Latest / Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar / 10/20/26: Saagar Rips Boomers Over Property Tax, Abdul Shuts Down Questions On Muslim Brotherhood, AI Solves Hundreds Of Math Problems

Transcript

10/20/26: Saagar Rips Boomers Over Property Tax, Abdul Shuts Down Questions On Muslim Brotherhood, AI Solves Hundreds Of Math Problems · Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

0:00
Speaker 1: Had a busy day? Don't have time to listen to
0:02
Speaker 1: the show?
0:02
Speaker 2: Catch up on Breaking Points with our free daily newsletter.
0:05
Speaker 1: You'll get our breakdown of every daily story.
0:08
Speaker 2: And lots of links in your inbox every day.
0:10
Speaker 1: So head over, breakingpoints.com. You can sign up for the
0:13
Speaker 1: newsletter at the top for free today. Turning down a
0:19
Speaker 1: property tax, one of my personal pet projects, and yet
0:22
Speaker 1: is now becoming one of the largest tax revolts in
0:26
Speaker 1: American history. And I am not joking. Let's put this
0:29
Speaker 1: up here. On the screen, Politico magazine recently ran this article.
0:33
Speaker 1: Do you really own your home? A tax revolt says no.
0:36
Speaker 1: They lead with Mr. Ray Warner, a 72-year-old Akron resident
0:41
Speaker 1: wearing a Cleveland Browns coat to fend off the damn chill.
0:45
Speaker 1: He says, I'm old. I've paid my home off. Why
0:48
Speaker 1: would I pay property tax? It's a very interesting, very,
0:52
Speaker 1: very interesting mindset indeed that they delve into. And in particular,
0:56
Speaker 1: what they show is something that I've been warning about
0:58
Speaker 1: on the show now for quite some time. In the
1:00
Speaker 1: last two years alone, plans to substantially reduce our altogether
1:04
Speaker 1: property tax have emerged in more than two dozen states. Georgia, Indiana,
1:08
Speaker 1: and Wyoming have sliced resident tax bills by billions of dollars.
1:12
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott have Florida or Texas competing
1:14
Speaker 1: to see who can lower it the most. Gubernatorial candidates
1:18
Speaker 1: everywhere are putting tax reform at the center of their
1:21
Speaker 1: campaigns in the hope of staving off insurgencies that risk
1:24
Speaker 1: overrunning their tenures. Public figures such as Elon Musk and
1:27
Speaker 1: Francesca Hong have already joined the cause. And I shouted out,
1:32
Speaker 1: what's his name, Abdul El-Sayed on this subject as well. And,
1:36
Speaker 1: you know, it really is actually worth going through a
1:39
Speaker 1: lot of these arguments because what they all come down
1:43
Speaker 1: to is a general entitlement, in particular of people who
1:46
Speaker 1: are older, who come to the conclusion that rising rates
1:51
Speaker 1: mean that they don't have to pay them. And they
1:53
Speaker 1: actually do a great job of something that I had
1:56
Speaker 1: spent some time researching but hadn't fully looked into before,
1:59
Speaker 1: which was the 1970s. And it actually mirrors the same
2:03
Speaker 1: problem that we had back then. So back in the 70s,
2:05
Speaker 1: inflation goes crazy, just like we're in in a period today.
2:09
Speaker 1: So what is the response? The response is that inflation,
2:13
Speaker 1: both in goods and in home prices, is creating problems
2:17
Speaker 1: for a very vulnerable group, seniors, which we'll get to
2:20
Speaker 1: that in a second, whether they're actually vulnerable or not.
2:23
Speaker 1: This leads to one of the worst single pieces of legislation,
2:27
Speaker 1: or worst single pieces of law ever enacted in American history,
2:31
Speaker 1: and that is Proposition 13 in California, where what it
2:35
Speaker 1: does is it locks the property value and the rise
2:40
Speaker 1: of rate of what you're allowed to be taxed away
2:42
Speaker 1: from the market. It sounds fair. If you've owned your
2:45
Speaker 1: house for a long time, you, quote, don't want to
2:47
Speaker 1: be priced out of your home. What ends up happening?
2:49
Speaker 1: Very similar to some of the rent control problems in
2:51
Speaker 1: New York. It dramatically restricts the problem of the amount
2:54
Speaker 1: of housing that is available in the Things that eventually
2:58
Speaker 1: do go up for sale go up at massive rates.
3:01
Speaker 1: People get locked in and are not– basically, they're not
3:04
Speaker 1: forced to sell. I'll just use the truth of the matter.
3:07
Speaker 1: And by not being forced to sell, it artificially drives
3:10
Speaker 1: up the prices of all of these other homes. And
3:12
Speaker 1: then you add on a couple– so number one, it's
3:14
Speaker 1: highly distortionary to the market. It's how that people in
3:17
Speaker 1: the 1990s bought Santa Monica Beach property for a couple
3:20
Speaker 1: hundred grand. They're sitting on $ 3 million with the real estate.
3:23
Speaker 1: They're paying taxes on a couple hundred thousand dollars, all right?
3:25
Speaker 1: This drives up all of the surrounding prices whenever they
3:28
Speaker 1: eventually go up for sale. It gives them no incentive
3:31
Speaker 1: to sell. And it basically, it adopts this very un-American
3:34
Speaker 1: idea of you have a right to live wherever you
3:37
Speaker 1: happen to live no matter what the conditions are, which
3:40
Speaker 1: is ridiculous and which everybody laughed at in the great
3:43
Speaker 1: financial crisis whenever we were given all these ninja law,
3:46
Speaker 1: you know, ninja loans.
3:47
Speaker 3: Remember that?
3:48
Speaker 1: No income, no job loans. All these boomers were sitting
3:50
Speaker 1: in TV like, you don't have a right to own
3:52
Speaker 1: a home. You shouldn't have been doing that. And now
3:54
Speaker 1: that it's their turn to pay in an inflationary home
3:57
Speaker 1: price environment, they say, I shouldn't have to pay because
3:59
Speaker 1: I've been paying for 30 years. And just look at
4:03
Speaker 1: the social contract here, because this is the game that
4:05
Speaker 1: they want to start playing. Let's put D2 up here
4:07
Speaker 1: on the screen. It's from one of my friends, Russ Green.
4:10
Speaker 1: He coined the phrase boomer luxury communism. So shout out
4:13
Speaker 1: to him. He goes, what do I owe society? If
4:15
Speaker 1: you're just listening to this, let me explain this chart.
4:19
Speaker 1: This is direct entitlements by age. And it shows how
4:22
Speaker 1: 18 to 24, obviously, you're going to get the least
4:25
Speaker 1: amount of direct entitlements regardless between state tax, payroll tax,
4:29
Speaker 1: income tax, Social Security, health care, and other benefits.
4:32
Speaker 4: All right.
4:32
Speaker 1: And so the benefits are in green, and then the
4:34
Speaker 1: taxes that you pay are in orange. So you can
4:37
Speaker 1: see how the amount of taxes you pay relative to
4:39
Speaker 1: the amount of benefits that you receive is going to
4:42
Speaker 1: be at the all-time low ratio at your prime working years,
4:45
Speaker 1: between 25 to 54. But then take a look at
4:48
Speaker 1: the green. And don't just take a look at the green.
4:51
Speaker 1: Take a look at how much it vastly outpaces the
4:54
Speaker 1: per person and actual capital of the taxes that people
4:57
Speaker 1: are paying whenever it comes to age 64 and up.
5:01
Speaker 1: The vast majority, and again, I repeat, the vast majority
5:04
Speaker 1: of people who are over the age of 65 are
5:06
Speaker 1: receiving vastly amount more in Social Security and in Medicare
5:11
Speaker 1: than they have ever paid into the system, all right?
5:14
Speaker 1: So at the very same time where they are receiving
5:17
Speaker 1: more benefits than any generation in American history and actually
5:20
Speaker 1: pushing all of that burden onto us who are the
5:23
Speaker 1: people who are directly paying for it, they are then
5:25
Speaker 1: demanding a property tax cut which will be highly distortionary
5:30
Speaker 1: to the market, the housing market itself. And what else
5:33
Speaker 1: will it do? It reduces their contribution to even more
5:37
Speaker 1: of society, right? Because what do property taxes pay for?
5:40
Speaker 1: This guy, I'm old and I paid off my house. Oh,
5:42
Speaker 1: do you use the road outside? What about the garbage?
5:46
Speaker 1: Whenever you call 911, because statistically you're going to need
5:48
Speaker 1: it a lot more than me, whenever these health problems
5:51
Speaker 1: start to catch up to you, who's going to be
5:53
Speaker 1: paying for that? I'm gonna have to pay for it,
5:55
Speaker 1: according to your formulation. Boomers who were 72 years old
5:59
Speaker 1: when your kids were in school were paying property tax,
6:01
Speaker 1: but now it's inconvenient for you. And look, I know
6:04
Speaker 1: that this gets hot and this becomes like a generational thing,
6:07
Speaker 1: but this is actual generational warfare. Like, people think I'm joking.
6:11
Speaker 1: They are the ones who have instigated this. It has
6:13
Speaker 1: been the most successful tax revolt now in modern history. Like,
6:17
Speaker 1: at the same time, when everybody else, the rest of us,
6:20
Speaker 1: you know, this is my last rant, I'm sorry, But
6:23
Speaker 1: it drives me crazy, this whole fixed income thing. Boomers
6:25
Speaker 1: are on fixed income. Okay, because you're on Social Security.
6:28
Speaker 1: Your fixed income gets a cost of living inflation adjustment.
