reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk defends former President Trump against Robert De Niro's comparison to Hitler, stating that Trump's policies were different and he made progress towards peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords.
@LeadingReport - Leading Report
BREAKING: Elon Musk comes to the defense of former President Trump after Hollywood actor Robert De Niro compared Trump to infamous dictators like Hitler in a MSNBC interview. “Well, Trump was actually already president for 4 years and his policies bore no resemblance to those of Hitler, so this makes no sense. In fact, with the Abraham Accords, he made some progress towards peace in the Middle East, which was definitely not high on Hitler’s agenda.”
reSee.it AI Summary
I just heard that Trump is considering putting Elon Musk in his cabinet alongside JFK Jr. and other influential patriots. He believes Musk loves the country and could contribute, although he acknowledges Musk's busy schedule. If Musk focuses on reducing the federal government's size and RFK Jr. tackles big pharma and corruption, Trump's second term could be incredibly successful. It feels like something significant is on the horizon.
@BehizyTweets - George
BREAKING: Trump says he is prepared to put Elon Musk in his cabinet alongside JFK Jr. and many other powerful patriots "He loves the country. I’d put him in the cabinet, absolutely, but I don’t know how he could do that with all the things he’s got going…" If Elon Musk gets involved in shrinking the size of the federal government and RFK Jr. leads the war against big pharma and corruption, Trump's second term will be the most successful four years in American history. Something beautiful is brewing Video from: @ShawnRyan762
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk wants to help the country by cutting fat and consulting, particularly on AI, because "nobody knows more about it than Elon." While he may not be able to join the cabinet due to his business obligations, he wants to be involved. AI is very important for the country, and if the US doesn't develop it, China will. China is working to develop a massive flood of electricity, while the US is not. The speaker believes the upcoming election is the most important day in the history of the country, claiming the country is doomed if the election goes the wrong way.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I read that Elon Musk said that he would accept a position in your cabinet. Would that have to do with artificial intelligence?
Speaker 1: So Elon chose him. We have a great relationship. He's he's great. He is a totally unusual character. Do you know Elon
Speaker 0: at all? I don't.
Speaker 1: He's great. And he's smart. And we have to cherish our geniuses. You know, we don't have too many of them. Right?
But he is a a brilliant guy. And, what he really would like to do is get involved in cutting some of the fat. And he does know how to do it. And he loves the country. You know, it's just an amazing thing.
We had a conversation the other day. You would know better than me, but I hear it had 100 of millions of people. I heard it had the biggest audience that there's ever been. I mean, would you say that's a correct statement?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. There's
Speaker 1: never been anything even close. I heard 750,000,000 people. I mean, numbers that are crazy. And, yeah, he he wants to be involved. Now look, he's running big businesses and all that, so he can't really I don't think it'd be for cabinet.
I put him in the cabinet, absolutely, but I don't know how he could do that with all the things he's got going. But he can sort of, as the expression goes, consult with the country and give you some very good ideas. Like on AI, there's nobody knows more about it than Elon.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: It's a big, you know, big thing. And he said it's very important. I mean, it's very important for the country. If we don't do it, China's gonna do it, or somebody else, but most likely China. And China is working right now to develop massive electricity, a flood of electricity, a massive flood of electricity.
And we don't because we have people that don't even they're not even thinking about that.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And you have to. We have to win this election. This election is go November 5th will be the most important day, my opinion, in the history of our country. Because if our country goes the wrong way with this election, I think this country is doomed.
