:07
  who died to give us our constitution. And those are people also put their
• 20:14
  livelihoods on the line, they put their property on the line, they put
• 20:18
  their financial status and their social status on the line and in a way that
• 20:23
  you know, for principles, and you know, I've watched you do the
• 20:27
  same thing, and you've been such an example to other Americans of how we
• 20:32
  ought to be behaving, even if it cost us a lot of money,
• 20:34
  and even if the risk don't seem worth the personal risk don't seem worth it,
• 20:40
  You've done that, and you've done it without you know, having any
• 20:42
  kind of reputational benefit from it. You've been philified for it. So I
• 20:48
  you know, I want to thank you there. I do want to ask
• 20:49
  you a question about because I you know, I really started admiring you when
• 20:55
  I saw an interview that you did years ago where you said that you said
• 20:59
  that we should be terrified of AI that you said, I think I quote
• 21:03
  you this. You said, first it's going to take our jobs, and
• 21:06
  then it's going to kill us, and so you know, and that felt
• 21:11
  that felt like real honesty to me from somebody who is at the center of
• 21:15
  the tech industry and even you know, working on a stuff. And then
• 21:18
  I see what you're doing with and it seems to me that is a technology
• 21:23
  that could potentially be really horrifically denigrated to democracy and human freedoms if it's taking
• 21:32
  the wrong direction. So what are your thoughts about that? Well, neural
• 21:36
  length, christ wal It's important to appreciate neuralleinth, which, for those who
• 21:38
  are unaware of it, is new. It's developed developing brain to computer air
• 21:42
  faces to allow direct communication with the brain. The neuralink will progress very slowly
• 21:48
  because anytime you have a device and planet human the FDA requirements I think correct
• 21:55
  correctly are extremely difficult. You have to pass many little to have that work.
• 22:00
  The first applications that we're talking about are simply enabling someone who is a
• 22:06
  quadriplegic with someone who has lost the connection from their brain to their body to
• 22:10
  be able to communicate. Say if Stephen Hawking was able to communicate as well
• 22:15
  as someone with a fully functional body, that would be incredible. So for
• 22:21
  many years, the application will suply be to enable functionality that people have lost
• 22:26
  due to spinal or brain injuries. Long term, I think it has a
• 22:33
  hopefully has some chance of mitigating the artificial intelligence existential risk by enabling a closer
• 22:41
  symbiosis of AI and humans. And I certainly agree that this is not without
• 22:45
  risk, and you know it's something we need to be very careful with's how
• 22:49
  it's done. But I just want to do want em size. It's not
• 22:52
  going to happen suddenly. It'll happen very slowly, and at least looking at
• 22:56
  the advancement of autofocial intelligence that I think we will probably have digital superintelligence before
• 23:02
  neural link is sufficially advanced to have imamage communication between your sort of cortex and
• 23:10
  the and the extension of yourself. But no question needs to be extremely careful,
• 23:15
  and we will be extremely careful and will move slowly, so you'll definitely
• 23:18
  see it coming on people that have an opportunity to object and raise concerns and
• 23:21
  issues. And with neural link, we're also trying to be extremely open book
• 23:23
  and you know there's nothing hidden, and we are, like said, ordered
• 23:27
  it extensively by the FDA. So now with respect to autofersional intelligence or or
• 23:33
  different realests like this, there's levels of autoficional intelligence that are not dangerous.
• 23:37
  I don't think your self driving cars are really dangerous, or you know,
• 23:42
  having better order correct is dangerous. But it's when you have some deep intelligence
• 23:48
  that is far smaller than the smallst human that's where links could get dangerous.
• 23:52
  No, I don't agree too far down the rabbit hole, because that's a
• 23:56
  big one. But but but it's not that I think that digit those super
• 24:00
  intelligence well ai AGI is definitely a bad thing. I just think it is
• 24:04
  it's a very powerful technology, and that there is there's certainly risk of it
• 24:10
  being a bad thing and acting amount of contrary to the interests of humanity,
• 24:15
  and that we need to be cognizant of that risk, and we need to
• 24:19
  just be very careful and thorough and do our best to ensure that it is
• 24:23
  beneficial rather than hopeful. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know,
• 24:29
  if I do get in the White House, I think that's one of the
• 24:32
  things that I need to pay a lot of attention to is how do we
• 24:34
  regulate this, How do we bring in the people who are developing it and
• 24:38
  you know, immediately from all over the world, and figure out a way
• 24:42
  to regulate it so, you know, so that it doesn't end up killing
• 24:47
  us all or enslaving us, or whatever the heck it's going to do.
• 24:49
  But even you know, even the even self driving cars, I think something
• 24:55
  like forty percent of the jobs in America are from our driving jobs or involved
• 25:00
  driving and if you get rid of those jobs, even Uber jobs which are
• 25:03
  an entry level, which we could do in the next decade or not.
• 25:07
  I mean, it's gonna be it's gonna be a really difficult challenge for god
• 25:11
  Share to figure out, you know, what to do with all these And
• 25:15
  I'm using a very bad characterization, but you know, surplus humans, because
• 25:21
  that's what a lot of people are going to feel like. Yeah, So
• 25:23
  I do think there is an avenue for Uber driver or drives in general,
• 25:29
  in that they'll still be a need to manage and take care of a bunch
• 25:33
  of felt driving cars, almost like a shepherd tending their flock. And so
• 25:37
  I think it actually couldn't end up being a good thing in that, you
• 25:40
  know, instead of driving one car, you can actually manage a sort of
• 25:44
  a fleet of tan cars. And I think that's good. And I'm not
• 25:47
  just saying that that will not result in disruption or changing jobs. I'm just
• 25:51
  saying that self driving is I don't think is an existential risk to civilization,
• 25:56
  and I like so I think the I think I think it will be I
• 26:00
  think, in my opinion, is significant net benefit. But I do believe
• 26:03
  that we should be critique we should be asked these questions, And I mean,
• 26:07
  in general, I aspired to take the set of actions that maximize the
• 26:11
  probability that the future will be good for humanity. That's not to say that
• 26:14
  I do not make mistakes, to say I do, but that is at
• 26:18
  least the intention. And as I said, I think it's good to have
• 26:21
  critique, it's good to be questioned. It's going to be pushed on these
• 26:23
  issues, and it's very important for companies to be as open book as possible.
• 26:27
  But actually, if that's I mean, I think that these are really
• 26:30
  interesting topics for people. But I think a lot of the public would love
• 26:34
  to hear about your presidential right. Oh, I would love to talk about
• 26:37
  it. Do we have any questions? Well, we have a bunch of
• 26:41
  questions we can pull in. We have a few people we can pull in,
• 26:44
  and then we can pull in more as well. To Tulsi Gabbert's here,
• 26:47
  apologies here, Michael Schallenberger's here needs here. Before we leave the censorship
• 26:52
  topic, you know, Bobby, one thing you mentioned that you went over
• 26:56
  really quickly was that you were just reinstated at your Instagram account and that you've
• 27:00
  been locked out for two years, and I guess they have to reinstate you
• 27:03
  because there's a law requiring it when someone runs for president. So apparently the
• 27:08
  only way to get free speech in this country is But the crazy thing is
• 27:11
  that people on your campaign were frozen out of their accounts. Apparently anyone who
• 27:17
  signed up with the Team Kennedy email domain, yeah, was frozen. I
• 27:22
  guess they just got reinstated, yeah, So I guess I just want to
• 27:25
  hear about that, and then, following up on what Elon said about the
• 27:29
  intense pressure that Twitter is under from advertising boycotts, I want to bring in
• 27:33
  shellen Berger, who was one of the key authors on the Twitter files and
• 27:37
  has done a lot of work on what he calls the censorship industrial complex.
• 27:41
  So it'd be great to hear from him on how this whole thing gets organized,
• 27:45
  because I don't think people understand that these pressure tactics are highly organized.
• 27:51
  So I guess, Bobby to you first, and then let's bring in shol
• 27:53
  So. I was they did from Instagram. I think in the summer of
• 28:00
  maybe or a spring of twenty twenty twenty one, I was evicted and I
• 28:03
  had about I had I had at the time the day I was convicted,
• 28:08
  I had or a victed. I had about seven hundred and seventy thousand,
• 28:12
  but I had been up to nine hundred thousand, and they would cut them
• 28:15
  back Whenever I hit nine hundred thousand, they would cut them back to eight
• 28:19
  hundred thousand or seven hundred thousand. So I was losing followers all time,
• 28:25
  and they said it was because I was I was promoting misinformation. But the
• 28:30
  term misinformation had nothing to do with as we now know from the Twitter filesand
• 28:34
  from the emails that meta you know that Facebook that we've recovered from Facebook,
• 28:41
  and it had nothing to do with factual accuracy or inaccuracy. It was simply
• 28:45
  a euphemism for any statement that departed from the government orthodoxies and government proclamations would
• 28:52
  be characterized misinformation. And there is nothing on my Twitter feed that was actually
• 29:00
  an accurate. Everything that we put up there that I put up there was
• 29:03
  cited and source to peer reviewed publications or government databases. There's nothing on there
• 29:10
  that was anybody's ever been able to point to, including Facebook. When I
• 29:14
  appealed, I tried to appeal, and we did a lengthy memo showing that
• 29:18
  I had never put up a single factual error in that in you know,
• 29:22
  in my post. But they then they wouldn't let allow me to appeal.
• 29:26
  They had to be an appeal system, but they would not allow me to
• 29:29
  enter that system. And I feel confident I would have won because the people
• 29:33
  that they actually selected as judges were a really good group of people. They
• 29:37
  were law professors from mainly law professors from universities around the world, and many
• 29:44
  of them were people I was acquainted with, and you know, I was
• 29:45
  a law professor at that time, and I'm confident I would have gotten a
• 29:48
  fair hearing from them. So they wouldn't let me even into the appeals process.
• 29:53
  And then, as you point out in the last since I've declared for
• 29:57
  the presidency, now we have about fIF the people working for the campaign,
• 30:02
  and each of those people has a had a Instagram handle which said, for
• 30:07
  example, my daughter in law Amarilla is a team and they wanted to use
• 30:11
  that handle on their Twitter, on their their Instagram accounts, and Instagram would
• 30:17
  send them when they attempted to register, Instagram would send them a flag saying
• 30:22
  you've been suspended for one hundred and eighty days. And so none of them
• 30:26
  were allowed on and of course that's illegal under the you know it it's called
• 30:29
  Section fourteen of the Code of Federal Regulations, which regulates speech. It protects
• 30:34
  speech during presidential and other federal election campaign and so but I think that META,
• 30:41
  and I don't want to you know, I don't want to be pointing
• 30:44
  the finger at META right now, because I think it's time for healing in
• 30:48
  this country. And I'm happy that I've been reinstated and they gave me back
• 30:52
  all my old posts, and they gave me back all my old followers,
• 30:56
  which I didn't even know if they existed anymore. So I'm very happy with
• 31:00
  that. And the people that we've been working with have been, you know,
• 31:03
  recently, have been very cooperative, and they're now letting our people register.