6:31
Speaker 1: We just entered our sixth straight month of real earnings
6:35
Speaker 1: turning negative because of the Iran war. Yesterday we covered
6:38
Speaker 1: how the average household has lost $ 2, 000. Well, I don't
6:41
Speaker 1: get an inflation-adjusted raise, and neither does anybody else who's
6:44
Speaker 1: watching this show who's under the age of 65. You
6:47
Speaker 1: can argue, it's like, oh, well, it barely keeps up
6:50
Speaker 1: with inflation. Yeah, I get it. But most people's wage
6:52
Speaker 1: earnings are under inflation. I'm not saying we should take
6:55
Speaker 1: Social Security away. I'm not even saying we should take
6:57
Speaker 1: inflation adjustment away, but don't be coming around telling me
7:01
Speaker 1: that you got inflation adjusted fixed income when everybody else
7:04
Speaker 1: is taking net negative wage returns and then be begging for,
7:08
Speaker 1: you know, the, the big, honestly, one of the largest
7:11
Speaker 1: tax cuts ever because you just got 88% of seniors
7:15
Speaker 1: pay no income tax on social security. Now they don't
7:18
Speaker 1: want to pay property tax. I mean, these people don't
7:20
Speaker 1: want to pay anything, even though so many other people
7:22
Speaker 1: paid for them in the past and the rest of
7:24
Speaker 1: us are paying for them now. I just think it's sick.
7:27
Speaker 1: It's totally sick.
7:28
Speaker 2: I mean, you can understand why the argument has political
7:31
Speaker 2: salience and why it's found so much success because people say, look,
7:35
Speaker 2: I paid for my home. This is my home. And
7:37
Speaker 2: now you keep upping the taxes. And so it's making
7:40
Speaker 2: me very difficult to stay in this home that I
7:42
Speaker 2: paid for over years and years. OK, you can you
7:44
Speaker 2: can understand why that is politically salient. If you zoom out, though,
7:48
Speaker 2: what this amounts to is just yet another tax cut
7:51
Speaker 2: for the wealthy. I mean, that's who will disproportionately benefit. So,
7:55
Speaker 2: you know, I don't like the generational warfare lens because
7:57
Speaker 2: I think it's, you know, the class lens is more
8:00
Speaker 2: useful in this arena as in many others. But you're
8:04
Speaker 2: very fortunate in this country if you own a home
8:07
Speaker 2: and if you've had the luxury of your home appreciating
8:09
Speaker 2: over years, which is the reason why your property taxes
8:12
Speaker 2: are going up. It's because your housing value has gone up.
8:14
Speaker 2: You've accumulated all of this wealth in your housing stock,
8:18
Speaker 2: which is an incredibly beneficial situation to be in. Zooming
8:23
Speaker 2: out even further than that, I just think our entire
8:25
Speaker 2: tax system is completely broken at this point. because so
8:28
Speaker 2: much of accumulation is about wealth versus income. And we
8:33
Speaker 2: have a tax system that is so much predominantly focused
8:37
Speaker 2: on income that has become wildly inadequate to actually be
8:41
Speaker 2: able to tax and benefit society. And this impulse from
8:46
Speaker 2: the eliminating property tax is also deeply antisocial, because to
8:50
Speaker 2: your point, you know, there's the sense of like, well,
8:53
Speaker 2: I don't have kids in school because I'm old now.
8:55
Speaker 2: So why would I pay into it? And that's just Again,
8:57
Speaker 2: it's deeply antisocial. I think it's a sign of the
9:00
Speaker 2: times that we live in that you don't feel any
9:02
Speaker 2: sense of obligation to your community, to the next generation,
9:05
Speaker 2: to make sure that those public schools are good and
9:07
Speaker 2: are high quality, make sure the roads and the firefighters
9:11
Speaker 2: and police officers, everybody in the community is well paid for.
9:14
Speaker 2: So I think it's that as well. But overall, I
9:17
Speaker 2: think we have to do a total rethink. And look,
9:20
Speaker 2: if we are actually taxing wealth and we are able
9:24
Speaker 2: to reinstate a progressive taxation system because we're accounting for
9:29
Speaker 2: all of the loopholes and the way that the very
9:31
Speaker 2: rich benefit And as part of that rethink, we change
9:34
Speaker 2: our orientation towards property taxes.
9:36
Speaker 5: Yes.
9:36
Speaker 2: But the reality is right now, if you cut property taxes,
9:39
Speaker 2: what does that mean? At the state level, you can't
9:41
Speaker 2: run a deficit or at the local level, you can't
9:43
Speaker 2: run a deficit. It means you're going to be cutting
9:45
Speaker 2: education funding. It means you're going to be cutting into
9:47
Speaker 2: the bone of services that people need that genuinely benefit society,
9:51
Speaker 2: which is why in some of the states that have
9:53
Speaker 2: had ballot initiatives, these property tax elimination measures have been
9:58
Speaker 2: rejected because people look at what the cost is going
10:00
Speaker 2: to be on the other side of it and they
10:02
Speaker 2: don't accept it.
10:03
Speaker 1: Yes, all very good point. And by the way, you know, again,
10:06
Speaker 1: they're the ones who started it. Like, I'm not the
10:08
Speaker 1: one who's out here. When I didn't have kids, I'm
10:09
Speaker 1: not like, oh, I shouldn't have to pay property tax
10:11
Speaker 1: for other people's schools. I'm not the one out here talking,
10:14
Speaker 1: taking a little bit of a look at maybe who's
10:16
Speaker 1: consuming all the health care in this country and why
10:17
Speaker 1: my premiums. are sky high. It ain't just capitalism. It's
10:20
Speaker 1: because a lot of people like to drink a lot
10:23
Speaker 1: and become morbidly obese as they age. And so if
10:26
Speaker 1: we all want to take care of each other, I'm
10:28
Speaker 1: fine with that. I actually am. But they're the ones
10:31
Speaker 1: who don't want to take care of us. That's actually
10:34
Speaker 1: what drives me crazier. Last thing, because we have to
10:37
Speaker 1: move on here for a second. I just want to
10:39
Speaker 1: highlight how many of these, like people really think I'm exaggerating.
10:42
Speaker 1: I'm getting on some high horse about this.
10:44
Speaker 3: I'm not.
10:45
Speaker 1: Like as they pointed out, 22 states, almost half the
10:47
Speaker 1: states in the nation are already on track. And in
10:50
Speaker 1: this election, let's put these up in quick succession. Let's
10:53
Speaker 1: put D4, please, up here on the screen. Louisiana has
10:56
Speaker 1: got an amendment which would expand property tax relief for
10:59
Speaker 1: homeowners 65 and older. D5, this is Oklahoma, which wants
11:03
Speaker 1: to adopt similar things to California, lower the amount of
11:07
Speaker 1: percentage that you're allowed to increase your overall property tax rate.
11:10
Speaker 1: Let's put D3, please. This is Florida. Again, this is
11:14
Speaker 1: the most high profile one, which would effectively nuke property
11:16
Speaker 1: tax in the long run. across the entire state, of
11:19
Speaker 1: which many of the counties say will have to be
11:21
Speaker 1: made up for, you guessed it, in terms of tolls
11:24
Speaker 1: on the roads, which means it's a highly regressive tax
11:27
Speaker 1: that taxes everybody instead of the people who are asset owners.
11:31
Speaker 1: Put D6 up here just to show you, you've got
11:34
Speaker 1: Vivek Ramaswamy, who wants to dramatically, basically effectively eliminate property
11:38
Speaker 1: tax in the state of Ohio. The governor of Kansas,
11:42
Speaker 1: you got two candidates, both basically trying to run against
11:44
Speaker 1: each other for who can cut property taxes the most.
11:47
Speaker 1: And I've already shouted out Abdul Sayyed, who explicitly wants
11:50
Speaker 1: to do the old age carve out for everybody else.
11:54
Speaker 1: So all of this, not good. It's going in a
11:56
Speaker 1: very bad direction. And as I know, they're the only
11:59
Speaker 1: ones who vote. So it's all going to pass. And
12:01
Speaker 1: yet I'll still be here screaming about it. Let's get
12:04
Speaker 1: to Michigan.
12:07
Speaker 2: Up in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed seems to have claimed the
12:09
Speaker 2: title of generating the most viral post of the midterm
12:13
Speaker 2: election campaign, at least so far in this exchange with
12:17
Speaker 2: this man named Tommy, who it turns out after the
12:19
Speaker 2: fact is actually a Republican operative, may or may not
12:22
Speaker 2: have been paid for this exchange. We don't really know
12:23
Speaker 2: that piece. In any case, let's take a look at
12:26
Speaker 2: how this went when Tommy wanted to ask Abdul El-Sayed
12:29
Speaker 2: whether or not he condemns the Muslim Brotherhood.
12:32
Speaker 4: It's a simple question. No, your friend's got the mic.
12:34
Speaker 4: I'm going to ask you a simple question. You give
12:36
Speaker 4: me your name and I'll answer the question.
12:37
Speaker 1: Okay, Tommy. Hi, Tommy.
12:39
Speaker 4: How are you? I'm great.
12:40
Speaker 1: Are you?
12:41
Speaker 4: Do you know what the Constitution of the United States is?
12:43
Speaker 4: I have one simple question. Will you disavow the Muslim world?
12:47
Speaker 6: Sure.
12:47
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely. But I want to ask the question that
12:49
Speaker 4: you're asking. Why are you asking the question? Well, because
12:53
Speaker 4: they're a terrorist group.
12:55
Speaker 3: Okay.