reSee.it AI Summary
In my recent conversation with Tucker Carlson, I discussed various political topics, including my views on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I remarked that Harris is a "puppet" and noted Trump’s resilience despite assassination attempts. I expressed concern over rising illegal immigration affecting swing states and the potential for a permanent Democratic majority. I also addressed election fraud and the need for voter ID. Additionally, I hinted at fears among billionaires regarding a Trump victory and the Epstein client list. Lastly, I touched on vaccine mandates and my need for increased security if Trump cuts federal agencies.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk Drops Epstein Bombshell in Jaw-Dropping Tucker Carlson Interview You won’t believe who he named. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/HYubZlYbIL
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In an “off-the-cuff” conversation with Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk wasted no time going straight into politics and the 2024 election. He broke his silence on his deleted tweet about Kamala Harris, explaining that nobody even bothers trying to assassinate Kamala Harris because she's just another "puppet" of the "machine." “Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet,” Musk said. “She's safe,” he continued. “Like, they tried to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.” Musk went on to explain that Trump inherently has the "constitution of an ox,” even though he doesn't work out and consumes “cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff.” “I think he [Trump] just inherently has a strong constitution,” Musk said, adding that he is of “sound mind and body and strong backbone” after two assassination attempts.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 joked that no one is bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless, as she is just a "puppet." Speaker 1 agreed, stating she is irrelevant and replaceable. Speaker 0 clarified that some people misinterpreted the joke as a call for assassination.
The speakers contrasted this with the two attempts to kill Trump with actual guns and bullets. Speaker 0 noted that Trump doesn't seem rattled by the attempts, attributing it to his strong constitution, despite his unhealthy diet and lack of exercise. Speaker 2 confirmed that Trump didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of assassination attempts. Speaker 0 agreed that Trump seemed of sound mind and body with a strong backbone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.
Speaker 1: Oh, I know.
Speaker 0: Well, not I mean, the Kamala puppet, I call her. You know? The the the the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. She's irrelevant. I mean, she's
Speaker 2: not even
Speaker 0: No. No. Like, like, I I made a I made a joke, which I realized deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless.
Speaker 1: What do you achieve?
Speaker 2: No. It's
Speaker 0: totally fine.
Speaker 1: Another puppet. Exact that's It's no point in killing It's
Speaker 2: deep and true, though.
Speaker 0: Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: It's imp it's pretty pointless. Totally. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: You actually put that up? Yeah. No. Some people interpreted it as as as as though I was calling for people to
Speaker 1: to Of course.
Speaker 0: To assassinate her. But I but I but I was like but I was like, no. We even you know? I was I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered
Speaker 2: to try? It's not worth it.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's an endless supply. Yeah. I'm like, nobody would it's it's absurd. It
Speaker 2: could be anybody.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. You you nobody's gonna try to nobody tries to ask me to pop it. Of course not.
Speaker 2: A marionette.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A marionette. So it's like, you know?
Speaker 2: It's hilarious.
Speaker 1: What? She's safe. Like,
Speaker 0: I don't I like, to to try to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: He shot in the air right in fucking butt butler where I was. And,
Speaker 2: He doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you?
Speaker 0: This doesn't seem what? Rattled. He's I mean, he's the constitution of an ox. It seems. You know, it's it's not like working out and eating healthy.
And he's
Speaker 2: Okay. We gotta tape this. Oh, yeah. We're good. Oh, good.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: So so so He's he's not like, let
Speaker 0: me eat another salad. That's not no. Or or work out, you know, you know, fastidiously. That's he he I I felt like how he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and diet coke and stuff. And because it it just I think he just inherently has a a strong constitution.
So when
Speaker 2: you I mean, you're just with him. He didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of 2 assassination attempts?
Speaker 0: No. He seemed, of, you know, sound mind and body and, strong backbone.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The conversation shifted to Musk explaining how it’s “pretty fun” to be “all in” on Donald Trump, even if the downsides of that choice come with some dire consequences. These remarks came after Musk trashed Kamala Harris, marveling at how “amazing” it was that he spoke at Trump’s rally without a teleprompter. “Wow. Amazing. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy,” he mocked. Musk laughed that he is “all in the deep end [on Trump],” acknowledging that “in the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance on me.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states their remarks were impromptu, without a teleprompter. They deny using a media consultant, saying they just thought about what to say and spoke off the cuff.
When asked about being "all in," the speaker confirms they are in the deep end, describing it as "fun." They acknowledge the possibility of "vengeance" in the "unlikely event" of a loss.
The speaker states they are a major government contractor doing "essential work." They claim their product is better and costs less, allowing them to compete for and win contracts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Remarks I made there were impromptu. There's no teleprompter or anything. I just I was just speaking extemporaneously. Are you the only rich guy who does now, like, a media consultant? No.