• 31:08
  And I think it is you know, not everybody had the foresight of
• 31:12
  Elon Musk and Jack Torsy of saying, Okay, this was really wrong and
• 31:18
  we're not going to put up with it, even if it cosses billions of
• 31:22
  dollars. There's you know a lot of Americans were living in fear, and
• 31:26
  they were doing things that they believed were proper and right at the time.
• 31:30
  And I think it's time that we you know that we focused on healing and
• 31:33
  bridging the device, so I don't want to. I want to really thang
• 31:37
  Meta for reinstating me, and I hope this is the begin we learned something
• 31:41
  from that process and that we can go forward and make sure that nothing like
• 31:47
  this ever happens the States of America. Yeah, Michael, do you want
• 31:49
  to jump in here? This might be a good time to talk about what
• 31:52
  you've learned. For what it's worth, you know, I don't think it
• 31:56
  sounds great, can you? Yeah? I mean, for what it's worth.
• 31:59
  I don't think that Meta as a company wants to be censoring people.
• 32:05
  I just think that they're under incredible pressure and didn't stand up to that pressure.
• 32:08
  But Michael, can you speak to that or what you found? I
• 32:13
  think we lost them? Did Hello? Michael, we had you a second?
• 32:15
  Well, sure, I'd be happy to And can you hear me?
• 32:17
  Okay, David, Yes, yeah, we can't hear good. Well,
• 32:21
  thanks so much for having me, guys, and mister Kennedy. It's a
• 32:22
  real honor and a privilege to hear you speak. We don't agree on everything,
• 32:27
  but you're oh sorry, guys, can you hear me okay, good.
• 32:31
  Well, First, thank you so much, mister Kennedy. I really
• 32:35
  appreciate your strong remarks. Can you guys hear me now? Yeah? We
• 32:37
  can hear you, not anymore. You commuted yourself. All right, Mike
• 32:42
  Gorge, we'll go to you. There you are, David. Can you
• 32:45
  hear me now? Yeah, we can't hear you. Great, great,
• 32:47
  Well, well, first, thanks so much mister Kennedy. It's a real
• 32:51
  privilege and pleasure to hear you speak so eloquently. That meant just to But
• 32:57
  the Twitter is under from government, and Twitter is cleve platform transparent about the
• 33:02
  censorship demand. I'm curious if you would support a call that many of us
• 33:07
  have made that there should be a mandatory requirement by both government officials and by
• 33:14
  social media platforms to be transparent about the censorship decisions that they're making, because
• 33:20
  so much of the problem occurs when the censorship is happening behind closed doors and
• 33:24
  there's no chance to appeal. On the other hand, it's very hard to
• 33:29
  regulate social media companies by the government since that would infringe on the First Amendment.
• 33:32
  So I'm curious if you've thought about the need for requiring transparency by everybody
• 33:38
  involved, whether it's governments or social media companies or even advertisers who are demanding
• 33:44
  that certain content be censored at their behest. Yeah, and actually, Michael,
• 33:49
  I think that's a you know, really good solution. And if I'm
• 33:52
  elected, I'm going to call the heads of all of the social media company
• 33:58
  it's into the Oval Office and have a conference and not walk out until we
• 34:04
  haven't figured out how to make this work and make it consistent with democracy.
• 34:08
  And I think you're right. I think David Sachs is right when he said
• 34:13
  that these companies do not want to be censoring. Honestly, they're coming under
• 34:17
  tremendous pressure from their advertisers and from you know, very powerful government entities to
• 34:23
  participate in the censorship. And we don't even have an idea about all of
• 34:29
  the different forms of pressure that they're coming on to that they're coming because the
• 34:34
  government, of course, has big contracts with these companies that are existential,
• 34:37
  and you know, we just do. That's all not transparent. And I
• 34:40
  think the companies, if they function more as common carriers and I'm not saying
• 34:46
  being declared common carriers, which is kind of the ultimate sanction, that if
• 34:52
  they continue to, you know, censor, that would be something that you
• 34:54
  would consider. But I think if they functioned as you say, almost like
• 35:00
  carriers, where all the decision making was transparent, and where people felt like
• 35:05
  they had a right to see the algorithms and to understand the algorithms that were
• 35:09
  being used to sensor speech and to make recommendation, et cetera, I think
• 35:15
  that's a really elegant solution about it. How all of these issues. You
• 35:19
  know, there is some speech. I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist,
• 35:23
  and I think the remedy for misinformation is more is information is information, and
• 35:30
  the remedy for bad speech is more speech. It's never censorship. Censorship isn't
• 35:36
  by far the worst solution. There are forms of speech that are not protected.
• 35:40
  You know, inciting violence is not protected, pedophilia, and you know,
• 35:45
  solicitations like that are not protected speech, and you can censor those.
• 35:50
  But if it's protected speech, I don't think it should be censored. But
• 35:54
  I think in any case, we should understand the logic the algorith midologies,
• 36:00
  and we should all have access to do so. That are you know,
• 36:05
  that's key because these institutions are now the public square and you know, they
• 36:09
  are the place where speech takes place, that you can talk to weather Americans,
• 36:15
  and you know, we have to figure out a way to integrate them
• 36:16
  into our democratic value system. Well, it's really wonderful to hear. Thank
• 36:21
  you so much for that. It's a strong, it's a very strong endorsement
• 36:23
  of the transparency, which is I think something that brings together people on the
• 36:28
  left and the right. We're gonna we solve our problems with more speech,
• 36:30
  not less, and I think that's what the transparency mandatory. Transparency by everybody
• 36:36
  who's demanding censorship, but that's what that would give us. So thank you
• 36:38
  very much. I appreciate that. Let me pull in Omid Malik, who
• 36:42
  I think has done a bunch of work in the on the corporate side on
• 36:45
  sort of boycotts and pressure. Ohmedia, have a question or comment. Yeah,
• 36:49
  absolutely, thank you so much. You know, Robert, you've spoken
• 36:52
  eloquently on regulatory capture, whether it's the CDC, the FDA, or the
• 36:57
  EPA or even NIH. I mean that that Tony Fauci has over ten million
• 37:01
  dollars available to him even though he's been a bureaucrat for fifty years. These
• 37:05
  are questions that I hope and intrepid reporter would look into. But I want
• 37:08
  to just flip it on its head, which is to say, what about
• 37:12
  corporate capture? The fact that elements within the federal government are actually adversely affecting
• 37:16
  our economy, so that as we've touched on here around speech, but it's
• 37:21
  even worse than that, I mean the CIA, the affecting our ability to
• 37:24
  communicate with one another's through these big tech companies that are being pressured by them.
• 37:30
  But even as you're very passionate about using OSHA unconstitutionally to try to force
• 37:36
  employees around this country for a period to take a shot that many did not
• 37:38
  want to do and making them choose between that and putting food on the table.
• 37:43
  So the two part question is one, how do we prevent our bill
• 37:46
  of rights from being violated by private actors when the government uses them to do
• 37:51
  their dirty work. I'm not just talking about censor hip here, I'm actually
• 37:54
  talking about the deprivation of economic liberty. And then secondly is how do we
• 38:00
  get wages up? And is that then I want to ask you about that
• 38:02
  specifically, can you get wages up? Finally, this country by actually having
• 38:07
  a border and restricting immigration. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, let
• 38:12
  me just address that second issue first, which is, yeah, we need
• 38:15
  to seal our border. That the function, you know, it is a
• 38:19
  key existential function for every nation in the world to be able to control immigration
• 38:23
  at its borders. And having millions of people or one hundred thousands in this
• 38:29
  case, millions of people flowing across the border is not something any nation can
• 38:35
  or should put up with. And you know, worst of all, it's
• 38:37
  created a humanitarian crasis at the border. The notion that we have an open
• 38:43
  border is now a gospel around the world, so that people are flying in
• 38:47
  from all over the world, from Europe, from China, from Asia,
• 38:51
  taking from planes to Ecuador, and then there's a you know, the at
• 38:55
  being assisted by nonprofit groups and by government groups, actually make their way to
• 39:01
  the United States border, and it was in buses and that needs to be
• 39:06
  shut down in one of the ways that we do. And a lot of
• 39:07
  the Latin American and Central American immigration is the direct results of bad US policies
• 39:15
  in the South, austerity programs, the war on drugs, the funding of
• 39:19
  desk squads, the installation and support of hunts, military dictatorships and genocides in
• 39:27
  those countries that have been happening for decades, and we need to address those
• 39:30
  issues. But you know, above all, we need to seal the border.
• 39:34
  I'm actually going to the border tonight. I will I'm crossing the border
• 39:37
  I think around three o'clock in the morning into Mexico, and I'll be talking
• 39:43
  with people on both sides the border and talking to stakeholders, and over the
• 39:46
  next three days be meeting with people from the border patrol and elsewhere to try
• 39:51
  to formulate policies that will seal the border permanently. You know, the flow
• 39:57
  of we have people in this country who are popping strict and no don't have
• 40:00
  access to because that the paucity of public assistants, don't even have access to
• 40:07
  public assistance. And you know, we need to be protecting the people in
• 40:10
  this country in our urban populations and rural populations. And percent of Americans could
• 40:16
  not put their hand on one thousand dollars if there's an emergency. We don't
• 40:22
  have the capacity to support a lot of new Inwor It's this huge lot of
• 40:25
  new immigrants, it's coming in towards cities and stressing the school systems, stressing
• 40:30
  the social service systems for people who are already for Americans who are already struggling,
• 40:37
  it needs to be turned off. And that's what I will do as
• 40:39
  president. I will I am going to and you know, there's other countries
• 40:43
  that have this issue. Israel has this issue with African populations and using a
• 40:49
  variety of different technologies at their border as some fencing, but mainly technological surveilans,
• 40:55
  they've been able to shut it down, and we need to be doing
• 40:59
  the same thing. And as President, I will do that. I will
• 41:00
  also open up legal immigration so that the immigration that we do need that's going
• 41:07
  to be beneficial to our country and economy will continue. But we cannot have
• 41:10
  uncontrolled immigration at the border. In terms of the role of you know,
• 41:15
  these agencies in compelling behavior from US corporation, it is appalling it. And
• 41:23
  as soon as I get into all office, I'm going to issue an executive
• 41:28
  order forbidding the federal agencies, whether it's NIH, whether it's the CIA,
• 41:34
  the FBI, from participating in any efforts to censor speech by the American public
• 41:39
  or to compel other behavior from the American public that is not legally required and
• 41:45
  that's what we saw during the pandemic. We saw it, you know,
• 41:47
  in the vaccine mandates that we thought in the censorship of speech, and I
• 41:53
  will forbid that and make sure that it is that it does not happen at
• 41:58
  least during my terminal office. Immediately first week I'm in office, I will
• 42:02
  sign that executive order. Thank you, and thank you Yuan and David for
• 42:07
  hosting this. I also will close by saying it is somewhat ironic that the
• 42:10
  Democratic Party is not permitting democracy to occur within their own party and giving a
• 42:15
  platform to Robert to at least debate Jovin. Well, that's interesting point.