12:56
Speaker 4: No, no, but what are you implying? Do you assume
12:58
Speaker 4: that I wouldn't?
13:00
Speaker 3: Yes.
13:00
Speaker 4: Why not? Because I have not heard you disavow them yet.
13:03
Speaker 4: Have you disavowed them? I haven't heard you disavow them yet.
13:05
Speaker 1: I disavowed them.
13:06
Speaker 5: Do you? Great.
13:07
Speaker 4: But here's the thing about it.
13:08
Speaker 7: You're asking the question because implicitly you assume that I'll
13:12
Speaker 7: have dual loyalties, right? You assume that somehow I wouldn't
13:17
Speaker 7: disavow or that I'll have some higher order allegiance than the.
13:21
Speaker 1: Constitution, correct?
13:23
Speaker 4: Tommy, is that what you imply?
13:25
Speaker 8: Yes.
13:25
Speaker 4: Why would you think that about me, though? Because I
13:27
Speaker 4: have not heard you disavow. No, no, no, no. Why
13:29
Speaker 4: would you actually think that about me? Because I have
13:30
Speaker 4: not heard you disavow.
13:31
Speaker 1: But I just did.
13:32
Speaker 4: But why would you actually think that? Why would you?
13:34
Speaker 4: Have you asked everybody in your life if they disavow?
13:38
Speaker 1: I have not.
13:38
Speaker 4: So why are you asking me? Because I have not
13:40
Speaker 4: heard you disavow.
13:41
Speaker 1: No, no, no.
13:41
Speaker 4: Answer the question, Tommy. Everybody knows the answer to it.
13:44
Speaker 4: Answer the question.
13:46
Speaker 3: All right.
13:47
Speaker 4: So let me just tell you. Let me just tell you.
13:50
Speaker 4: I'm going to swear an oath to the Constitution of
13:52
Speaker 4: the United States. And that Constitution guarantees us all.
14:00
Speaker 2: He goes on further to challenge Tommy on whether or
14:03
Speaker 2: not he would reject effectively Christian nationalism. And Tommy's like, nope.
14:08
Speaker 2: And then he sort of leaves the room, tail between
14:10
Speaker 2: his legs after that exchange. I think this highlights a
14:13
Speaker 2: number of things. First of all, Sagar, a lot of
14:15
Speaker 2: what Republicans have done is a lot of this insinuation
14:18
Speaker 2: or in Trump's case, direct outright. You know, he claims
14:21
Speaker 2: that Abdul supports jihad. This is a lot of what
14:24
Speaker 2: they've been running. Mike Rogers is much more like he'll
14:27
Speaker 2: dabble in it, but he won't go quite as far
14:29
Speaker 2: as Trump will, etc. And so Abdul, unlike what I
14:33
Speaker 2: think a lot of candidates would do, where they would
14:35
Speaker 2: just say, of course, I condemn the Muslim Brotherhood, which
14:37
Speaker 2: is the first thing he does. He really digs in
14:40
Speaker 2: of like, let's talk about why you're asking this and
14:43
Speaker 2: let's talk about why you wouldn't ask another candidate this. And,
14:46
Speaker 2: you know, let's really get to the root of what
14:48
Speaker 2: you're trying to do here. And so it displays both the,
14:52
Speaker 2: you know, the Republican tactics in the race. And again,
14:54
Speaker 2: this guy's a former Josh Hawley staffer. I think his
14:57
Speaker 2: dad is a Republican operative. He may or, you know, again,
15:00
Speaker 2: may not have been paid for this particular interaction, but
15:02
Speaker 2: definitely is on the, you know, Republican operative side. In
15:05
Speaker 2: any case, it also displays some of the different qualities
15:09
Speaker 2: that Abdul has as a candidate. Like he is very
15:12
Speaker 2: confident person. He is very unafraid of sort of giving
15:16
Speaker 2: it back and which is why he will go on
15:18
Speaker 2: Fox News and fight with Jesse Waters, not afraid of
15:20
Speaker 2: any of those sorts of exchanges. It's very much what
15:23
Speaker 2: Democrats want in a candidate, which I think is a
15:26
Speaker 2: big part of why he was able to overcome this
15:28
Speaker 2: flood of money that came in and apparently Indian bots
15:31
Speaker 2: to support his opponent in the primary. But, you know,
15:34
Speaker 2: one of the open questions that has been raised by
15:36
Speaker 2: this is whether or not this sort of pugnacious, very confident,
15:41
Speaker 2: brash demeanor that he holds, you know, that he has, which, again,
15:45
Speaker 2: I love, is something that is going to resonate as
15:47
Speaker 2: much with the general audience.
15:48
Speaker 1: I didn't find it that pugnacious.
15:50
Speaker 5: Really?
15:50
Speaker 1: I thought it was more, I mean.
15:52
Speaker 2: I mean, I thought it was great.
15:53
Speaker 1: I was going to say, no offense. I think it
15:55
Speaker 1: qualifies as pugnacious compared to a lot of Democrats. Exactly, yeah.
15:59
Speaker 1: You know what I mean?
16:00
Speaker 5: Yeah.
16:00
Speaker 1: Whereas, like, Trump is out here, like. you know, like
16:03
Speaker 1: he'll go after your wife's sister or something like that,
16:06
Speaker 1: which a lot of Republicans loved as well. I thought
16:09
Speaker 1: it was, yeah, I mean, Frank, I guess I'm just
16:11
Speaker 1: looking at it through that lens. I'm like, yeah, it's
16:12
Speaker 1: like kind of very like, I mean, the reason why
16:14
Speaker 1: it went mega viral is just basically created in a
16:18
Speaker 1: laboratory to like tug at the heartstrings of like white
16:21
Speaker 1: liberal educated women, which is fine. I get it. I mean,
16:24
Speaker 1: it's one of those like the vision of the country,
16:26
Speaker 1: you know, the Emma Lazarus poem and all of that. But,
16:29
Speaker 1: you know, my own annoyance at this general aside, it
16:35
Speaker 1: is about a competing vision ultimately of identity. Because one
16:40
Speaker 1: of the most annoying things about the Israel discourse is
16:43
Speaker 1: that you have a group, and I'm not talking about
16:46
Speaker 1: Jewish people, I'm talking about people who are rabidly committed
16:49
Speaker 1: to the Zionist cause, who actually have straight up dual
16:53
Speaker 1: loyalty and have shown it to us time and time
16:56
Speaker 1: and time again. Again, to be extremely clear, that is
16:59
Speaker 1: not all Jewish because I'm sure that will get clipped
17:02
Speaker 1: out of context. However, what they do instead is they
17:06
Speaker 1: make it so that Islam itself, they basically turn it
17:11
Speaker 1: over and say Islam itself is evidence of being both
17:15
Speaker 1: anti-American and anti-Semitic, that these are incompatible values. And then
17:21
Speaker 1: what Abdul is doing is flipping it on its head
17:24
Speaker 1: and is basically saying, You are the person who is
17:27
Speaker 1: advocating for something which is genuinely against the Constitution. Like,
17:32
Speaker 1: let's leave it.
17:33
Speaker 2: It's un-American.
17:33
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, it's un-American. Like, effectively what you're trying to
17:37
Speaker 1: get me to do. And that's always the most useful
17:39
Speaker 1: framework is to basically shove it back in their face.
17:41
Speaker 5: Yes.
17:42
Speaker 1: Because what they're trying to do is they're trying to, basically,
17:44
Speaker 1: it's about heightening the contradiction. to use the Marxist phrase,
17:48
Speaker 1: by trying to shift what they do onto other people.
17:52
Speaker 1: And that, you know, in some cases it can be
17:53
Speaker 1: justified or not. Again, not whether you're Muslim or not, whether,
17:57
Speaker 1: let's say you're like wholeheartedly committed to, you know, I
17:59
Speaker 1: guess the Palestinian cause over the American cause, right? That
18:02
Speaker 1: would be similar evidence of dual loyalty or overt loyalty. But,
18:06
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think we have as much of
18:07
Speaker 1: a problem with that. The point just remains is it
18:10
Speaker 1: goes viral because at a time of Trump, especially with
18:14
Speaker 1: the Iran war, an economic crisis, is this is all
18:18
Speaker 1: they've got, right? This is it.
18:20
Speaker 2: And by the way, you know, Tommy- Trump making fun
18:22
Speaker 2: of his name and all this crap.
18:23
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, the name thing and all, and look, obviously
18:25
Speaker 1: it's used to tremendous value for him from Obama birtherism
18:29
Speaker 1: literally onward, right? San Bernardino, a total and complete shutdown,
18:33
Speaker 1: the Muslim ban and all of that, et cetera. I
18:37
Speaker 1: think what it does though is that at that time,
18:40
Speaker 1: that was using it especially to highlight the problem with
18:44
Speaker 1: a lot of like, liberal kind of framing around terrorism.
18:47
Speaker 1: I mean, you remember this, the whole Hillary can't say
18:50
Speaker 1: radical Islamic terrorism. That's like one of the biggest controversies
18:55
Speaker 1: of 2016. We're just way past that.
18:57
Speaker 5: Yeah.
18:58
Speaker 2: You know, it's also I mean, there's such an irony, too,
19:00
Speaker 2: because Trump aggressively courted courted the Muslim and Arab American
19:04
Speaker 2: vote in the state of Michigan with great success in
19:07
Speaker 2: his last campaign, by the way, and now just immediately
19:10
Speaker 2: goes back to complete Islamophobia. And, you know, you said this,
19:13
Speaker 2: you think is tailor made in a lab to appeal
19:15
Speaker 2: to liberal white women. But I think your other comment
19:18
Speaker 2: is more to the point, which is that He is
19:21
Speaker 2: they are trying to frame him as an other.