I don't media consultant. Yeah. No. I've noticed. Obviously.
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I mean no. I I just, no. I just thought about what what I what I wanna say, and I just spoke off the cuff, no teleprompter, nothing.
Good for you. Yeah. I can talk I don't Look. Like, I'm like, right now, I'm just talking. Look at me.
Wow. Amazing. I can even believe it. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy.
But if if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him. All in. All in. In the deep end? Yeah.
No. You are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom. No. No.
I'm I'm like I'm like rolling around. I don't like picking my I'm, like, baaah. It's all in, baby. Is it fun? Yeah.
It's pretty fun. How about I mean, there may be some in the hopefully, unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance, on me. Are you kidding me? I mean, it's possible. It's possible?
You've got to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes. Yeah. But we're not it's not like, you know, we do useful, essential work that we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk then raised a shocking and disturbing revelation that there has been a 700% surge in illegal immigration to some key swing states over the past 3 years, saying that this election is the "last election" if Democrats win. Why does he say that? Because “these swing state margins are sometimes 10, 20 thousand votes. So what happens if you put hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state?" Musk asked. “When somebody is granted asylum, they are fast-tracked. They can get a green card, and then five years after the green card, they can get citizenship, and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat,” Musk explained. By 2028, every swing state will have turned blue, leaving America under a permanent Dem supermajority. That's why Musk calls this the "last election" if Kamala wins.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 believes that if Trump doesn't win the election, it will be the last election because Democrats are importing illegals via a secret CBP border app program. He claims this is illegal, but the DOJ isn't stopping it.
According to Speaker 1, government websites show triple-digit increases in illegals in swing states, sometimes up to 700% over the last 3 years. He asserts that asylum seekers are fast-tracked to citizenship and vote Democrat, prioritizing bringing family to the US and being beholden to Democratic handouts.
Speaker 1 predicts another four years of a Democratic administration will lead to legalizing enough illegals to eliminate swing states, turning the US into a single-party country like California, which became a super-majority Democrat state after the 1986 amnesty. He states California recently passed a law making voter ID illegal in any election.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So but back to the original question, you know, about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. So I My view is is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have. That, the Democrats the Dem Machine has been, importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals, flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually to stop it from happening.
They're transporting, large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website, so like from the Democrat administered government websites. Where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats. And, there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states, and in some cases, it's like 700% over the last 3 years.
Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10, 20000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state. And for the when somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked. They can get a green card, and then 5 years after the green card, they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And sometimes I get this rebuttal of, like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align
Speaker 0: with, sort
Speaker 1: of, the far left sort of work ideology. I said, that's true, but, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States, and the the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens.
So my prediction is if there's another 4 years of a damn administration, they will legalize so many, illegals that are there, that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And it will be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. It's a super majority Dem state state in California. Because of immigration? Yes.
The California was, fairly reliably Republican. Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. Yes. So there was a 986 amnesty.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And thereafter, California trended very strongly then, and as at this point, I think, 65, 70 percent dem, something like that. It's super majority dem. The California legislature Yes. Is more than 2 thirds Democrat.
Speaker 0: Has it improved the state?
Speaker 1: No. It's it's not. And they they California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even this is even real, but California just passed a law making it illegal, to require voter ID in any election at all in California. Do you know that?
No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week. It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council.
And and a friend of mine who is this can he lives in Palo Alto was like it it was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, vote in, like, some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID.
Speaker 0: Have they extended this change?
Speaker 1: What's going on right now.
Speaker 0: By the way,
Speaker 1: they're proud of it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 0: But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're gonna ID you 6 ways a Sunday. Yeah. They try California is trying to make it basically equal to owning its own a gun.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Without skipping a beat, Musk turned his attention to what few billionaires would dare talk about—election fraud and voter IDs. Without one single stutter, Musk declared, “The purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections.” “The same people that demanded vaccine IDs if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required,” he added. Musk pointed out how it is “literally impossible” to prove fraud if no voter ID is required, saying it enables “large-scale fraud.” “So, yeah, the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections, obviously. There can be no other explanation,” Musk concluded.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID.