• 42:20
  We pulled Tulsi into the conversation here. Tulsi's former Democratic congresswoman, who I
• 42:25
  believe is now an independent. I want to get I actually have a question
• 42:30
  for both of you guys about the evolution of the Democratic Party. Bobby.
• 42:34
  The Democratic Party of your father was the party of peace over war, the
• 42:39
  party of free speech over censorship, with the party of civil liberties over the
• 42:44
  surveillance state. And today you're perhaps the only prominent Democrat who is taking that
• 42:52
  sort of dissenting side on those issues. Toulci I think you feel the same
• 42:54
  on those issues too. I guess my question is what happened to the Democrat
• 43:00
  Party. To be sure, many of these afflictions are bipartisan, but there
• 43:04
  used to be a very conspicuous wing in the Democratic Party to oppose these things,
• 43:07
  and it seems like there isn't anymore. So I guess my question for
• 43:10
  both of you is what happened and can it be fixed? I mean,
• 43:15
  I'll just answer briefly, and I'd love to hear answer. You know,
• 43:19
  I watched this happens the Democratic Party. I watched some of thiss happened.
• 43:22
  I mean they I think the Democratic Party became the party of war. I
• 43:27
  attribute that directly to President Biden, because I you know, President Biden is
• 43:31
  always although I've always liked him, the one part of them that I did
• 43:36
  not like is that he's always been a very in favor of very bellicost,
• 43:40
  of nacious and aggressive for it policy, and he believes that that, you
• 43:45
  know, violence is a legitimate political tool for achieving America's objectives abroad, and
• 43:51
  that in many cases it is the It's the first and most prominent tools that
• 43:57
  the federal government used it during the Iraq War, when my uncle was fighting
• 44:00
  against that war. Joe Biden in the Democratic Party, more than any other
• 44:06
  senator, was the man who was promoting that war. And I think that's
• 44:08
  one of the reasons he got the support of the neocons. And you know,
• 44:13
  all of these the neocons. For people don't know the neocons are the
• 44:16
  neocons called neo conservatives. But there were a group of people who had departed
• 44:22
  from both Republican and Democratic parties in the defeat of the Soviet After that,
• 44:28
  the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there
• 44:32
  were a group of people who are prominent intellectuals who took the position that America
• 44:38
  had won the Cold War and that as victors, we should enjoy the spoils.
• 44:44
  And they published a plan called the Project for American Century that essentially argued
• 44:51
  that America could use its military domination, its military superiority now as the only
• 44:57
  superpower, to impose an American hagemony in American control, to use violence to
• 45:01
  oppose the American control of all the countries in the world. And that group,
• 45:07
  I think twenty two of those leaders ended up in the State Department in
• 45:12
  White House during the George W. Bush's administration, they orchestrated the war.
• 45:16
  They had a plan for seven wars that we would fight very quickly in order
• 45:21
  to defeat all of our non compliant countries in the Mid East, beginning with
• 45:27
  Iraq and would they launched the first preemptive war an American history, war against
• 45:31
  the country that never did anything to our country. As I've pointed out,
• 45:36
  there was a trillion that war caused us. That war and it's after math
• 45:38
  and Libya and Syria and Yemen and Afghanistan, Pakistan. It cost us eight
• 45:47
  trillion and we got nothing. Iraq ended up worse in a worse place than
• 45:52
  we found it. We killed more Iraqis than Sadam Hussein. We killed almost
• 45:57
  a million Iraqis. We pushed Iran Iraq into becoming a proxy to Iran,
• 46:02
  which was the foreign policy outcome that we have been trying to avoid for forty
• 46:07
  years. We created Isis. We drove two million refugees into Europe, which
• 46:14
  destabilized all the democracies in Europe probably for two generations, and ended up with
• 46:19
  Brexit. That's what we got for the eight trillion dollars. As a result
• 46:22
  of that cataclysm. Politically in the United States, it became a neocon They
• 46:28
  were in disgrace. They were exiled from all political parties, but somehow they
• 46:34
  got back into the Biden Whitehouse, and people like Victorian Newlan his husband Robert
• 46:38
  Kagan, was the author of the Project for the Newest American Century, ended
• 46:44
  up running foreign policy. April Haynes and Anthony Blincoln ended up running this very
• 46:50
  belligerate foreign policy that we're now dealing with. On the medical side, you
• 46:54
  know, I watched what happened initially. Pharmaceutical companies were on the side in
• 47:00
  the Republican Party and Democrats. They were, you know, they were required
• 47:04
  with kind of contempt by Democrats that they as the most corrupt industry in the
• 47:08
  country. They paid the four companies that manufacture all American vaccines, Sonofi Blacks,
• 47:15
  Advisor paid over the past decade thirty five billion dozen criminal penalties, more
• 47:21
  than any other industry. They've paid the biggest criminal penalties in American history.
• 47:25
  They are serial felons, these companies. They keep doing the same play over
• 47:30
  and over, and they were not well regarded in the Democratic Party. The
• 47:34
  Democratic Party hasn't always had a problem, is it cannot accept corporate dollars in
• 47:38
  good conscience, so the Republicans always had a lot of money. The only
• 47:43
  people that Democrats could could maintain their purity and collect money from would be trial
• 47:47
  lawyers and labor unions. But the labor unions declined precipitously, so there now
• 47:53
  they went from about fifty to ten percent of the American workforce and we were
• 48:00
  left with it with prial lawyers and prisident Obama was trying to get Obamacare passed.
• 48:05
  He shuck a golden handshake with the pharmaceutical companies. He could not get
• 48:09
  it. The pharma has more lobbyists on Capitol Hill than Congress and all the
• 48:14
  congressmen, senators, Supreme Court justices combined, they give more to lobbying twice
• 48:19
  with the next Bigga's industry more than any other industry. And President Obama they
• 48:22
  could have Obamacare forever. So Obama needed to placate them, and the way
• 48:28
  that he did it was by making this terrible deal where the federal government could
• 48:31
  not bargain over the price of pharmaceutical products and medicares in Obama Care. So
• 48:37
  Obamacare was going to be big. To create this flood of money to the
• 48:40
  pharmaceutical industry to buy their products for free for the patients for free. But
• 48:45
  we could not bargain like you can in Canada and every other nation. You
• 48:50
  couldn't bargain with them, so they could charge anything they wanted and that sealed
• 48:53
  the deal, and all of a sudden, Pharma was on the side of
• 48:58
  the Democrat. It became permissive morally for Democrats to accept money from pharma,
• 49:02
  and within a year, Democrats were getting more money from pharma than Republicans.
• 49:07
  And then and so that put them on the side of the pro vaccine side.
• 49:14
  They were kind of we kind of divided evenly. And then interesting President
• 49:16
  Trump ran and three times during his presidential campaign he made the statement that he
• 49:22
  thought that vaccines were causing autism, and that created this That issue then became
• 49:29
  part of the culture war. It became part of the cultural divide. Democrats
• 49:32
  put that issue into the same anti science dumpster as President Trump's climate denial,
• 49:38
  and it became now a badge of your party, of your tribe. And
• 49:44
  if you ask questions of vaccines, you were a Trump Republican. And if
• 49:47
  you if you add a just a religious belief in their affocacy and safety that
• 49:52
  could not be questioned you were a Democrat, and so I watched that all
• 49:58
  all that play out, and watched the pod slowly become these pro corporate,
• 50:02
  pro war, pro censorship Republican you know what had once been Republicans, and
• 50:07
  the Republicans that became Annie's censorship pros to celebrities any war. And there's been
• 50:14
  this tremendous realignment. And I talked more than I wanted to because I really
• 50:19
  want to hear it from Toulci and any your her take on it. Thanks,
• 50:22
  Thanks Bobby, and thanks for the question, David. So much of
• 50:24
  what you said is what drove me to leave the Democratic Party. You know,
• 50:30
  I wasn't born into a family of Democrats. My parents, frankly,
• 50:32
  were pretty independent minded people, and so when I first ran for the State
• 50:37
  House, a seat in the State House of Representatives in Hawaii twenty years ago,
• 50:42
  I had to decide, you know, which party I wanted to join.
• 50:44
  And as I made that decision, I was inspired by leaders within the
• 50:49
  Democratic Party. Frankly, Bobby, people like your father and your uncle,
• 50:52
  people like Martin Luther King, junior Democratic leaders and Hawaii who had gone to
• 50:58
  the mat for the plantation workers, who were people from Hawaii, people from
• 51:02
  across Asia, people immigrants from around the world. It was Democratic leaders who
• 51:07
  came in and bought for their rights to be able to be treated, frankly,
• 51:10
  like human beings and be set free from the oppressive landowners that were Republican
• 51:16
  in Hawaii at that time. And so the ideals of you know, freedom
• 51:22
  and civil liberties and a big, tent inclusive Democratic party that welcomed people from
• 51:27
  all backgrounds and you know, different ideas was really attractive to me and was
• 51:32
  why join the Democratic Party. But fast forward to where we are today.