19:23
Speaker 4: Yeah, right.
19:23
Speaker 2: And he is turning it around and appealing to some
19:26
Speaker 2: of the most bedrock American values, which, yes, there is
19:29
Speaker 2: a there is some percentage of the society which prides
19:33
Speaker 2: themselves on their racism and their white nationalism. But that
19:37
Speaker 2: is not going to be a majority view. Those are
19:39
Speaker 2: not going to be the people that are going to
19:40
Speaker 2: be voting for Abdul Syed in the state of Michigan.
19:43
Speaker 2: And I think he's done this throughout his campaign, not
19:45
Speaker 2: only in this exchange, but I've talked a lot about
19:48
Speaker 2: his flavor of America first leftistism. because what he says
19:51
Speaker 2: about Palestine, about Gaza and about the Iran war is
19:55
Speaker 2: why are we spending this money there when we could
19:57
Speaker 2: be spending it here? And he brings it back to
20:00
Speaker 2: that all the time. Go ahead on that.
20:02
Speaker 1: No, so he did a clip yesterday. I thought it
20:03
Speaker 1: was so well done. He was like, I forget, some
20:07
Speaker 1: idiot at ABC News is like, is Israel an ally?
20:09
Speaker 1: It's such a stupid question, right? And he's like, is Israel?
20:12
Speaker 1: He's like, well, I don't think they're an ally. And
20:14
Speaker 1: the reason why is good allies don't drag you into war.
20:16
Speaker 1: He didn't say anything else. He was just like, and
20:18
Speaker 1: we can get to the morality and all that. And
20:20
Speaker 1: this is what the clip that got Tucker in trouble
20:23
Speaker 1: and all these Republicans. mad at me is I was like, guys,
20:25
Speaker 1: he's running an America first campaign. I'm not I don't
20:27
Speaker 1: even agree with the guy. I'm saying, though, I can
20:29
Speaker 1: look analytically as you could at Trump and be like, listen,
20:33
Speaker 1: there's something here. You know, it's pretty much designed. And look,
20:37
Speaker 1: I don't mean to be denigrating, but like there is
20:40
Speaker 1: a literal worldview, which is basically like. American history started
20:44
Speaker 1: in 1964. That predominates the college educated, you know, white
20:49
Speaker 1: upper middle class. Like you could look at the audience
20:52
Speaker 1: of the people who are literally there who are surrounding Tommy.
20:55
Speaker 4: Right.
20:56
Speaker 1: I these people are Americans, too. I am not saying
20:59
Speaker 1: you're different than me. But I'm saying that type of
21:03
Speaker 1: rhetoric and all that is very Obama 2008, which is.
21:07
Speaker 2: He's the most popular politician in America.
21:10
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it doesn't work.
21:11
Speaker 2: And had a famously- multiracial coalition and one in a
21:18
Speaker 2: lot of rural areas that have been off the table
21:21
Speaker 2: for Democrats until now, because I do think that this
21:23
Speaker 2: is a very aspirational part of American values that the
21:27
Speaker 2: vast majority of people do subscribe to. So I thought
21:31
Speaker 2: it was I thought it was brilliantly done. And, you know,
21:34
Speaker 2: the reason I raised the question of is this going
21:36
Speaker 2: to be something that resonates in the general election is
21:38
Speaker 2: because I'm seeing a lot of right wing cope on
21:40
Speaker 2: this that, oh, he comes off as an asshole when
21:42
Speaker 2: he comes off as arrogant. And I just look at
21:45
Speaker 2: the landscape. Freaking Donald Trump is president of the United
21:49
Speaker 2: States of America. You think that America is going to
21:52
Speaker 2: be put off by a guy with some swagger? Are
21:54
Speaker 2: you kidding me? Like, that is part of what has
21:57
Speaker 2: been so lacking on the Democratic Party side. To your point,
22:00
Speaker 2: it's someone who will stand up for themselves. And it's
22:03
Speaker 2: certainly what, you know, the Democratic Party wants to see.
22:05
Speaker 2: But everybody wants to see that because ultimately that means
22:07
Speaker 2: you're going to have the strength to fight when it
22:10
Speaker 2: comes time. And if you're an effective politician and you're,
22:14
Speaker 2: you know, putting out the right things and the right message—
22:16
Speaker 2: then that translates into they're going to be willing to
22:18
Speaker 2: stand up and fight for me when it comes time.
22:21
Speaker 1: Which was very effective for Trump. Yes, of course. See,
22:24
Speaker 1: that's where I just come down to. I'm like, really? Like,
22:26
Speaker 1: that's that's what that's. that's what does it for people
22:29
Speaker 1: in terms of like, that's extraordinary that you're willing to
22:32
Speaker 1: spar with a, you know, with a, I mean, let's
22:36
Speaker 1: beat the shit out of the protest.
22:38
Speaker 2: I hear what you're saying, but I do think you
22:39
Speaker 2: have to add, like Abdul is a very impressive candidate.
22:41
Speaker 2: Like he's quick, you know, I mean his ability to,
22:44
Speaker 2: to absorb that exchange and turn it around like that.
22:48
Speaker 2: That quickly is really quite incredible. Let me get to
22:51
Speaker 2: Mike Rogers was asked about this. So I told you
22:53
Speaker 2: part of the Republican cope is to be like, oh,
22:55
Speaker 2: he comes off like an asshole, which I mean, I
22:57
Speaker 2: think we all kind of America likes an asshole. But anyway,
23:00
Speaker 2: and I don't think he comes off that way. But
23:02
Speaker 2: the other thing they've done is just a lie. about
23:04
Speaker 2: the exchange and say that he didn't condemn the Muslim,
23:08
Speaker 2: that he was just spinning the whole time and he
23:09
Speaker 2: never condemned the Muslim Brotherhood, when literally the first words
23:13
Speaker 2: out of his mouth in this clip are, yes, sure, absolutely.
23:18
Speaker 2: And then he goes on to do the rest of it.
23:20
Speaker 2: In any case, here is Mike Rogers lying about this exchange.
23:24
Speaker 5: So he said, yes, sure, challenged the voter and said
23:26
Speaker 5: the voter only asked him because he's a Muslim. So
23:31
Speaker 5: Hassan Piker, who really came to the state He had
23:35
Speaker 5: him here multiple times, five different events, took him to
23:37
Speaker 5: college campuses. This guy is full of hate and vitriol,
23:41
Speaker 5: not only for Jewish Americans, but for black Americans. You
23:44
Speaker 5: listen to his comments. This guy is as vile as
23:47
Speaker 5: they come. He has said he was excited about his
23:50
Speaker 5: answer because he did not disavow the Muslim Brother. He
23:52
Speaker 5: didn't disavow it. He goes on this word salad trying
23:55
Speaker 5: to get around.
23:56
Speaker 2: The fact that he.
23:57
Speaker 3: Can't do it. No, that's not true.
23:59
Speaker 1: Dana, listen, I don't know why the press.
24:02
Speaker 5: Is so eager to protect this guy.
24:05
Speaker 1: And it is. It's an ideology.
24:07
Speaker 2: Yes, Dana Bash is so eager to protect Abdullah Syed.
24:11
Speaker 2: She doesn't even quote him properly there, but she at
24:13
Speaker 2: least does push back and, you know, like put a
24:16
Speaker 2: little bit of reality in context to what Mike Rogers
24:18
Speaker 2: is saying the other thing that's happened with the soccer
24:20
Speaker 2: is another yet another like little window into what's going
24:24
Speaker 2: on behind the scenes at CBS. So let's put this
24:26
Speaker 2: up on the screen. One of their reporters, Jan Crawford,
24:30
Speaker 2: originally tweeted out this. Tommy, again, the guy in the video.
24:35
Speaker 2: Thank you. I had to watch this twice. Now, a
24:37
Speaker 2: lot of people are theorizing, Sagar, that she actually meant
24:40
Speaker 2: to put this out. And this is a high level.
24:41
Speaker 2: She's a national legal correspondent over at CBS News, that
24:43
Speaker 2: she actually meant to DM this. to this Tommy guy
25:00
Speaker 2: and accidentally tweeted it in a total boomer moment. But
25:04
Speaker 2: in any case, she then had to delete it and
25:06
Speaker 2: said earlier, I tweeted a video from an Abdul Asai
25:09
Speaker 2: town hall. I deleted that tweet because it was a
25:10
Speaker 2: violation of CBS News standards. I apologize. But you can
25:15
Speaker 2: see the tenor of the ideology behind the scenes. And
25:18
Speaker 2: this is someone who is seen very much as being a,
25:21
Speaker 2: you know, Barry Weiss acolyte and protected by her at
25:24
Speaker 2: the network. Apparently, we put E4 up on the screen.
25:28
Speaker 2: This has caused quite Another kerfuffle at CBS. Justin Barragona,
25:33
Speaker 2: who's a media columnist for Zateo and is a media reporter,
25:36
Speaker 2: says this is spiraling for CBS. I'm hearing from my
25:38
Speaker 2: sources this over-the-top tweet is being discussed internally. At the
25:42
Speaker 2: same time, the same sources noted Jan is protected by
25:45
Speaker 2: Barry and has been a very vocal acolyte of Weiss.
25:48
Speaker 2: This type of political stuff from an on-air reporter is
25:50
Speaker 2: only going to speed up the audience's escape because their
25:53
Speaker 2: ratings have not been very good.
25:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think that'll, that's not what's going to
25:58
Speaker 1: speed it up. What's going to speed it up is
25:59
Speaker 1: the product of shit, but that's definitely part of the
26:01
Speaker 1: media discourse. Yeah, it's, look, Barry's out here obviously serving
26:07
Speaker 1: the state of Israel. She's out here being like, let's
26:09
Speaker 1: prove that Abdul is tied to the, Muslim Brotherhood, which,
26:12
Speaker 1: you know, then this is what also annoys me. Imagine
26:15
Speaker 1: if we were commissioning stories and spending millions of dollars
26:18
Speaker 1: trying to prove, which wouldn't even be hard, let's say
26:22
Speaker 1: in like Mark Levin's case, that his stepson is out
26:25
Speaker 1: here like basically working, you know, to push Israeli interests
26:28
Speaker 1: in the U.S. embassy. If we spent millions of dollars
26:31
Speaker 1: doing that, what were they going to call it? Like
26:32
Speaker 1: an anti-Semite hate factor, right? And that's basically what they're doing.
26:35
Speaker 2: Well, and the thing is, it's not like she's applying
26:37
Speaker 2: the same level of investigative scrutiny to other candidates. It's
26:41
Speaker 2: very targeted. Barry's the one who also pushed this weird
26:46
Speaker 2: 9-11 article about Abdul, which, yeah, it was like, I
26:51
Speaker 2: don't even remember, but she was trying to somehow make
26:54
Speaker 2: some tie between him and 9-11 that really was complete
26:57
Speaker 2: and utter bullshit.
26:58
Speaker 1: Oh, it was this. 9-11 scarred our country in profound ways.
27:01
Speaker 1: What we did after 9-11 scarred millions of people. When
27:03
Speaker 1: we talk about 9-11, we often fail to set ourselves
27:05
Speaker 1: I mean, there's literally nothing wrong.
27:07
Speaker 2: Nothing wrong with what he said there at all.
27:09
Speaker 1: And I would say, if that were true, I think
27:10
Speaker 1: I say that every night. Yeah, I mean, I would
27:12
Speaker 1: go further. Every 9-11, I'm like, wait, 3,000 of our
27:14
Speaker 1: people killed, and then we devastated millions of people around
27:17
Speaker 1: the world, and it was totally unnecessary, and it was completely, okay,
27:21
Speaker 1: there you go, you got me.
27:22
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, but you know, the 9-11 never forget thing,
27:24
Speaker 2: we would have been better off and the world would
27:26
Speaker 2: have been better off if we forgot instantly. That is
27:28
Speaker 2: the cold, hard reality and is uncontroversial at this point.
27:31
Speaker 2: And by the way, Trump won in 2016. by saying
27:35
Speaker 2: yeah by saying something yeah all right so in any
27:37
Speaker 2: case that's what's going on.
27:39
Speaker 1: Last michigan thing yeah abdul underperforms dems nationally what's.
27:43
Speaker 2: The take it depends by how much because i think
27:47
Speaker 2: you do have to take into account that he is
27:49
Speaker 2: running against the republicans and some factions of the democrats
27:53
Speaker 2: you have to take into account the way that they've
27:55
Speaker 2: made him a target the national smear campaign from Trump
27:58
Speaker 2: et al.
27:58
Speaker 1: I think if you win- DSA people really went hard
28:01
Speaker 1: after J.D. when he underperformed Trump.
28:04
Speaker 2: But if you win- Which is kind of bullshit. If
28:05
Speaker 2: you win Michigan by a significant margin- By how much?
28:09
Speaker 2: By five or seven? I'd say five.
28:11
Speaker 1: Yeah.
28:12
Speaker 2: You can't take that away. If it's a squeaker, yes,
28:14
Speaker 2: he underperformed. I think you have to look at that.
28:16
Speaker 2: But I do think that there are some other confounding
28:19
Speaker 2: factors you have to look at there. But in any case, yes,
28:21
Speaker 2: I think if he wins by, let's say, five- then
28:27
Speaker 2: no one can say anything. It's Michigan. It's a swing state.
28:31
Speaker 2: We're told that these type of candidates can't win.
28:35
Speaker 1: Which I've always disagreed with because I think that if
28:38
Speaker 1: you have a D next to your name, you're winning.
28:39
Speaker 1: I don't think Haley Stevens is going to lose either.
28:41
Speaker 1: Both of those candidates are going to win whenever it
28:44
Speaker 1: comes to the race. How much do you think she
28:46
Speaker 1: needs to win by to run for office or to
28:48
Speaker 1: run for president immediately? I think it should be, yeah,
28:51
Speaker 1: I think five, maybe six. I would just announce.
28:54
Speaker 2: To be honest with you.
28:54
Speaker 5: Yeah.
28:55
Speaker 2: People are not going to remember that for the long term,
28:58
Speaker 2: just like with J.D.
28:59
Speaker 5: Vance.
28:59
Speaker 2: People don't remember for the long term that he underperformed
29:02
Speaker 2: dramatically in Ohio when he ran for the Senate. So
29:07
Speaker 2: I think if he wins, then I think he should
29:09
Speaker 2: consider it.
29:09
Speaker 1: Immediately announce. Well, consider it. He's got to do it.
29:12
Speaker 1: He's got nobody else who's going to do it on
29:14
Speaker 1: his side. From Michigan, especially?
29:16
Speaker 5: Yeah.
29:17
Speaker 2: I mean, he's got a very compelling story. He's a
29:19
Speaker 2: very talented guy. I don't care who you are. You
29:22
Speaker 2: have to hand that to him. I mean, he was
29:23
Speaker 2: one of our, like, Jesse Waters can't help but sing
29:26
Speaker 2: his praises over on Fox News as pissing off Trump.
29:29
Speaker 2: How often he says nice things about Abdul in spite
29:32
Speaker 2: of himself.
29:33
Speaker 1: I like Abdul, but he's just woke one to his core.
29:36
Speaker 1: And that's just the part about him I just can't.
29:40
Speaker 2: Get over.
29:40
Speaker 3: With this guy.
29:41
Speaker 1: But, you know, listen.
29:42
Speaker 2: I mean, that's not the campaign he's running here. He's
29:44
Speaker 2: been very focused. He's been very focused. Like, laser focused
29:49
Speaker 2: on a material and anti-war message.
29:50
Speaker 1: Just because you don't talk about something doesn't mean you
29:52
Speaker 1: don't believe it. If you're going to be given interviews
29:53
Speaker 1: saying Medicare for All needs to prepare for gender transition surgery, yeah.
29:56
Speaker 2: It's going to be a red line. It is a
29:58
Speaker 2: lot about.
29:58
Speaker 1: Your priorities, though. But he wants to put Medicare for
30:01
Speaker 1: All as his number one, right? Yeah. Okay, well, then
30:04
Speaker 1: let's have a discussion.
30:05
Speaker 2: So you would rather people not have health care.
30:09
Speaker 1: I didn't say that. But that is what you're saying.
30:11
Speaker 8: No, no, no, no, no.
30:12
Speaker 2: That is what you're saying.
30:12
Speaker 1: That's not what I said.
30:14
Speaker 2: First of all— Because that's the tradeoff.
30:16
Speaker 1: But I've said before about Medicare for all. I already
30:18
Speaker 1: have bigger problems with the national, like, you know, who
30:21
Speaker 1: gets to pay for what and decide in terms of
30:23
Speaker 1: health care post-COVID. I don't actually support, like, national standards
30:26
Speaker 1: whenever it comes to health care, specifically because of what happened.
30:29
Speaker 2: So you don't support Medicare for all?
30:30
Speaker 1: Well, not the way that the Democrats mean it. I
30:32
Speaker 1: support health care for everybody. But I'm not saying in
30:34
Speaker 1: terms of, like, Medicare standards we get to do— reimbursement rates.
30:38
Speaker 1: I want to blow up the hospital system. I want
30:39
Speaker 1: to blow up the doctor's cartel. I don't want national standards.
30:42
Speaker 1: I want like total personal choice whenever it comes to
30:45
Speaker 1: who gets to spend dollars, et cetera. And I think
30:47
Speaker 1: there needs to be like hard red lines.
30:49
Speaker 2: His Medicare for all includes ability to still maintain your
30:53
Speaker 2: private insurance.
30:54
Speaker 1: By the way. No, no, I understand all of that.
30:55
Speaker 1: What I'm saying- But you.
30:56
Speaker 2: Wouldn't accept- health care for everyone if it meant that
31:01
Speaker 2: gender transitions were funded.
31:03
Speaker 1: Well, you're framing it differently, right?
31:04
Speaker 2: I'm not framing it differently. That's the choice because you're
31:06
Speaker 2: saying it's a red line.
31:07
Speaker 1: Well, he supports a national Medicare for all standard, which has, again, Medicare,
31:12
Speaker 1: CMS gets to decide the literal types of procedures, what
31:14
Speaker 1: they do. and do not pay for, and which obviously
31:17
Speaker 1: would replace the healthcare for the vast majority of people
31:20
Speaker 1: and effectively push.
31:20
Speaker 2: And endorse what I think.
31:22
Speaker 1: Is Nazi medical science on children.
31:24
Speaker 2: So it's like, you know, this is a real problem.
31:27
Speaker 2: Still allows private health insurance. But you're avoiding my question.
31:32
Speaker 2: So you would reject the, you know, the Medicare for
31:36
Speaker 2: all that Abdul supports, which includes private health insurance, if
31:40
Speaker 2: it included... that people's gender transitions would be paid for.
31:44
Speaker 1: Again, I don't even think we should have national health care, period,
31:46
Speaker 1: because of the way that he's saying. We should just
31:48
Speaker 1: have subsidies and or just give people dollars because of
31:51
Speaker 1: the amount of power it gives to the federal government.