The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And and the same people that demanded vaccine IDs for if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required. Is there any reason Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud? It's it's for it's it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven. So it it it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it?
It's literally impossible. No I no ID. You you're not even allowed to show your ID. It's insane. Well, it is insane.
Insane. So yeah. The the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections. Obviously. There can be no other explanation.
I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing. People don't have IDs? Could you live in this country without an ID? Yeah. I mean, their their their common rebuttal is, like, it's racist to require ID and which is insane.
I think it's actually race racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously. But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible. Yeah. You can't do anything.
Yeah. You need ID for everything. Like, the list of the things you need ID for is basically everything, except voting.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more threads like this one. https://t.co/gsTQF3gnqh
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The bombshell dropped when Musk suggested that Bill Gates, Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, and other billionaires are “terrified” of a Trump victory because if he wins, the Epstein client list is coming out. Musk said this after declaring that there is a “strong overlap” between Kamala's top 100 puppet masters and the Epstein client list. Musk called it “mind-blowing” that hundreds of January 6th protesters have been sentenced to prison, yet there’s been no action to prosecute the “worst offender on the Epstein client list.” “That’s insane!” he emphasized. “I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that if Trump wins, that Epstein client list is going to become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome,” Musk said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Kamala Harris is a "marionette" controlled by over 100 "puppet masters." The speaker claims to know most of them and suggests a strong overlap between these individuals and the Epstein client list.
The speaker is surprised that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker believes a reason for Kamala Harris's support is that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list will become public, which terrifies some billionaires backing Harris.
The speaker specifically names Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates as potentially nervous individuals, noting Hoffman was the speaker's VP of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter. So, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those those who's actually in charge.
Speaker 1: And who is that,
Speaker 0: do you think? Well, I've I've tried to put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it seems to be it's it's like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a thousand puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's or maybe it's somewhere north of a 100, is what it seems
Speaker 1: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 0: I probably know most of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So what I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I should say, I think you voted
Speaker 0: for I I I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those we quote the the the top 100 puppet masters in the FD and client list.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 0: Overlap. Strong overlap.
Speaker 1: When are we going to see that list, do you think?
Speaker 0: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 1: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kind of occupied.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 1: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 0: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal Yeah. 24 years ago.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In another striking moment, Musk entered the vaccine debate, saying, “We shouldn't force people to take vaccines,” adding, “I believe in freedom.” Musk explained that he's not “anti-vax” and that he believes vaccines have done a lot of good, but he also believes that the “quality control on vaccines” should be “incredibly good if we're giving them to children and whatnot.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vaccines should be subject to scrutiny to ensure high quality control, especially since they are given to children. People should not be forced to take vaccines.
America is supposed to be the land of liberty, freedom, and opportunity. The country should maximize individual liberty, where success is based on talent and hard work. These two fundamental values have made America great, and losing them will lead to a swift decline.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course, they should we should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good, get since we if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines. That itself is a controversial statement, that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people to take vaccines.
No. Yeah. So just to yes. I believe in freedom. Like, you know Yeah.
I've noticed. I'd like, the the you know, America is supposed to be the land of liberty. Yeah. You know, freedom freedom and opportunity. So that, we we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on, your talent and hard work.
Yes. Those are 2 fundamental values. That that's what that's what's made America great, and and if we lose those, we will our decline will be swerved.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
In the final moments of the interview, Musk said he's going to need to beef up his security team if the Trump administration starts slashing federal agencies. “I'll probably need, if this happens, quite a significant security team because someone might literally go postal on me,” he warned. Musk pointed out the staggering number of over 440 federal agencies in the US government, suggesting it could easily be cut down to 99 without major consequences. He recounted his own experience at X, where he slashed 80% of the staff and “actually improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last eight years.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 confirms he will continue to help Trump if he is selected. He refers to a potential "government efficiency commission" or "Department of Government Efficiency," possibly called "Doge."
Speaker 1 states that at Twitter, they cut about 80% of staff and improved the site's features more in the past year and a half than in the previous eight years.