• 51:37
  As you said, Bobby, I mean, today's Democratic Party is a party
• 51:42
  that is under the complete control of this elitist cabal of warmongers. Not only
• 51:49
  is it being led by warmongers, but we have a situation now where as
• 51:53
  we saw last fall, where the Congressional Progressive Caucus, you know, they
• 51:58
  had the audacity to release a public letter to President Biden very gently, very
• 52:04
  gently and with a lot of flowery words, calling for diplomacy and for him
• 52:07
  to lead a diplomatic effort to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. And
• 52:14
  within twenty four hours they retracted the letter, and essentially we're cowering in the
• 52:17
  corner. You know, we can imagine the kind of pressure that they were
• 52:22
  under to do that, and the kind of public criticism that they receive for
• 52:25
  daring to call for peace. So the voices for peace within the Democratic Party
• 52:30
  have been silenced. Rather than this big, tent inclusive Democratic Party, we
• 52:36
  now have party leaders who are focusing their efforts on dividing us, on racializing
• 52:43
  every issue, using identity politics to gain a few political points and votes,
• 52:49
  Undermining fundamental freedom's freedom of speech, advocating censorship, not only advocating for,
• 52:53
  but trying to create government entities in order to shut us up, weaponizing the
• 52:59
  national Securities state to go after political opponents. The principles and ideals of the
• 53:02
  Democratic Party stands for today are directly counter to those that are fundamental and foundational
• 53:08
  to this country. And now we're at a point where President Biden has most
• 53:14
  dangerously dragged us essentially to the brink of nuclear war. And that's where,
• 53:19
  Bobby, I'd love to ask you a question in this realm, in this
• 53:22
  vein of foreign policy, given the realities that we are facing, given you
• 53:27
  know, we're increasingly hearing a lot of politicians, Republicans and Democrats, frankly
• 53:31
  and including President Biden, who are actively and aggressively calling for a complete decoupling
• 53:37
  of the United States and China's economies. The Biden administration is actively moving forward
• 53:44
  quickly in this direction. Elon, you recently talked about how the United States
• 53:49
  and China's interests are intertwined like conjoined twins. I think really making the point
• 53:54
  that this act of decoupling our economies would essentially be like ripping apart conjoined twins,
• 54:00
  implying the catastrophic consequences that would occur as a result for both or both
• 54:06
  of these countries and the world. So, Bobby, what would your approach
• 54:10
  be with United States relationship with China. Do you believe that it's actually possible
• 54:15
  to have a peaceful coexistence or even a win relationship with China, or do
• 54:21
  you believe that it is a zero sum game where in order for the United
• 54:24
  States to win, that China must lose. Yeah. I think that's a
• 54:30
  great question, Paulsi And you know, my approach to that would be,
• 54:35
  let's recognize the reality that China is a very ambitious nation and that it does
• 54:40
  want to compete for us for influence in the world. But the reality is
• 54:45
  it does not want to compete with us militarily. It does not want to
• 54:49
  have a war with the United States. And China, you know, is
• 54:52
  still a very poor country compared to us. They have a the Chinese have
• 54:59
  heard cap but about one third of the income of the United States. They
• 55:02
  want to have a better lives for their citizens, and you know, they
• 55:06
  want to compete with us in places all around the world. I think we
• 55:09
  ought to be competing. I think we ought to be competing with the with
• 55:14
  them on an economic platform, not a military one. And I feel very
• 55:17
  I'm not scared of the Chinese. I'm not frightened that American ingenuity is going
• 55:22
  to fall behind the Chinese. I think it will be. That kind of
• 55:25
  competition is a competition that will be good for the whole world. And it's
• 55:30
  a competition that is a collaborative peace, a collaborative world rather than a competitive
• 55:35
  world. A kind of collaborative competition, if you will. And you know,
• 55:38
  the Chinese do not want to have a war with us. We have
• 55:42
  we spend more on our military. We're now spending one point three trillion a
• 55:45
  year a military including veterans benefits which you can't got back. But you know,
• 55:50
  we were told after the Cold War ended that we were going to get
• 55:53
  a piece dividend and we were going to cut our military budget back to two
• 55:58
  hundred billion a year. Instead we've got it at one point three billion a
• 56:00
  year if you include you know, veterans and national security, and we never
• 56:07
  got that piece of it. So we now spend more on our military than
• 56:10
  the top ten next nations in the world. We spend three times. We
• 56:15
  have three times the military budget of the Chinese. The Chinese can. We
• 56:20
  have five times the nuclear weapons the Chinese. The Chinese cannot and do not
• 56:23
  want to compete with us militarily. The Chinese have about one and military basis
• 56:29
  in the world. We have eight hundred. So it's kind of a self
• 56:32
  fulfilling prophecy that says, oh, the Chinese or you know, want to
• 56:37
  be our enemy and have a military competition. They don't. What we should
• 56:40
  be doing is de escalating the military pressure on China. We should be talking
• 56:45
  to China, for God's sake. We haven't had a meeting with China in
• 56:49
  five years. We know what our objectives are. We want to rebuild our
• 56:52
  intellstual base in the United States. We don't want the Chinese to take that
• 56:57
  from us. And any negotiations with Chinese should not be about military swaggering.
• 57:02
  It should be about how do we have an economic relationship with you that is
• 57:07
  going to benefit all parties the way that every good economic relationship does. And
• 57:14
  here's what our objective is in the next round of negotiations is we want to
• 57:17
  rebuild our industrial base here in the United States, and any agreement that we
• 57:22
  make, any transaction that we make with the Chinese, that should be foremost
• 57:28
  in our minds. How do we do that? But I'm not You know,
• 57:30
  the Chinese have been doing a lot better than us because they've been projecting
• 57:36
  economic power abroad and that the world likes that. We think the world is
• 57:39
  on our side, but it isn't. All. We've got. The only
• 57:44
  people who are supporting this, you know, this pugnacious belicos relationship with China
• 57:49
  are Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Britain, Canada, and
• 57:54
  the United States. And we're pretty much alone in the world. The rest
• 57:58
  of the world is looking at, what the heck are you doing? Why
• 58:01
  are you trying to create a war with China? Why are you fighting them
• 58:07
  over over? Why are you making Taiwan a military issue. Let's let that
• 58:10
  Taiwan and China work out that issue on their own and back off militarily and
• 58:16
  try to have a they want they don't want war. They want peace and
• 58:21
  they want prosperity, and that cannot happen where there's a war. So let's
• 58:25
  have you know, let's de escalate the war talk, Let's compete economically,
• 58:30
  and let's talk to them and figure out a way that you know, we
• 58:34
  can have a smart negotiation where we do better because of China, rather than
• 58:38
  you know, giving away the store and exporting jobs, which all the other
• 58:44
  treaties have done. Instead, let's figure out have an economic relationia financial relationship
• 58:49
  with them that rebuilds the American industrial base. Thank you, Bobby. You
• 58:52
  know this is such an Obviously, this issue and the broader issue foreign policy,
• 58:58
  is central to any presidential race, and it's unfortunate that traditionally, as
• 59:04
  we've seen, these issues are very rarely given the kind of attention they deserve.
• 59:08
  And yet again this is exactly why there should be presidential primary debates for
• 59:15
  the sake of the American people to have a clear choice, a clear informed
• 59:17
  choice on who they would like to see as our president and commander in chief.
• 59:21
  Thank you, thank you for sharing your insight, and thank you Elon
• 59:23
  and David for posting this important conversation. And see, you know we haven't
• 59:28
  had we haven't had a serious economic meeting, even a political meeting with the
• 59:34
  Chinese since seven years. You know, the CIA director Bill Burns recently went
• 59:39
  over there to meet with the Chinese. But that's not the kind of meeting.
• 59:43
  We need to have a real political and economic discussion with that. That
• 59:47
  is frank and that you know that let where everybody puts their cards on the
• 59:52
  table and to see if there's ways that we can work with each other peacefully
• 59:55
  and keep the world at peace. Why in the world would we go And
• 1:00:00
  this is on you know, this is on President. You know President Biden
• 1:00:04
  has forbidden his State Department, which are run by Need, has forbidden any
• 1:00:08
  kind of talks or outreached in the Chinese. That is outrageous. You know,
• 1:00:14
  it is exactly the opposite of what White Eyes and our was trying to
• 1:00:17
  do, you know, to find the world to peace with the Russians,
• 1:00:21
  which was disrupted by the you you know, the CIA missgotten YouTube lights and
• 1:00:27
  then my uncle tried to do this thing. Let's have peace with the with
• 1:00:30
  Russia, let's have peace with China, and let's all enjoy the prosperity of
• 1:00:35
  healthy economic competition. Well said, Well said Bobby, thank you. That's
• 1:00:38
  actually something that is worth is that on my reason to China, I were
• 1:00:44
  with the senior leadership there. We had I think some very productive discussions on
• 1:00:49
  artificial intelligence risks and the need for some oversighter regulation. And my understanding from
• 1:00:54
  those conversations is that China will be initiating AI ration in China. So that
• 1:01:01
  was those were very promising discussions. And you know, I pointed out that
• 1:01:05
  if there is a digital superintelligence that is overwhelmingly powerful felt in China, it
• 1:01:12
  is actually a risk to the sovereignty of the Chinese government, and I think
• 1:01:16
  they took that concern to heart. Yeah. I mean, I love you
• 1:01:20
  you saying that, because it makes us understand, no matter how you feel
• 1:01:24
  about China, if we are not able to negotiate with our adversaries on issues
• 1:01:30
  like that, there are now existential threats and it's not just a it's these
• 1:01:35
  bioweapons development where you know, we have these labs now all over the world
• 1:01:38
  in Ukraine, et cetera, that are developing all kinds of hideous and including
• 1:01:44
  you know, ethnic bioweapons that kill people from certain races, et cetera,
• 1:01:47
  that are designed to do that, and they already have them and they're ready
• 1:01:51
  to escape. And you know, every country in the world has wanted to
• 1:01:54
  ban bioweapons. We initiate Richard Nixon's sign the Bioweapons in nineteen got all the
• 1:02:01
  countries in the world too agreed to stop developing them. We hate the CIA
• 1:02:06
  continue to secretly develop them. And then after two thousand when we passed the
• 1:02:09
  Patriot Act and we relaunched the bioweapons arms race, so now every country in
• 1:02:14
  the world, in many countries, are now developing them. We should shut
• 1:02:16
  the whole thing down. You know, COVID was clearly a bioweapons problem.
• 1:02:22
  We and you saw what that did to us. What if it was a
• 1:02:24
  real disease, a disease that had a fifty mortality like gay fever, a
• 1:02:29
  bull or you know, one of these other really deadly fiers. They've got
• 1:02:32
  those in the lapse too. What if that was the one that is led
• 1:02:37
  shut it down around the world. Let's have a real shutdown of all bioweapons
• 1:02:40
  development, had verification of that, and then let's sit down with the other
• 1:02:45
  people from Iran, from Israel, from Russia and China and talk about okay,
• 1:02:52
  and make sure that one country does not develop a weapon that is going
• 1:02:57
  to kill all the rest of us. We need to You can't just have
• 1:03:00
  one country regulating this. China or cannot be regulating the development of digital superintendent.
• 1:03:07
  You need the United States and China. All of us need to be
• 1:03:09
  participating. All of us need to be able to police the research it's happening
• 1:03:15
  in other countries, and we need to have transparency and protection. Otherwise we
• 1:03:20
  are headed down the road to a very grim, dystopian future for all of
• 1:03:24
  humanity, where we are beyond the point where we cannot where we can afford
• 1:03:30
  the luxury of not negotiating about these things with the other powers in the planet.