31:53
Speaker 1: So it's like the Medicare for all.
31:55
Speaker 2: So if you do subsidies, if you do subsidies, then
31:57
Speaker 2: that means you're just propping up the whole system.
32:00
Speaker 1: No, no, no, not health care subsidy. I'm saying people
32:02
Speaker 1: should get direct dollars, effectively HSA style accounts. what that
32:05
Speaker 1: would mean then is that we also blow up the,
32:07
Speaker 1: this is a longer discussion, but the broader point that
32:10
Speaker 1: it all comes down to is I think it's also
32:12
Speaker 1: fine to have social, I mean, I remember you told RFK,
32:15
Speaker 1: vaccine rejection is a red line. I'm sorry, like Nazi
32:18
Speaker 1: science on children, it's not even a question for me.
32:21
Speaker 1: Like it's literally the idea of taxpayer dollars going towards that.
32:25
Speaker 1: That opens up such like a bigger transhumanist, like insane
32:29
Speaker 1: question and philosophy around like rejection of literal biology that
32:33
Speaker 1: I'm like, I cannot even play in this universe. People
32:36
Speaker 1: can say, oh, that's fine. People have plenty of social
32:38
Speaker 1: red lines, too.
32:39
Speaker 2: So that's like an end-all, be-all litmus test for you.
32:42
Speaker 1: I mean, honestly, yeah. You want taxpayer dollars?
32:44
Speaker 2: Allowing parents and doctors to make their own decisions about
32:48
Speaker 2: their kids' medical care?
32:49
Speaker 1: You can open that up to literally anything. Do you
32:51
Speaker 1: think that parents and doctors should be allowed to do
32:53
Speaker 1: whatever they consider is fine for them? I think that's
32:56
Speaker 1: fucking nuts. And we have... social standards or we have
32:59
Speaker 1: legal standards around all kinds of different like you can
33:01
Speaker 1: you can you chop off toes because parents and doctors
33:04
Speaker 1: have mass social psychosis they think so no of course
33:07
Speaker 1: not nobody thinks that it's only because they endorse like
33:10
Speaker 1: this specific policy again of mass psychosis which thankfully is
33:13
Speaker 1: actually going down right now i mean this is you
33:15
Speaker 1: know big discussion.
33:17
Speaker 2: I just i think it's fine to have a social.
33:18
Speaker 1: Red line like i don't think there's anything.
33:20
Speaker 2: Wrong okay but that is your position is that.
33:22
Speaker 1: Well again you're trying to define a narrow.
33:24
Speaker 2: Allowing i don't agree with Medical care for trans kids.
33:27
Speaker 1: OK, well, that's a very different framing. No, but no,
33:30
Speaker 1: it's not.
33:31
Speaker 2: It's it's but that's what you're saying is that that
33:33
Speaker 2: means you would not support any candidate. Who supports who
33:38
Speaker 2: supports no matter how much they support all the anti-war
33:42
Speaker 2: going to stop the war in Iran, going to get
33:44
Speaker 2: people health care, that that's just such a red line
33:46
Speaker 2: for you will not go there.
33:47
Speaker 4: Yes.
33:47
Speaker 1: Just as vaccine rejection was for you, for me. chemical
33:51
Speaker 1: castration of children, which is Joseph Mengele-style science, absolute red line,
33:57
Speaker 1: especially whenever it comes to taxpayer funding.
33:59
Speaker 2: I mean, then that explains why you'd vote for Trump again. Well,
34:03
Speaker 2: I wouldn't.
34:04
Speaker 1: I didn't say I would vote for Trump again.
34:06
Speaker 2: Against any Democrat who supported.
34:08
Speaker 4: No, no, no.
34:09
Speaker 1: I mean, just not vote. But whenever it comes to
34:11
Speaker 1: affirmative support, I mean, OK, here's my question, too. Do
34:15
Speaker 1: you not think that that's like a real social... position,
34:20
Speaker 1: which first of all, is held by the vast majority
34:22
Speaker 1: of the public. And then second, which is understandable to
34:25
Speaker 1: a lot of people. I just talked to you about COVID.
34:27
Speaker 1: And part of the reason why you're talking about national
34:29
Speaker 1: health care and the way that you're framing the question
34:31
Speaker 1: is because I'm not going to be living in a world,
34:33
Speaker 1: let's say, where parents are in a position like sometimes
34:36
Speaker 1: in the state of California, where the state gets to
34:38
Speaker 1: come in and rip your child away because you're like, hey,
34:40
Speaker 1: I think this is bad, right? Which is this literally
34:42
Speaker 1: happened in multiple cases. So people talk about parents' rights. No,
34:46
Speaker 1: that's not how the courts are working right now. And
34:48
Speaker 1: a lot of these blue and liberal jurisdictions. Can't you
34:50
Speaker 1: see how that could go in a runaway way, like very,
34:54
Speaker 1: very quickly? It opens up all kinds of crazy questions.
34:57
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that there isn't political support for the
35:00
Speaker 2: position that you're articulating. I just think it's a little
35:03
Speaker 2: different from how you typically present your views, where you
35:05
Speaker 2: tend to focus more on economics.
35:08
Speaker 1: Of course.
35:09
Speaker 2: And on, you know, anti-war.
35:11
Speaker 5: Yes.
35:12
Speaker 2: And, you know, American sovereignty.
35:14
Speaker 4: Yes.
35:15
Speaker 2: And so I just am trying to nail you down on...
35:19
Speaker 2: That issue actually for you, it's not maybe fair to
35:23
Speaker 2: say it comes before everything, but it is a litmus
35:25
Speaker 2: test issue that you will not vote for any candidate
35:29
Speaker 2: no matter how good they are and everything else. That
35:31
Speaker 2: is an absolute red line for you.
35:32
Speaker 1: You're talking about affirmative vote. Like I'm saying like, oh,
35:35
Speaker 1: I'm going to go out and vote. No, no, probably not. Honestly,
35:38
Speaker 1: I might just not vote. If I go back in 2024,
35:40
Speaker 1: I wouldn't vote, period, at all. But that doesn't mean that,
35:43
Speaker 1: you know, you're going to come out, endorse somebody, campaign
35:46
Speaker 1: for somebody. you know, raise money for somebody, I can
35:49
Speaker 1: analytically look and be like.
35:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely.
35:51
Speaker 1: I think, by the way, you know, I think any
35:52
Speaker 1: liberal who's sneering at this, you guys all believe the
35:54
Speaker 1: same shit. If somebody was anti-war, if somebody was, you know,
35:59
Speaker 1: pro subsidies for everything, but is, oh, I don't know,
36:02
Speaker 1: against mass immigration or is against abortion, are you really
36:06
Speaker 1: going to vote for that person? Be serious. Like you're not.
36:08
Speaker 1: And Everybody knows that is that it's a confluence of
36:11
Speaker 1: social position. And of course, many of those other things
36:13
Speaker 1: I talk about, I care, I probably care about war
36:16
Speaker 1: as number one. And I'll tell you this too. You know,
36:19
Speaker 1: I said, never, if it were, if it was existential,
36:23
Speaker 1: if America, if I was like, we're going to go
36:26
Speaker 1: into hundreds of thousands of people will be, let's not exaggerate.
36:29
Speaker 1: Let's say we're going to get into a real no
36:31
Speaker 1: shit war. Then yeah.
36:32
Speaker 5: Okay.
36:33
Speaker 1: You know, I can, we can have a discussion, but
36:35
Speaker 1: I mean, to say that it doesn't rank up there,
36:37
Speaker 1: like it's important. Like, it's very important. And I think
36:40
Speaker 1: it's important for a lot of other people. And, yeah,
36:43
Speaker 1: if liberals want to win elections, like, they should think
36:45
Speaker 1: about that. Because I don't think it's, you know, I
36:47
Speaker 1: could flip it around and be like, oh, it's so
36:49
Speaker 1: important to you to have health care for, again, like
36:53
Speaker 1: child castration. That then, you know, that you're willing to
36:58
Speaker 1: have child castration. You think that's such an important, you know,
37:01
Speaker 1: issue area that you'll deny health care to millions of
37:03
Speaker 1: other people.
37:04
Speaker 2: That doesn't make any sense.
37:05
Speaker 1: Well, OK, so then just drop the trans thing.
37:07
Speaker 2: I mean, no, health care for everyone is very important
37:10
Speaker 2: to me. And I would accept it even if it
37:12
Speaker 2: didn't fund, you know, any sort of. gender care for
37:17
Speaker 2: adults or children. Right, but that's a very unique position
37:20
Speaker 2: on the left. No, I don't think that's true. I
37:21
Speaker 2: think people would accept a level of, because then you
37:24
Speaker 2: can fight on those other pieces. But getting health care
37:28
Speaker 2: for all, I would be pushing to make sure that
37:30
Speaker 2: it's comprehensive for that, for eye care, for dental, all
37:33
Speaker 2: of those sorts of things. But yes, I think the
37:36
Speaker 2: greater good of achieving universal health care That is 100 percent.
37:41
Speaker 2: I think most people would agree with that.
37:42
Speaker 1: I think that's a very unique position. And that is
37:44
Speaker 1: not what I think. Then why won't he just say it?
37:46
Speaker 1: Why does he say it in a competitive race? Why
37:48
Speaker 1: does he say it?
37:49
Speaker 2: Because he has principles and he's articulating his actual view
37:52
Speaker 2: as someone who went to medical school.