Speaker 1 suggests reviewing all federal agencies to determine if all 428 are necessary, noting there are more agencies than years since the US was founded. He believes they should reduce the number of agencies and eliminate overlapping responsibilities. He also advocates for reviewing regulations to remove those that are not sensible, as regulators tend to add more regulations every year. He anticipates needing a significant security team due to potential unpopularity and threats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last question. You you really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump. You're on stage yesterday. If he gets selected, will you continue to help him
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now? Absolutely. So we've talked about, kind of a government efficiency commission or the Department of Government Efficiency, which is a funny What what percent?
Speaker 0: Sorry. I was laughing. I love it. You you managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency.
What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there?
Speaker 1: You mean Twitter? Rather.
Speaker 0: I beg your pardon. Sorry. You I just you've just been talking about Google. Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we we're about 80%. And we've actually, improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last, I don't know, 8 years, with 20% of the staff.
Speaker 0: So Just for I just wanna throw that out for context. So you've talked to Trump about
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. He's he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's first point of of having some kind of, you know, government efficiency commission, can call it Department of Government Efficiency Doge. I kinda like Doge. It's more it's more fun.
Yeah. And, where we just take a look at at at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies? Like, there's so many that people have not even heard of, or and that have overlapping areas of responsibility we should I don't know. Probably, we should get I mean, there there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than 1 federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot.
That's a lot. That's a lot. So we should have that seems crazy. I think we should be able to get away with, 99 agencies. I don't know.
That seems a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: 2 per state. That's what I mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies, and, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities, and and then we we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not. Because because if you've got regulators, every year, they're gonna add more regulations. It's just automatic. Like like, they just output regulations, and and then and there's more laws and regulations every year until, basically, everything's legal, to get get anything done.
So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things.
Speaker 0: You're you are saying obvious things. Yeah. So that's will be very unpopular things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll probably need if if this happens, I see quite a significant security team, so that because because someone might literally go post alarm me from the post office.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading! If you found this post helpful, please do me a favor and follow this page before you go. To hear everything Elon Musk had to say, check out the video below for his full conversation with Tucker Carlson. https://t.co/QaTSaMmhRV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 expresses deep concern about the future of democracy, believing the upcoming election is the last chance to prevent a one-party state due to unchecked illegal immigration and the Democratic party's policies. He criticizes the lack of voter ID laws, citing California's recent legislation as an example of enabling voter fraud.
He defends his support for Trump, arguing that the "Dem Machine" is importing illegals to swing states, leading to a demographic shift that will eliminate swing states and create a single-party system. He believes Trump is the underdog, fighting against a media, money, and celebrity-backed Democratic party.
Speaker 1 discusses AI, emphasizing the need for a truth-seeking AI to prevent a "woke mind virus" from programming AI to lie. He expresses concern about the power of AI and the potential for it to be controlled by untrustworthy individuals. He advocates for sensible deregulation and a review of existing regulations to promote progress and innovation. He also touches on the issues of over-prescription of psychiatric medication and the potential negative effects of hormonal birth control.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If he loses, man, what? You're fucked, dude.
Speaker 1: You're not fucked. If he loses, I'm fucked.
Speaker 0: It does seem that way. You can't just be like you can't just be like, yo, I Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm like, how how long do you think my prison sentence is gonna be tonight? Will I see my children? I don't know. Because it's not like
Speaker 0: you can say, well, yeah, I maxed out to him, but, you know, I get
Speaker 1: you're I'm no plausible deniability. No. No. And I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.
Speaker 0: Oh, I know.
Speaker 1: Well, not I mean, the Kamala puppet, I call him. You know? The the the machine that the Kamala puppet represents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. She's irrelevant. I mean, she's not even No.
Speaker 1: No. Like a like a I made a I made a joke, which I realized I deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless. What do you achieve? No. It's totally fine.
Another puppet. Exact that's It's so important to kill It's
Speaker 0: deep and true, though.
Speaker 1: Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden.
Speaker 0: It's imp They're
Speaker 1: pretty pointless. Totally. You actually put that up? Yeah. No.
Some people interpret it as as as as though I was calling for people to to Of course. Assassinate her. But I but I but I was like but I was like, no. We even you know, you know, I was I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered to
Speaker 0: try? It's not worth it. I mean, there's an endless supply.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm like, no nobody would it's it's absurd.