• 1:03:36
  And you know, we need a president who is aware of these threats
• 1:03:40
  to humanity and seize himself as the guardian of all of humanity and is thinking
• 1:03:46
  about this twenty four hours a day. How do we aft this kind of
• 1:03:50
  future a bioweapons extinction or an extinction it's being We cannot afford not to negotiate
• 1:03:57
  about this stuff anymore. And all these agencies, the CIA is developing this
• 1:04:02
  stuff too, and we have no idea. They are not friendly in the
• 1:04:05
  American you know, the American system. You know. I talked to Mike
• 1:04:10
  Pompeio the other day and he said that he said what he said when he
• 1:04:15
  was at the agency. He was very cand and you know, really smart
• 1:04:19
  about the agency. And he said when he was there, he did not
• 1:04:23
  do a good job of dismantling of you know, of dismantling agency capture at
• 1:04:28
  the CIA. And he said that, he said, if you take the
• 1:04:31
  opperancial on it, that agency, it's made up almost entirely at people who
• 1:04:36
  do not believe in the institutions of the United States and democracy. And you
• 1:04:41
  know, so I think that's absolutely true from everything I know. I know
• 1:04:45
  a lot about that agency. And we've got it. You know, we
• 1:04:48
  have got to get awful war footing, which gives these institutions the excuse to
• 1:04:55
  be super secret and non transparent, pretend we're at and put us in a
• 1:05:01
  security state where they can develop all these crazy technologies and secret that are going
• 1:05:06
  to kill us all. It's crazy, it is, Bobby, And that
• 1:05:10
  really gets to your central point about diplomacy and elon, you know, your
• 1:05:14
  example of what can come about when we're just really willing to have a conversation.
• 1:05:17
  The President United States should be trusted by the American people to put the
• 1:05:23
  well being an interest of the American people at the forefront of the decisions that
• 1:05:27
  he or she makes. There are common threats and concerns that exist with people
• 1:05:33
  around the world. We don't live in vacuums, and while we may have
• 1:05:35
  differences with other countries, things like things like the threat of nuclear war,
• 1:05:41
  things like protecting our environment so that we as humans on this planet have clean
• 1:05:45
  air to breathe and clean water to drink, and that we can grow food
• 1:05:49
  to survive that you mentioned the bioweapons. There are so many different challenges that
• 1:05:55
  we must address together, and we need a leader who recognizes that and puts
• 1:05:59
  the those interests in the well being of the people ahead of the whole cabal
• 1:06:03
  of special interest that that you've talked about. All right, thank you,
• 1:06:08
  TULSEI. But by the way, Bobby, I think probably the most surreal
• 1:06:11
  moment of the entire Ukraine War so far has been when Victoria Newland was testifying
• 1:06:15
  for Congress and admitted that there was a secret network of biolabs in Ukraine who
• 1:06:21
  contained materials that were so potentially dangerous that she was worried about them falling into
• 1:06:28
  Russian hands. Yeah, after the media had been characterizing that that in fact
• 1:06:33
  as disinformation, as Russian disinformation for weeks and then and punishing those guys who
• 1:06:41
  were saying, yeah, this is what's happening. And then Victoria Newan gets
• 1:06:44
  in front of Congress and gets a you know, a free question from Marco
• 1:06:48
  Rubio, and she is under oath and answers, and honestly it says,
• 1:06:53
  yeah, we got bioweapons labs there, and we're really scared the Russians are
• 1:06:57
  going to get get in there and get our stuff. It was a weird
• 1:07:00
  because why in the world would be have biolabs there. It's just so strange.
• 1:07:04
  The media continued to pile on, by the way, even after she
• 1:07:08
  testified and answered Mark Rubio's question. Honestly, I cited her quote in some
• 1:07:14
  statements I made, agreeing with you, Bob. Sorry, especially in a
• 1:07:17
  time of war where they would be vulnerable to whatever pathogens might exist in those
• 1:07:23
  biolabs being released and causing threat to the world. Ukraine has blacklisted me from
• 1:07:29
  visiting their country ever again, and I was posts that I put on social
• 1:07:32
  media sites were banned or shadow band because of this claim of misinformation disinformation.
• 1:07:38
  News outlets across the country called you know, criticized me of spreading misinformation disinformation,
• 1:07:44
  even when I cited the DoD website that stated this as fact. I
• 1:07:48
  think it just shows even when they speak the truth, they're apparently afraid of
• 1:07:53
  the truth and want to be able to continue what they're doing no matter the
• 1:07:57
  risk. Does have a free press, no way, Oh okay, just
• 1:08:01
  wanted to turn well, there was an article just today in Somemaphore of all
• 1:08:08
  places, talking about how media has to be licensed by the government there.
• 1:08:13
  That's exactly right, and then separately talk about embarrassing revelations. The New York
• 1:08:17
  Times today has a story about how pesky Nazi insignia is keep turning up on
• 1:08:25
  the uniforms of you know, Ukrainian army members, and they have to keep
• 1:08:30
  censoring photos so that these things don't appear in the press. Of course,
• 1:08:33
  New York Times says that the biggest problem with this is not that advanced Western
• 1:08:39
  weapons maybe finding their hands into the hands of neo Nazis, but rather that
• 1:08:43
  this will play into Russian propaganda. But regardless of what it is, again,
• 1:08:48
  it's one of these embarrassing data points that show that, you know,
• 1:08:54
  we're constantly being fed information about this war and then these things, you know,
• 1:08:58
  pop up and you realize that you know, they may not be talking
• 1:09:01
  to everything. I mean, we've been propagandized with these comic book depictions that
• 1:09:06
  are now formulaic. You know that there's a bad guy, he did a
• 1:09:11
  bad thing, it was unprovoked, and the United States needs to go in
• 1:09:15
  and fix this situation by the people he's victimizing. And you know, it's
• 1:09:19
  such a good testimony the American people that you know that they that they're willing
• 1:09:26
  to make those sacrifices I in some cases, of our children, of our
• 1:09:30
  fortune, to go in help other countries. But the problem is we're being
• 1:09:34
  victimized too by our own agencies, which are you know, which are leaving
• 1:09:40
  out the contextual information, which are leaving out the nuance, which are leaving
• 1:09:44
  out the entire history in this case of US propagates, which brought us into
• 1:09:49
  which brought us and also brought Ukraine into a war that is not helping you.
• 1:09:55
  Great Ukraine is now last probably three hundred and fifty thousand kids, and
• 1:10:00
  they are in much worse position than when they began. When they you know,
• 1:10:04
  in February fourteenth, twenty fourteenth, in twenty nineteen, they could have
• 1:10:10
  signed the banks courts and kept them bas and and no nobody killed. And
• 1:10:14
  they're never going to and they're never going to get back to that place again.
• 1:10:17
  And as you guys understand, the Russians are not going to win this
• 1:10:20
  war. They cannot afford to win this war. This war is existential for
• 1:10:25
  Russia and it would be like US losing a war in Mexico to be Ukraine,
• 1:10:30
  you mean Ukraine, Cadet. I'm sorry, Ukraine. I'm sorry.
• 1:10:32
  Ukraine cannot win this war. And you know they're now is unclear what the
• 1:10:38
  ratio, the death ratio is. There's credible information that they are suffering deaths
• 1:10:44
  that are seven deaths for every one Russian killed. And we are we have
• 1:10:47
  turned this country into this, you know, to a slaughterhouse of the flower
• 1:10:53
  of Ukrainian youth to benefit the geopolitical ambitions of these you know, of the
• 1:10:58
  us Nicans who it exhausts the Russian army and exercise regime change over Vladimir Putin.
• 1:11:04
  And and the Ukraine is a victim in this war. It's a proxy
• 1:11:10
  war. It's a victim of Russia. Yes, it was an illegal invasion
• 1:11:14
  and a brutal invasion that could have been avoided by Vladimir Putin. But they're
• 1:11:18
  equally, almost equally at least a victim of US policies. And you know
• 1:11:24
  the ambitions and aspirations that the Nakans who wanted to get into this war.
• 1:11:28
  No matter what I think, the war was easily avoidable if you had been
• 1:11:30
  willing to use taphomacy and basically give a written guarantee to the Russians that Ukraine
• 1:11:35
  would not become part of NATO. That is what they were demanding in December
• 1:11:39
  of twenty twenty one, and a written ultimatum to the White House. It's
• 1:11:44
  what they were explicitly with our Secretary of State in January of twenty twenty two.
• 1:11:47
  And those negotiations ended where we said we wouldn't close NATO's door and then,
• 1:11:51
  like you said, the other thing we didn't do was give support to
• 1:11:55
  the Mensk Agreements, which would have provided some limited autonomy to the ethnic Russian
• 1:12:00
  to the Donbass, and that would have solved that sort of civil war that
• 1:12:02
  was going on there. We had just done those two things, I think
• 1:12:04
  there's a really good chance that this war never would have occurred. And you
• 1:12:08
  know, a lot of people say, well, you can't know that,
• 1:12:09
  But the point is we tried. We never tried taking NATO off the table,
• 1:12:13
  we never tried giving our support to the Menska agreements. Yeah, and
• 1:12:16
  there's a big question because Delenski ran in twenty nineteen on a peace platform,
• 1:12:23
  and I've pointed out before that you know, he was Okay, he's a
• 1:12:26
  comedian and an actor, which I'm not saying in a disparaging way because my
• 1:12:30
  wife is also both of those things. But I say that because he had
• 1:12:33
  no involvement in politics, and yet he won in this huge landside with seventy
• 1:12:40
  percent of the vote because he was running on a peace platform with the promise
• 1:12:43
  that he would sign the minx A Cords and settle this, and the minx
• 1:12:46
  Acords did the same thing at ultimatum did, which is they said NATO will
• 1:12:50
  forever keep out of Ukraine, and that and that we that they would that
• 1:12:58
  Dambas would be made an autonomous region within the Ukraine that was still governed by
• 1:13:02
  the Ukraine, but would be able to retain its own language and culture and
• 1:13:06
  be able to protect its citizens against a violent aggression and deadly aggression from forces
• 1:13:13
  like the Asok Battalion and you know, and other hostile forces within the Ukrainian
• 1:13:17
  government. And they and by the way, the Ukraine they voted ninety to
• 1:13:23
  ten to leave the Ukraine and join Russia, joined the Russian Federation ninety and
• 1:13:29
  the Russian Vladimir Putin said, no, we don't want you. We want
• 1:13:33
  Ukraine to stay a complete country. And and that was and then you know,
• 1:13:39
  they agreed, Russia greed, France agreed, Germany agreed on the Minska
• 1:13:44
  courts, which was a reasonable settlement. Keep keep NATO out of the Ukraine.