37:54
Speaker 1: Obama lied about being for gay marriage. Politicians lie all
37:57
Speaker 1: the time. Like we're going to sit here and pretend
37:59
Speaker 1: that these people don't have calculations.
38:02
Speaker 2: Why else? Why else? would he say it?
38:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, because he believes it.
38:07
Speaker 2: Yes, because he believes it. He's not lying. He believes
38:10
Speaker 2: it based on his medical background. In any case, we're
38:12
Speaker 2: down a rabbit hole, but it was an interesting discussion
38:14
Speaker 2: and we do have a guest on this question of
38:17
Speaker 2: math and AI.
38:18
Speaker 1: Okay, let's get to it. Griffin says, uh-oh, woke one debate. He, he, he. Listen,
38:24
Speaker 1: I know that these are contentious and, you know, just
38:26
Speaker 1: to move on in a second, but to be honest,
38:28
Speaker 1: these will be the discussion that will actually have to
38:31
Speaker 1: be had as we move forward because I think All
38:34
Speaker 1: of these questions and, you know, even maybe I'll have
38:38
Speaker 1: to work through it as well. I'm sure you probably
38:40
Speaker 1: had to think a lot about things post-Trump in terms
38:42
Speaker 1: of like litmus tests and like where you go and
38:45
Speaker 1: what for. Because, you know, what we're seeing right now
38:50
Speaker 1: is a moment of extraordinary change. And if anything, my
38:53
Speaker 1: big takeaway from the Weimar book was if you don't
38:56
Speaker 1: talk about it like this, then things go real fucking bad. And,
39:01
Speaker 1: you know, having a discussion here, I appreciate it. So
39:04
Speaker 1: I don't want to end on a contentious note. There
39:06
Speaker 1: you go. Let's move on.
39:10
Speaker 2: AI seems to be upending the world of mathematics. Let's
39:13
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen.
39:15
Speaker 2: So after OpenAI solved the Navier-Stokes problem, a so-called Millennium
39:21
Speaker 2: Prize problem, it now has solved hundreds more. And from
39:26
Speaker 2: what I'm seeing bubbling up from the mathematics community, there
39:29
Speaker 2: is a lot of turmoil and upset about what this
39:32
Speaker 2: means for the future of the profession. So rejoining us
39:35
Speaker 2: to break down his view on all of this is
39:37
Speaker 2: Daniel Litt. He is a mathematician and also an assistant
39:40
Speaker 2: professor at the University of Toronto. Great to have you back, sir.
39:43
Speaker 1: Good to see you. Likewise.
39:44
Speaker 3: Glad to be back.
39:45
Speaker 2: First, can you just give us a little bit of
39:47
Speaker 2: background on what just happened and why this is roiling
39:51
Speaker 2: the world of mathematics so much?
39:53
Speaker 3: Sure.
39:53
Speaker 6: So the short version is OpenAI just released about 700
39:57
Speaker 6: PDFs claiming to at least make progress on something like
40:03
Speaker 6: 370 open problems in mathematics. So this is obviously a
40:09
Speaker 6: remarkable event. Those problems are things that, you know, some
40:14
Speaker 6: of them are things I like. One of them was
40:15
Speaker 6: a conjecture I'd made that an internal model at OpenAI
40:19
Speaker 6: made some kind of partial progress on.
40:22
Speaker 3: So this is exciting. I think it's clearly.
40:26
Speaker 6: Something that, you know, many people in the community are
40:28
Speaker 6: not sure how to react to because it's just a
40:30
Speaker 6: big change to how we operate. Like historically, if you
40:32
Speaker 6: want to make progress on an open problem, you really
40:35
Speaker 6: need a human expert in the loop. And now sometimes
40:37
Speaker 6: you can make some amount of progress just by prompting
40:40
Speaker 6: an AI model. I think it's maybe not totally unfair
40:44
Speaker 6: to analogize it to what happened to astronomy when the
40:47
Speaker 6: telescope was invented. Suddenly we have a new and very
40:50
Speaker 6: powerful tool that's changing the way we work.
40:52
Speaker 1: So that's really interesting, Daniel. You're basically framing it as
40:55
Speaker 1: a tool for people like yourselves. I'm sure you've seen this.
40:58
Speaker 1: There's been a hell of a lot of discourse. I've
41:00
Speaker 1: seen mathematicians in tears on the Ezra Klein podcast. talking
41:05
Speaker 1: about the meaning of life. Why don't you talk through
41:07
Speaker 1: us about some of your feelings on the subject?
41:10
Speaker 5: Sure.
41:11
Speaker 3: So, okay, I am not in tears.
41:13
Speaker 6: I think that there are a lot of people who
41:14
Speaker 6: are concerned about the future of the profession, and that's
41:17
Speaker 6: very justified. So the way we have to train graduate
41:19
Speaker 6: students will have to change. One reason for this is that, like,
41:24
Speaker 6: you know, When you have a profession or an institution,
41:27
Speaker 6: it needs to measure what people have contributed, what they've done.
41:30
Speaker 6: And historically, mathematicians have measured that by, did you solve
41:34
Speaker 6: an open problem? That's supposed to measure, did you contribute
41:36
Speaker 6: new understanding to the community? Or have you successfully trained
41:41
Speaker 6: the next generation and so on? That's not such a
41:43
Speaker 6: good measure anymore, because sometimes that can be done automatically.
41:47
Speaker 6: So I think people are very worried that like the
41:50
Speaker 6: sort of institutional structures of the profession will be overturned.
41:53
Speaker 6: And that could, of course, be bad.
41:55
Speaker 3: Right.
41:55
Speaker 6: Like that could end up with a profession that's less successful.
41:59
Speaker 6: But I think there's also, you know, a lot of
42:00
Speaker 6: opportunity there. Yeah. So so my view is that at
42:04
Speaker 6: least for mathematicians, these models are primarily a tool. Um,
42:10
Speaker 6: and of course they can be used in a non
42:12
Speaker 6: tool like manner as well. Um, but you know, if
42:14
Speaker 6: your interest is in understanding mathematics, you need a human
42:17
Speaker 6: in the loop to do that.
42:18
Speaker 2: So the other thing that I've heard is that part
42:22
Speaker 2: of what draws people to the field of mathematics is
42:26
Speaker 2: this joy of discovery. This, which any human, whether you're
42:31
Speaker 2: a mathematician or not, can relate to. You're trying to
42:33
Speaker 2: figure something out and then the last puzzle piece clicks
42:36
Speaker 2: into place and you have this euphoric sense of, oh,
42:39
Speaker 2: I did it. I figured it out. And so there's
42:41
Speaker 2: this sort of existential fear of, this profession that I
42:44
Speaker 2: chose because I love that particular process, that part of
42:49
Speaker 2: it may be going completely away. And speaking somewhat to
42:53
Speaker 2: that sense, Terence Tao had some comments about how he
42:57
Speaker 2: sees this evolution. He is considered one of the best
43:00
Speaker 2: living mathematicians. So let me go ahead and play a
43:03
Speaker 2: little bit of what he had to say about this
43:05
Speaker 2: new era of mathematics and get your response.
43:07
Speaker 8: I guess we are seeing the end of the romantic
43:10
Speaker 8: era of mathematics, the age of heroes, which has happened
43:14
Speaker 8: in other disciplines centuries ago, early as the Industrial Revolution. Somehow,
43:19
Speaker 8: mathematics held on, and we had our idiosyncratic traditions. For example,
43:24
Speaker 8: we all use blackboards, as you can see, and I've
43:26
Speaker 8: got this special Japanese-Korean chalk. And so we have these
43:29
Speaker 8: little quirks, and I do a lot of one-on-one advising
43:32
Speaker 8: individual grad students and things. And we have these mythological
43:36
Speaker 8: stories about Andrew Wiles being locked in his attic for
43:40
Speaker 8: seven years. Do you have Your YouTube channel has covered
43:43
Speaker 8: many of these stories. And I think we are moving
43:45
Speaker 8: to an industrial era where math will become much more
43:49
Speaker 8: large scale. We'll work in big teams. More like the
43:51
Speaker 8: other sciences, they've already had to adapt to industrialization. And
43:56
Speaker 8: something will be lost. There's something romantic about the heroic age.
43:59
Speaker 8: And hopefully we will keep some of it, at least
44:01
Speaker 8: in our educational system. We will emphasize traditional ways of
44:04
Speaker 8: doing mathematics first before the industrial things. Just like we
44:09
Speaker 8: teach kids how to do arithmetic by hand. before giving
44:11
Speaker 8: them calculators. I think we have to have a similar
44:14
Speaker 8: type of thing. But it is sad, an era which
44:17
Speaker 8: was very nice and slow and maybe inefficient in ways.
44:21
Speaker 8: And not always that. Hero worship also has a downside.
44:23
Speaker 8: It has winners and losers and whatever. So we are entering,
44:28
Speaker 8: rather unwillingly, but we are entering a new era where
44:31
Speaker 8: exciting new things are possible, but some things are being lost.
44:34
Speaker 8: And the question is, what can we keep that's valuable
44:36
Speaker 8: and what can we let go of?
44:39
Speaker 2: So, Daniel, do you similarly see it as a sort
44:41
Speaker 2: of end of an era here? And is there something
44:44
Speaker 2: lost for the human beings participating as you move into
44:47
Speaker 2: a world where AI can generate these proofs faster than
44:50
Speaker 2: any living human being can?
44:53
Speaker 6: I think, yeah, you know, of course, the way we
44:55
Speaker 6: work has changed. And there's some nice things about the
44:57
Speaker 6: way we work. You know, just being able to ponder
45:00
Speaker 6: with a pencil and paper is, I think, a very
45:02
Speaker 6: pleasant way to engage with the fundamental truths of the universe.