• 1:13:48
  And why you know, my uncle President Kennedy Houston always say, if
• 1:13:54
  you want to the only way to have peace is if you put your yourself
• 1:13:58
  into the shoes of your address there and he gave this verius namous speech on
• 1:14:01
  July or June tenth, five days now, it will be the sixtieth anniversary
• 1:14:06
  to American University's most important speech, which was which turned the country around on
• 1:14:12
  the atmosphere Test Pan Treaty. It was the first test pantry. It was
• 1:14:15
  the first treaty of the nuclear age. It was the first treaty of demanded
• 1:14:19
  certain use of nuclear weapons Ian Russia. He and Khrushev agreed on it privately
• 1:14:24
  without involving the State Department. The State and Apartment posed at the military opposed
• 1:14:29
  it. Congress, the Senate opposed it, but the American people ended up
• 1:14:31
  supporting it. After he gave this speech, intented a national tour. But
• 1:14:35
  in that speech was a fascinating speech because he was explaining for the first time
• 1:14:42
  to the American people the role and the suffering that Russia had endured during World
• 1:14:46
  War Two. As I grew up in a generation where we were told that
• 1:14:50
  America had won the war against the Nazis, and you know, we were
• 1:14:54
  watching shows like Combat with Vic Morrow every week on TV, and that showed
• 1:14:59
  how Americans had been the victor. And you know, and without America the
• 1:15:02
  world would have been lost. My uncle was telling the American people that's not
• 1:15:06
  true. The people who beat Hitler were the Russians, and they made it
• 1:15:11
  sacrifice that is unimaginable to anybody else in the world. Hitler invaded Russia through
• 1:15:16
  the Ukraine and then killed one out of every seven Russians and leveled the nation
• 1:15:24
  one third of the nation. My uncle went during that Spaiji said, imagine
• 1:15:29
  if all of the American continents, the United States was reduced to rubble between
• 1:15:33
  the east coast and Chicago. That's what happened to Russian You've got to understand
• 1:15:39
  that if we're going to have peace with this country, and you know,
• 1:15:43
  we need to understand that today, we need to put ourselves in the shoes.
• 1:15:46
  By the way, it's not just putin. The Russian leadership back in
• 1:15:50
  the nineties said, you know, in two we made it. They made
• 1:15:54
  agreement. They said, we will pull our troops are four hundred thousand troops
• 1:15:59
  out of East Syrman, and we will turn East Germany over to a hostile
• 1:16:02
  army, the NATO army. And the concession that we want from you for
• 1:16:06
  that is that you will not move NATO to the east. And President Bush
• 1:16:12
  famously told them we will not move NATO one inch to the east. Then
• 1:16:15
  that leader of the Nikons, who presents the grandfather of all the Nikons,
• 1:16:19
  in nineteen ninety seven laid out a plan or taken for moving NATO into every
• 1:16:25
  one of the former Russian satellite states. And at that time George Cannon,
• 1:16:31
  who was the most important diplomat in American history. He was the architect of
• 1:16:35
  the Cold War containment policy. He was a deity in terms of American statesmanship
• 1:16:42
  in diplomacy. He said that if you move NATO to the east as your
• 1:16:45
  pleasant new then planning, it will be a calamity that will end in forcing
• 1:16:50
  the Russians to to violence because you are intruding on their national security. Bill
• 1:16:58
  Parry, who at that time was the Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton,
• 1:17:02
  threatened to resign because he said, this is a formula for war with Russia
• 1:17:08
  and put this law before putin came in. Bill Burns, who was the
• 1:17:12
  Russia the US ambassador in Moscow at that time, said the same thing.
• 1:17:15
  He said, this is a formula that is going to force the Russians into
• 1:17:19
  war. Bill Burns incidentally is now the head of the CIA. So these
• 1:17:25
  were the most important diplomats who were saying, if you move in NATO to
• 1:17:28
  the east, you're gonna force the Russians into war. And we moved into
• 1:17:31
  every country except one Ukraine, and then we said and that was the one
• 1:17:36
  where Russia said, it is a red line. Bill Burns in fact wrote
• 1:17:41
  a note a memo from Moscow in the State Department saying yet means yet,
• 1:17:46
  and he said, if you move it into the Ukraine, they are gonna
• 1:17:49
  go to war. They're not. It is a red line that you cannot
• 1:17:54
  cross. And yet we just na Khan's God, you know, they did
• 1:17:57
  as much as they could up through the Bush administry. Then they were in
• 1:18:00
  exile, and they came back in Trump and they and what else do they
• 1:18:03
  do? In Trump? They got rid of two nuclear treaties. So we
• 1:18:09
  walked away from two treaties, the intermediate nuclear weapons treaties that banned intermediate nuclear
• 1:18:14
  weapons station anywhere near Russia, and we unilaterally walked away from that. And
• 1:18:18
  then we install the Aegis missile systems in Romania and Poland that were nuclear capable,
• 1:18:25
  that can fire Tomahawk missiles and get to Russian in a few minutes.
• 1:18:28
  And to calpitate the entire leadership the Russian said, Okay, you got that.
• 1:18:33
  We're putting up with it, but we're not going to put up with
• 1:18:35
  that in you grade, because you grated four miles from Russia, you'll be
• 1:18:40
  able to dec up our leadership, decapitate our leadership in seconds, and that
• 1:18:45
  will that is likely to destabilize the entire region, legion a preemptive strike,
• 1:18:49
  and yet we did it anyway, And it's just it's dumbfounding what we did,
• 1:18:55
  you know, the blunder. This is like sleep walking into World War
• 1:18:58
  One. This exactly what happened, you know, in World War One,
• 1:19:01
  where you had these great powers acting like idiots and sleep walking into this,
• 1:19:06
  you know, war that accomplished nothing. And now we're right on that.
• 1:19:10
  Now we have nuclear weapons and we're going up. We're pigging a fight with
• 1:19:15
  a country that has a thousand more nuclear weapons than we do. It's just
• 1:19:18
  insane. Did you want to comm up there? I just saw you went
• 1:19:21
  off of you. Sorry, just I mean, I share a lot of
• 1:19:25
  these concerns. I mean, I think certainly if there's not some some kind
• 1:19:29
  of piece so cease fire that is figured out soon, I agree that we're
• 1:19:32
  essentially sending the flower of the Ukrainian youth and Russian youth. I think very
• 1:19:38
  few of those people actually want to be there to die in the trenches.
• 1:19:41
  And I think it's morally referenceable. If you know, if diplomats are having
• 1:19:45
  you know, fulying dinners while all these kids are dying in trenches, it's
• 1:19:49
  just crazy. Yeah, I MA ask you on the energy subject, what
• 1:19:54
  are your views on nuclear power? Well, my assagen to get in a
• 1:19:57
  fight with Michael Schallenberg here because I have been disputing this for years. But
• 1:20:01
  what I've always said, Eli is that nuclear power. I'm all for nuclear
• 1:20:05
  power if you can make it safe and you can make it economical. And
• 1:20:09
  right now it's just so far from being either. And it's not me saying
• 1:20:14
  it's unsafe, it's the insurance industry. The insurance industry regards this nuclear power
• 1:20:19
  is so unsafe that they will not give an insurance policy. And you know,
• 1:20:24
  we've seen their record. The record is horrific. You know what's happening
• 1:20:28
  where they're you know now there there's probably a square mile of these tanks that
• 1:20:32
  there. They put water in every day because it's been damidated water they're trying
• 1:20:36
  to keep it out of the Pacific, but there's no way to ever stop
• 1:20:39
  it. So they're building these huge tanks and there's and you can look on
• 1:20:43
  the internet. They go all the way to the horizon. You know,
• 1:20:45
  we've watched what happened at Chernobyl, et cetera. But putting aside the past
• 1:20:49
  performance of this industry, which has been cataclysmic, you just you know,
• 1:20:55
  if the if they if the suddenly they get a technology that makes them safe
• 1:20:59
  and get an insurance policy so that we don't have to worry about it right
• 1:21:01
  now. You know, they've gone to Congress. They can't get insurance,
• 1:21:05
  so they've gone to Congress and in a sleazy legislative maneuver in the middle of
• 1:21:11
  the night, as the Price Anderson Act, which gives them which absolves them
• 1:21:15
  from liability, it gives them immunity from liability. So they're just like the
• 1:21:18
  vaccine industry. There's no incentive for them to behave because they don't have to
• 1:21:23
  pay the costs that the homeowners pay. The cost My insurance policy and my
• 1:21:27
  home in Mount Kisco had a provision at it that that does not insure you
• 1:21:31
  against radiation from a nuclear accident. At Indian Point. It was Myra,
• 1:21:38
  so they shifted the burden to me, And then industry shouldn't be allowed to
• 1:21:41
  do that. And then secondly, it's so catasrostrophically expensive. To build a
• 1:21:45
  solar plant cost a billion dollars at giga, a wind plant costs one two,
• 1:21:50
  a cold plant costs about three point six billion a gigaway, and the
• 1:21:55
  last nuclear power plant built costs fifteen billion a gigaway. So and then you
• 1:22:00
  have to pay for the you know, the mining of the uranium. You
• 1:22:02
  have to pay for the technicians, you have to pay for the outages,
• 1:22:05
  you have to pay for the storage of the waste for the next thirty thousand
• 1:22:11
  years, which is five times the length of recording human history. And no
• 1:22:15
  utility in the world will build a nuclear power plant unless it's fully subsidized by
• 1:22:20
  the public. So, you know, I believe in free market capitalism.
• 1:22:25
  You we could make energy by burning prime rip if we wanted to. But
• 1:22:29
  you know, why don't we take the cheapest way to make energy, which
• 1:22:31
  is, you know, which is going to be some alternative that is not
• 1:22:35
  nuclear if you can make nuclear competitive for it. But I am a free
• 1:22:40
  market absolutist, and I believe that we should take the cheapest form of energy
• 1:22:44
  that you We should have no subsidies, no, and all the companies should
• 1:22:47
  have to internalize their cost the same way that they internalize their profits, and
• 1:22:51
  that means the cost of pollution. You can't have a company that can put
• 1:22:56
  as a rate coal company acidifying every lake in the appllations and you know,
• 1:23:00
  from Georgia to northern Quebec, putting mercury in all of our every fresh water
• 1:23:04
  fish in America, acidifying the ocean, chopping down all the mountains. They
• 1:23:09
  need to pay those costs to the American public. The lows of those resources
• 1:23:14
  have to be paid for. And if they did that, nobody would buy
• 1:23:16
  coal because it's it's supposed to be cheap, but it's the most cataclysmic expensive
• 1:23:21
  form of energy that's probably been denied except for nuke, which is the most
• 1:23:26
  expensive way to boil a pot of water that anybody has ever imagined. I
• 1:23:30
  just I believe in markets, free market capitalism, and that don't apply to
• 1:23:35
  the energy industry, and at this point nuke just can't compete. All right,
• 1:23:40
  guys, we have just a quick time check here. I think we
• 1:23:43
  only got body for another few minutes. We've been going for about two hours,
• 1:23:45
  so I want to make sure we get into some questions from the crowd.
• 1:23:48
  Actually, David wanted to just quickly respond to that if for me and
• 1:23:53
  then for sure, So I suddenly agree that that you know that soil power
• 1:23:58
  and wind are great, which supporter of solar wind. I also agree that
• 1:24:02
  the costs of coal power plants are underestimated. They're actually if you're out of
• 1:24:09
  the deaths from coal mining and the sort of effects on people's lungs who live
• 1:24:14
  nearly coal plants, it's pretty bad. It's actually way worse than nuclear.