45:06
Speaker 3: Is that lost?
45:06
Speaker 6: Like, of course, we can still do that, right? It's
45:08
Speaker 6: just not as efficient maybe as, you know, working with
45:12
Speaker 6: our new tools. You know, astronomy, like hundreds of years ago,
45:17
Speaker 6: someone peering up at the sky with their naked eyes
45:20
Speaker 6: and trying to understand what's going on in the universe
45:21
Speaker 6: is also a little bit romantic. But, you know, modern
45:25
Speaker 6: astronomy using a radio telescope has a lot of improvements
45:28
Speaker 6: over that.
45:29
Speaker 3: You know, maybe that romance is lost.
45:31
Speaker 6: To some extent, but you can, of course, still look
45:33
Speaker 6: up at the sky and ponder the nature of the universe,
45:35
Speaker 6: but you can also do other things.
45:36
Speaker 3: So I don't know.
45:37
Speaker 6: I think we have a lot of opportunities. You know,
45:40
Speaker 6: things are lost. You know, Terry talked about the age
45:44
Speaker 6: of heroes. So maybe ego will play less of a
45:47
Speaker 6: role in mathematics. That doesn't seem like a bad thing
45:49
Speaker 6: to me. So I would say overall, I'm feeling very
45:52
Speaker 6: positive about these changes, even though, yeah, for individual people,
45:56
Speaker 6: you know, your motivations for going into mathematics might change
45:59
Speaker 6: in the world. My motivation has always been about kind
46:03
Speaker 6: of learning something new and fundamental about the universe. And
46:07
Speaker 6: that motivation still seems to be very, you know, something
46:12
Speaker 6: that I think I'll have the opportunity to do in
46:14
Speaker 6: this new future.
46:15
Speaker 2: Let me push on your telescope analogy a little bit here,
46:18
Speaker 2: because it seems to me like AI is less like
46:23
Speaker 2: the development of the telescope and more like if you
46:25
Speaker 2: developed a telescope that was just going to chart the
46:28
Speaker 2: entire universe. And now rather than your job being looking
46:31
Speaker 2: at the stars at all, your job is to sort
46:34
Speaker 2: through that charting and try to make some sense of
46:39
Speaker 2: it and try to wrap your little puny human brain
46:42
Speaker 2: around the output that the AI has already spit out.
46:46
Speaker 2: So it seems because the telescope is a tool, you
46:49
Speaker 2: get to pick where to point it. You're still fundamentally
46:52
Speaker 2: looking at the stars and trying to sort through the
46:53
Speaker 2: mysteries there. Isn't that a bit different from what is
46:57
Speaker 2: happening now with AI, where I think the fear is
47:00
Speaker 2: that also it could happen quite rapidly, that humans are
47:04
Speaker 2: not even able to really understand the proofs that are
47:06
Speaker 2: being generated. And they certainly aren't able to work through
47:10
Speaker 2: and really delve into the proofs that are being generated
47:12
Speaker 2: even to, you know, completely determine whether or not they're correct.
47:16
Speaker 3: So that's a fear.
47:17
Speaker 6: I think that right now that's not what we're seeing. So,
47:19
Speaker 6: you know, OpenAI released some, what, 700-something papers. What were
47:23
Speaker 6: those papers' answers to? They were answers to questions that
47:25
Speaker 6: human mathematicians had asked. So at least right now we're
47:27
Speaker 6: still pointing the telescope. I think you can imagine a
47:30
Speaker 6: world where you set the models, turning, generating questions and
47:33
Speaker 6: answering them.
47:34
Speaker 3: That's something you can try to do. And if you
47:35
Speaker 3: run that with current models, you will not produce high-quality results. Yeah.
47:39
Speaker 6: Um, maybe in a few years you'll produce high quality results,
47:42
Speaker 6: but I don't think that stops us.
47:43
Speaker 3: From pointing the telescope, right?
47:45
Speaker 6: Like I'm motivated by trying to understand some specific objects. Um,
47:49
Speaker 6: so I can, you know, use the tools to try
47:52
Speaker 6: to do that. Maybe the models have already generated some,
47:55
Speaker 6: some text about them and maybe, and maybe that understanding
47:58
Speaker 6: will be what I want or maybe not.
48:00
Speaker 8: Right.
48:00
Speaker 6: Like there's, um, math is like an infinitely large space
48:03
Speaker 6: you can explore. I think I would be excited to
48:06
Speaker 6: sort through outputs from a model doing some kind of
48:09
Speaker 6: automated exploration, but I'm also somehow not really worried about
48:12
Speaker 6: exhausting the search space, right? Like the sky is, I guess,
48:16
Speaker 6: a relatively small thing to search. Math is infinitely large.
48:19
Speaker 6: So I'm quite confident that I'll have a role to play,
48:24
Speaker 6: you know, basically no matter how smart the models get.
48:26
Speaker 1: My last question for you, Daniel, is about the signs that,
48:30
Speaker 1: what would change your mind? Like what can the rest
48:33
Speaker 1: of us look for? And what would really change your
48:36
Speaker 1: understanding of the field or kind of to Crystal's point
48:41
Speaker 1: evolve into a field where humanity is no longer even relevant.
48:45
Speaker 3: To the question.
48:46
Speaker 6: That doesn't seem like an output that is like, I
48:48
Speaker 6: don't think there's anything that would change my mind.
48:50
Speaker 3: So let me, let me briefly explain why.
48:52
Speaker 2: So, right.
48:52
Speaker 6: You can imagine extremely smart models that can do everything
48:55
Speaker 6: we can do. And we just put them in a
48:56
Speaker 6: loop generating PDFs. Um, I think in that world where
48:59
Speaker 6: we do that with math, where we do that with
49:00
Speaker 6: basic science. We've just given up control of the future.
49:03
Speaker 6: We've placed it in the hands of the models or
49:05
Speaker 6: maybe the corporations that own them. I don't think that's
49:07
Speaker 6: a future that we want. So I think that there
49:09
Speaker 6: will always be a desire for human expertise and for
49:11
Speaker 6: humans in the loop just to make sure that we
49:13
Speaker 6: retain control over our understanding of the universe and whatever applications.
49:17
Speaker 3: Come out of that.
49:18
Speaker 5: Sure.
49:19
Speaker 2: So last thing, let me get you to respond to
49:21
Speaker 2: a bit of a parody that was published to Terry
49:25
Speaker 2: Tao's blog here. And I'll read you a little bit,
49:28
Speaker 2: put this last piece up on the screen here. So
49:30
Speaker 2: a couple of excerpts. Again, this is a spoof. This
49:32
Speaker 2: person writes, In centuries past, scientists and mathematicians were limited
49:36
Speaker 2: in their ability to solve problems by their ability to
49:38
Speaker 2: understand the solutions. That bottleneck has been removed. Now there's
49:42
Speaker 2: no theoretical limit to the amount of scientific and mathematical
49:45
Speaker 2: factoids we can fail to understand. They go on to write,
49:49
Speaker 2: math and science are about cold, hard answers, just as
49:52
Speaker 2: art is about producing images. Music is about producing sound
49:55
Speaker 2: waves and literature is about producing strings of text. These
49:59
Speaker 2: things exist to be consumed as content. No rational person,
50:02
Speaker 2: least of all us masters of rationality in STEM, pursues
50:05
Speaker 2: these for the joy of creation, learning, or beauty. All
50:08
Speaker 2: of these are inefficiencies, and we mustn't be inefficient, lest
50:11
Speaker 2: we stifle humanity's progress. LLMs are not burdened with these inefficiencies,
50:16
Speaker 2: and they will be merely the pursuits of those left
50:18
Speaker 2: behind with nothing more productive to do all day. Personally,
50:21
Speaker 2: I look forward to the day when ChatGPT can enjoy
50:24
Speaker 2: a sunset or a nice meal on my behalf and
50:26
Speaker 2: free up my time the same way I save time
50:29
Speaker 2: on scenic hikes using Uber. So very different worldview here
50:34
Speaker 2: written by the author. What are they getting wrong in
50:38
Speaker 2: their perspective?
50:39
Speaker 3: Oh, I actually love this parody.
50:41
Speaker 6: I mean, I think that the vision of mathematics where
50:45
Speaker 6: you just run an LLM in a loop with no
50:47
Speaker 6: humans involved works. views the goal of mathematics as, like,
50:51
Speaker 6: automation of the production of PDFs. I think I kind
50:53
Speaker 6: of agree with the author of this parody's viewpoint, that, like,
50:56
Speaker 6: we don't want to know just what, we also want
50:58
Speaker 6: to know why. And a PDF doesn't know why. I mean,
51:02
Speaker 6: you need some human expertise to, like, understand that and
51:05
Speaker 6: get at that and pursue it.
51:07
Speaker 3: So, yeah, I think that the author of this parody
51:10
Speaker 3: has a.
51:10
Speaker 6: Very similar view of science to me, actually, that, like,
51:13
Speaker 6: we are trying to understand the world, and that's not
51:15
Speaker 6: something you can automate.
51:17
Speaker 1: That's cool. I like your perspective, Daniel. I'm going to
51:19
Speaker 1: stick with it. It makes me feel better. Thank you.
51:22
Speaker 1: Appreciate your time.
51:23
Speaker 2: Thank you, Daniel. Great to see you.
51:25
Speaker 8: Likewise.
51:27
Speaker 1: Thank you guys so much for watching. Great Wednesday show
51:29
Speaker 1: for everybody tomorrow.