• 1:24:16
  So but I do want to sort of voice my opinion that in my opinion,
• 1:24:20
  actually nuclear is very safe. If you look at the actual you know,
• 1:24:25
  deaths from nuclear power, it is their minuscule compared to certainly any fossil
• 1:24:30
  fuel power generation. That the fear of nuclear is very high. I think
• 1:24:33
  the concern, you know, it's not claiming to me why the insurance companies
• 1:24:38
  charge so much, but it you know, I think that the modern nuclear
• 1:24:42
  plants are extremely safe. And I would actually, although this does go against
• 1:24:45
  a lot of people, if you used I actually am a believer in a
• 1:24:48
  nuclear vision. So I just want to stay definitely record and we can move
• 1:24:51
  on to something else. All right, sounds good, Only a few more
• 1:24:55
  minutes. There's so much more stuff to get to. Bobby. You mentioned
• 1:24:58
  that your wife is an act during comedian like mister Zelenski, And actually we
• 1:25:02
  were able to I know Cheryl in the room, so we brought around stage
• 1:25:06
  Eryl. Welcome, and I guess your question, which is, how do
• 1:25:11
  you feel Bobby running for president? And I'm also about what all of your
• 1:25:15
  friends in Hollywood think about his candidacy. Can you guys hear me? Okay?
• 1:25:18
  I didn't know. Oh no, I didn't need it. I was
• 1:25:23
  just taking your minding my own wax, listening and enjoying the conversation. What
• 1:25:29
  I know, I forgot the question how do I feel about it? Yeah?
• 1:25:31
  Yeah, and out of her Hollywood friends feel about it? On the
• 1:25:35
  spot, well, by the way, I love that they're called my Hollywood
• 1:25:40
  friends. They would be like, I'm sure there's not one friend of mine
• 1:25:43
  that considers themselves a Hollywood friend. But well, first of all, yes,
• 1:25:47
  it took a little while to get used to the idea of Bobby running.
• 1:25:54
  And you know, I took some time with it. Bobby and I
• 1:25:58
  talked about it a lot and and decided, yes, this is what needs
• 1:26:02
  to happen. And honestly, it's been really interesting and at times exciting.
• 1:26:12
  It's really fun for me to witness Bobby in his element. You know,
• 1:26:17
  I really feel confident that this is what he is meant to do. So
• 1:26:23
  he he is just I just see him in this light that's shining on him
• 1:26:29
  at this moment, and it's really exciting to watch. So I know,
• 1:26:33
  at the same time, I know there will be challenges that I you know,
• 1:26:40
  hope, I'm I know I'll be strong enough to face. But so
• 1:26:44
  I know there'll be challenges that will have to face and you know, we'll
• 1:26:47
  we'll get through them. I Cheryl told me when she finally, you know,
• 1:26:54
  decided okay, we'll go along with this, she said. Cheryl,
• 1:26:57
  before she was an actor, and even she was early actor, she made
• 1:27:01
  her living or attending and she said that she was going to go to the
• 1:27:05
  Pamas and advance a little kind of Margarita at heads in it and that was
• 1:27:10
  going to be her solution. I'm a very practical person, all right,
• 1:27:14
  Well, thanks for thanks for being a good sport, Cheryl. I saw
• 1:27:16
  you in the crowd. I couldn't resist pulling you up here, so I
• 1:27:18
  appreciate that. It's nice too. It's nice to be acknowledged, and thank
• 1:27:25
  you, Thank you guys Elon and David for posting and doing this. And
• 1:27:30
  I'll slip back into the background now, all right, so good, all
• 1:27:32
  right, Lake and we'll hear from Kelly Slater. And there's a couple of
• 1:27:35
  questions from the crowd I want to take as well. But Bolg, you
• 1:27:39
  want to ask a question? Sure, can you hear me? Yeah?
• 1:27:41
  Okay, okay, mister Kenny. I've been impressed with your sophistication a number
• 1:27:45
  of issues related piece civil liberties, CBC is bitcoin. I really only have
• 1:27:49
  one question to release to our financial system. The short version of it is
• 1:27:54
  will you be able to dig into the devaluation of treasuries and other government bonds?
• 1:27:58
  But they said, as a little bit of back ground, the fedest
• 1:28:00
  turned treasuries into the new toxic waste. A series of ill concerned moves has
• 1:28:03
  turned the so called safest act in the world into the risky assassin in the
• 1:28:08
  world and set the stage for a second financial crisis. Stanford estimates the bond
• 1:28:11
  losses to being the trillions. Dalio says they extend far beyond banks to pension
• 1:28:15
  funds, insurance companies, and other institutions. Neural Rabini says most banks are
• 1:28:19
  technically near insolvency and hundreds are already fully insolvent. The Guardian says banks underalized
• 1:28:25
  loss on bonder players a sufficiently largest who represents systemic risk, and EU Money
• 1:28:29
  says US Treasury bonds no longer beat the standards for high quality liquid assets.
• 1:28:32
  Right now, this bond crisis is being downplayed or blamed on everyone other than
• 1:28:36
  the Fed and Treasury, but fundamentally, Treasury sold assets in twenty twenty one
• 1:28:41
  that FED then devalued in twenty twenty, undercutting the balance sheets of countless banks
• 1:28:44
  and other financial institutions. In short, fedlied banks, died treasures are the
• 1:28:47
  new toxic waste. The Western financial system is a whole blown its bedrock asset
• 1:28:51
  and a second global financial crisis a broid. There are no obvious paths out
• 1:28:56
  of this that don't involve printing a lot of money. So while I recognize
• 1:28:58
  it's the somewhat ur keen sounding topic, just like Subhime and CEO's Unfortunately,
• 1:29:01
  once we're will be able to dig into the devaluation of treasuries and other government
• 1:29:05
  bonds by the time. And that's your question. I wish you had prefaced
• 1:29:09
  it by saying I had so much sophistication on every other few, because my
• 1:29:13
  only answer is that would will you please be my juagury secretary because I'd like
• 1:29:16
  you if you've got a solution, I want to hear it. I don't
• 1:29:19
  have lots of solutions. I can tell you what I think the problem is,
• 1:29:24
  but we can talk about it afterwards if you want. I would love
• 1:29:28
  that. And I you know I do you know I have a deep and
• 1:29:31
  long time concern about the that it has been deeply ingrained in my family for
• 1:29:36
  generations about just the out of control nature of the said and you know what,
• 1:29:42
  and the impact is that not only on the global money, but on
• 1:29:45
  democracy and on personal freedoms, et cetera. And my uncle tried to do
• 1:29:49
  something about that by at least coupling the money supply to base care seated gold
• 1:29:57
  and silver he you know, initiated to re his term gold certificates and silver
• 1:30:01
  certificates were which would at least have some part of the money supply that was,
• 1:30:06
  but that could not be easily manipulated because it was attached to the base
• 1:30:11
  currency. But after his death we went back to a full of currency.
• 1:30:15
  And that's you know, I think that the root of all of the issues,
• 1:30:19
  ultimate issues that you're talking about right now. And I you know,
• 1:30:24
  I do not have eigh enough level of phistication to be able to hear and
• 1:30:28
  tell you that I have a simple answer to it. I've talked to a
• 1:30:30
  lot of people and I've gotten a lot of different answers about how do you
• 1:30:33
  address it? But nobody claims that there is a panacea. But you know,
• 1:30:38
  we're about to hit a wall. And you know, we're already watching
• 1:30:42
  people lose faith in our and our credit and our currency. And you know,
• 1:30:46
  and the US dollar is now being threatened with losing its status it's the
• 1:30:50
  world's reserve currency. Brazil has already signaled that it's moving away to the China,
• 1:30:57
  adopting Chinese currency, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Akist and many other countries
• 1:31:01
  are and that will be that will be a the United States. It will
• 1:31:05
  make a great depression look like a cake walk. And so I know I
• 1:31:11
  understand the emergency nature of trying to figure out a way that can you know,
• 1:31:15
  to deal with this crisis, and I would love to talk to you
• 1:31:18
  about it if you have ideas and anybody who thinks that they can help solve
• 1:31:23
  this problem. All right, sounds good. We could spend a whole show
• 1:31:26
  just talking about these issues. We only have a few men's left, so
• 1:31:28
  I want to move on. Thanks pology and happy to connect you guys after
• 1:31:31
  so you can talk some more about it. Bobby. A question from the
• 1:31:33
  crowd. We got a lot of questions on the issue of gun control.
• 1:31:36
  I think it's one of the biggest topics in the feed. Here's one of
• 1:31:40
  them from a user, Pat King. He says, I need to know
• 1:31:44
  your detailed stance and policy on the Second Amendment before you get my vote.
• 1:31:48
  That's likely the only thing holding me back from voting for you. What do
• 1:31:50
  you say to him and the other people on the issue of gun control.
• 1:31:55
  My position on the gun control is I'm not going to take away anybody's gun
• 1:31:58
  inside, and I'm a constitutional absolutist and the you know, we can argue
• 1:32:03
  about when the Second Amendment was intended to protect guns, but that argument is
• 1:32:08
  now being settled by the Supreme Court, and it has a very and the
• 1:32:13
  Supreme Court, you know, the antonin Scalia's decision is a very expensive interpretation
• 1:32:18
  of the right town and gun But more importantly, I don't anybody who tells
• 1:32:23
  you that by with incremental changes, incremental laws and regulating and by the way,
• 1:32:30
  I want to say this, I have two members of my family that
• 1:32:31
  were killed in gun violence. So you know I take I understand heartbreak that
• 1:32:38
  this is causing to so many Americans. It's touched my family directly. And
• 1:32:42
  I know as president that you are going to expect me and I'm going to
• 1:32:45
  do everything I can to reduce gun violence in this country. I think one
• 1:32:49
  of the tools that has been taken out of my hands is taking away people's
• 1:32:54
  guns. I don't think it's the right thing right now, because it will
• 1:32:57
  just polarize our country. I've lived in rural areas this country. I know
• 1:33:01
  how integrated culture is in those areas and how important it is to them from
• 1:33:08
  a in the way they view the Constitution. I also know we're living in
• 1:33:11
  a time when the Constitution has been under attack all the other amendments in an
• 1:33:15
  unprecedented way, and how that would be seen by people who believe strongly in
• 1:33:19
  the in the Second Amendment as part of a systematic assault on our billet frights.
• 1:33:26
  And I don't want to get into that debate. I want to stop
• 1:33:29
  the school shootings, and if it comes down to protecting the schools the way
• 1:33:32
  that we protect airlines, I will do that. I do not want any
• 1:33:36
  more children dying in our schools. I also am going to look very closely
• 1:33:42
  at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events, and there are no good
• 1:33:48
  studies right now that that should have been done years ago on this issue.
• 1:33:54
  Because there's a tremendous, circumstantial evidence at those like SSR eyes and Benzo's and
• 1:34:01
  other drugs are doing this. There's something happening in our country right now that
• 1:34:06
  is not happening anywhere else in the world and has never happened in human history.
• 1:34:11
  And you have to look at some of the almost all of these drugs,
• 1:34:14
  if you look at their manufacturer's inserts, they include a side effect of
• 1:34:19
  homic silin suicidal behavior. And prior to the introduction of Prosact, we had
• 1:34:25
  almost no none of these events in our country, and we've never seen them
• 1:34:29
  in his human history where people walk into a schoolroom of children or strangers and
• 1:34:34
  start shooting people. There's other nations that have as many guns for cabinets we
• 1:34:40
  do, which in the last wool shooting was twenty one years ago, we
• 1:34:44
  have won every twenty one hours. The one thing that we have that's different
• 1:34:47
  than anybody in the world is the amount of psychiatric drugs our children are taking
• 1:34:53
  and our people are taking. And we need to look at that. And
• 1:34:57
  NIAG should have done that years ago, but they not do it, and
• 1:35:00
  they'll block other people from doing it because they are because they're working on for
• 1:35:04
  us, but for the pharmaceutical industry and this is their major profit centered and
• 1:35:10
  so nobody wants to hear none of those you know, No Pharma does not
• 1:35:13
  want to hear about any problems with s SR eyes. But I will do
• 1:35:16
  those studies immediately when I get into office, and we're going to get the
• 1:35:20
  truth. Something is something. You know, guns, the proliferation guns clearly
• 1:35:27
  a bet violence. But anybody who tells you that they can remove enough guns
• 1:35:31
  are fifty to whatever by tinkering at the margins and get to the kind of
• 1:35:35
  this situation that they have in Western Europe is pulling your leg. It's not
• 1:35:41
  gonna happen. We need to look now at other solutions and we and the
• 1:35:45
  only way we're ultimately going to get gun controls in this punchy is through consensus,
• 1:35:49
  and that consensus cannot happen when we're all at each other's throats. We
• 1:35:54
  need to ensure the public, people who feel insecure about the constitution. At
• 1:35:59
  our constitution, it's no longer underspread and nobody wants to come and take away
• 1:36:02
  their guns. And that will bring people to the table and say, Okay,
• 1:36:06
  how do we protect our children? And that's what I'm going to try
• 1:36:10
  to do as president. All right, thank you. Let's go to Kelly
• 1:36:13
  Slater. Kelly looks like you're on a skateboard somewhere. You have a question
• 1:36:15
  for Bobby. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes? Yeah, all
• 1:36:18
  right, great to talk to you, Bobby. How are you, sir?
• 1:36:21
  Very well? Kelly, thank you for coming. All right, I
• 1:36:24
  appreciate it. I think I speak for everyone when I say it's so refreshing
• 1:36:27
  to hear you talk about all these topics, things like reaching across the aisle.
• 1:36:30
  It was really nice to see Tulty on here. She's a good friend.
• 1:36:33
  I know what she's been through when she went to Syria and spoke to
• 1:36:36
  the leader over there. She got completely attacked for it at home. But
• 1:36:40
  to your point earlier regarding China, regarding Russia, other places, I mean,
• 1:36:45
  we need to have dialogue with these people. And I don't know why
• 1:36:47
  that Teina is such a bad thing. It doesn't mean you're in agreement.
• 1:36:50
  It means you're just trying to solves, come up with solutions. But we
• 1:36:54
  see that at home more and more with the media, and as you pointed
• 1:36:57
  out earlier, I think things get into what seems like dangerous ground when you
• 1:37:01
  start to talk about the implication to big pharma and other companies being in cahoots
• 1:37:06
  with media, then controlling the narrative, trying to cancel people like yourself.
• 1:37:11
  There's some frightening topics. So I find it really refreshing to listen to you,
• 1:37:14
  listen to the transparency that you have when speaking about all these different topics.
• 1:37:18
  And I guess that leads me back to sort of my question, because
• 1:37:21
  I see you as almost the trojan horse for transparency and honesty, and it's
• 1:37:26
  really refreshing in this political environment, and I feel like at times so far
• 1:37:30
  you've been they've attempted to reduce you to small talking points in the media,
• 1:37:33
  and I love talking hear you talking about all these other things other than them
• 1:37:38
  focusing on your vaccines stand questioning medical things. But as you get into all
• 1:37:42
  these other topics, we learned so much. So I just wonder how you'll
• 1:37:45
  change that narrative for people to hear your broader message and to continue to get
• 1:37:49
  that out because there's so many challenging things, but also the way you talk
• 1:37:51
  about them is really inspiring. Thank you so much, Kelly, and thank
• 1:37:56
  you for your courage sharing. You know, during the pandemic, you're really
• 1:38:00
  one of the few people on a time when athletes were being bullied all over
• 1:38:03
  the world, if you were one of the few people are standing up,
• 1:38:06
  and you know, you came and talk to me on my podcast when literally
• 1:38:11
  nobody in the world would talk to me. So I won't ever forget that,
• 1:38:15
  and I'm you know, I'm such an admirer of yours, not only
• 1:38:17
  as an athlete, it was one of my favorite athletes, but also as
• 1:38:20
  for your moral courage and for your really gentle we approach to the world,
• 1:38:27
  you know, and loving approach to the world, which is so inspiring.
• 1:38:30
  I you know what, I don't have a good strategy other than I don't
• 1:38:33
  lead ever with vaccine stuff. I've got. You know, I've been sort
• 1:38:36
  of silenced on all of these issues for eighteen years, and I feel like
• 1:38:41
  I got, you know, a lot of a lot. I'm bursting with
• 1:38:44
  things that opinions that people may not want to hear. Now. I don't
• 1:38:47
  ever need to talk about vaccines again, but if somebody asked me about vaccines,
• 1:38:53
  I'm going to tell them the truth. And a lot of times people
• 1:38:56
  ask me about them and then they immediately want to shut me up because it's
• 1:38:59
  like turning on a FIREHS. And I you know, I have a lot
• 1:39:01
  of domain knowledge. I know a lot about the issue, and and so
• 1:39:05
  I would you know what I would say, also generally to the press,
• 1:39:10
  if you don't want to hear about vaacines from me, don't ask me about
• 1:39:13
  them, and you know you'll never have to listen to me. But if
• 1:39:15
  you ask me, you shouldn't be shutting me up when I answer your question.
• 1:39:19
  But you know, I think I've actually been doing pretty well Kelly and
• 1:39:24
  being able to talk about some of these issues, you know, about the
• 1:39:27
  Ukraine, about the censorship, about the economy, about the destruction of the
• 1:39:31
  American middle class, about the the appropriation of our foreign policy by neo cons
• 1:39:36
  about the appropriation of our domestic policy by Wall Street, and you know,
• 1:39:41
  the big corporate dictators, and the capture of our agencies by the industries they're
• 1:39:46
  supposed to regulate. And you know, I have now it's been you know,
• 1:39:50
  Cheryl and I have been astonished by how much traction these issues are getting.
• 1:39:56
  It's really been, you know, she said that it was exciting and
• 1:39:59
  that I think both of us are, you know, excited that people seem
• 1:40:02
  to be listening and really care about these issues. So hopefully that will continue.
• 1:40:08
  And thanks for joining us, Kelly, Yeah, I appreciate it.
• 1:40:11
  And one laughing I wanted today is just to mention I've seen a couple interviews
• 1:40:15
  where people have really wanted to challenge you but not listen to what you say.
• 1:40:18
  And I find that really enchance to hear that kind of media. But
• 1:40:21
  you're always kind back and you give a thoughtful answer, and I appreciate that
• 1:40:26
  because I think we all need more of that. It's a great way to
• 1:40:29
  approach any conversation with people that, especially the ones you disagree with. Thanks
• 1:40:32
  a lot, Thank you, Kelly Great. Here's a question from the crowd.
• 1:40:36
  Let's see here. Tanner twenty two asks is your energy policy going to
• 1:40:42
  continue destroying our landscapes with the seas of solar panels and windmills? And t
• 1:40:47
  X Frenchman asked your stance on oil and gas drill or no drill? Well,
• 1:40:53
  I don't have an easy answer for either of those things, you know.
• 1:40:56
  I think, like I said, I think we should not have that
• 1:41:00
  every energy system, every energy generator should have to internalize its costs and so.
• 1:41:08
  And there's some cases like, for example, I fought for many years
• 1:41:12
  offshore wind in the United States. I think offshore wind makes sense in some
• 1:41:17
  in the North Atlantic, in some parts of Europe. But in the United
• 1:41:20
  States we have great onshore wind, and we have the best onshore wind probably
• 1:41:25
  anywhere in the world of any content except for Antarctica. And we have great
• 1:41:30
  economic opportunities and great places to do it where it does minimal environmental damage.
• 1:41:34
  A lot of the cornfields of North Dakota, for example, which are a
• 1:41:38
  huge economic boom for family farmers in North Dakota and potentially if we have a
• 1:41:43
  grid system that can pick up that energy, could provide a lot of our
• 1:41:46
  energy. You know, I think in North Dakota, Texas have enough wind
• 1:41:50
  to provide one hundred percent of our energy grid. Right now, people are
• 1:41:55
  you know, building with highly subsidized wind power, wind turbines in the Atlantic,
• 1:42:00
  and we're seeing these big whale kills that appear to be related to it,
• 1:42:03
  and to me, that's intolerable and it's not something that we should be
• 1:42:08
  doing. So I'm against it. But you know, everywhere energy, there's
• 1:42:13
  no single solution for energy. Every one of them is connected to a locality
• 1:42:17
  and you have to measure the impacts on that locality of you know, how
• 1:42:21
  much environmental damage per kill a one hour. And that's those calls need to
• 1:42:27
  be internalized so that the public can then make a rational choice. It is
• 1:42:31
  market based about what energy they want, and so that's how I you know,
• 1:42:36
  that's how I would feel about that. All right, thank you.
• 1:42:40
  I'm being informed by Bobby's team that we have to go. We've been going
• 1:42:44
  for over two hours now and the times is fun by So I appreciate everyone
• 1:42:47
  who's participated, everyone who is still waiting to ask a question. We just
• 1:42:54
  couldn't get to everybody, but there are going to be other opportunities. I'm
• 1:42:57
  confident in the future to keep doing this. Bobby's been super availed on podcasts
• 1:43:00
  and interviews, so I'm sure you'll be hearing a lot more from him.
• 1:43:03
  And if you want to follow his campaign, his team is telling me that
• 1:43:08
  you can go to his website, which is twenty four dot com and if
• 1:43:12
  you want to contribute, you can do it there. You can join a
• 1:43:14
  mailing list, So Kennedy twenty four is the website. Thanks so much for
• 1:43:17
  participating and we'll see you guys next time. Thank you very much, David,
• 1:43:20
  and thank you eat you want. Thanks guys,