Speaker 0: It could be anybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. You you nobody's gonna try to nobody tries to assassinate a puppet.
Speaker 0: Of course not. A marionette.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Marionette. It's just like you know? It's hilarious. Yeah.
She's safe. Like, I don't I like, to to try and kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: He shot in the air right in fucking butt butler
Speaker 0: where I was. And, he doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you? Doesn't seem what?
Rattled.
Speaker 1: He's I mean, it's the constitution of an ox. It's it's you know, so it's not like working out and eating healthy. And he's Okay.
Speaker 0: We gotta tape this. Oh, yeah. We're Oh, yeah. We're good. Oh, good.
Yeah. Is this so so
Speaker 1: He's he's not like, let me eat another salad. That's not no. Or or work out, you know, you know, fastidiously. That's he he I I felt like, oh, he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff. And because it
Speaker 0: it just I think he just inherently has a strong constitution. So when you I mean, yours with him, he didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of 2 assassination attempts?
Speaker 1: No. He seemed, of, you know, sound mind and body and, strong backbone.
Speaker 0: Did you,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I said in the in the thing, which Yeah. When and and the remarks I made there were impromptu. There's no teleprompter or anything. I just I was just speaking extemporaneously.
Speaker 0: Are you the only rich guy who doesn't have, like, a media consultant?
Speaker 1: No. I don't media consultant. Yeah. No. I've noticed, obviously.
Yeah. Oh, I mean no. I I just, no. I just thought about what what I what I wanna say, and I just spoke off the cuff, don't tell it prompted. Nothing.
Speaker 0: Good for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I can talk I just look like I'm like, right now, I'm just talking. Look
Speaker 0: at me. Wow. Amazing.
Speaker 1: Can you believe it? I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy. But if
Speaker 0: if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him.
Speaker 1: All in. All in. In the deep end? Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. You are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom.
Speaker 1: No. No. I'm like I'm like rolling around. I'm like picking my I'm like, baa. It's all in, baby.
Speaker 0: Is it fun?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's really fun. I mean, there may be some in the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance, on me. Were you kidding? I mean, it's possible.
Speaker 0: It's possible?
Speaker 1: You've got
Speaker 0: to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's not like, you know, we do useful essential work Right. That we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less. That that's why we get covered contracts right now. And and and and, I mean, if you take, for example, the, the NASA contract to transport astronauts to and from the space station, Boeing got NASA awarded 2 contracts at the start, one to Boeing and one to SpaceX.
Boeing was awarded twice as much as SpaceX. SpaceX has done all the astronaut transport, from the space station, and and Boeing has only done one to one transport of 1 of 2 astronauts to the space station, and we had to bring them back. Boeing got twice as much as SpaceX. There's there's this total misunderstanding that that my companies have been subsidized and supported by the government and get all these and and it's like, do you do you really think that a Biden administration is gonna subsidize me? You're probably not.
Are you kidding? No. In fact, they take away every contract they possibly can. So, for example, there was the FCC contract to, $42,000,000,000 for providing rural broadband. Yes.
Okay. We we actually first said, look, we don't we think there shouldn't be any subsidies, so we recommend that this program just not exist. But since you're insisting that it exists, we will compete. And we we have better products. So we we we won, I don't know, about a quarter of it, which would have included the devastated areas like North Carolina and so on.
And, the FCC took it away illegally. They just voted 3 out of 5 commissioners voted away and said, even though you want it, we're we're we're we're sending it. On what ground?
Speaker 0: And do
Speaker 1: you know how many people they have connected? How many? 0.
Speaker 0: So you think that was political? Well, the 3 Democrats voted against it. Right.
Speaker 1: The 2 Republicans voted for it.
Speaker 0: So you tried to get StarLink you tried to get StarLink Yes. Into North Carolina, into Western North Carolina, the areas devastated by the hurricane.
Speaker 1: We have it is it is in there, and it is the primary means of communication in the devastated areas.
Speaker 0: You had conflict with Buttigieg over this. Well, I I I raised a cons
Speaker 1: I I said, look, we're we we had delivered we've been delivering Starlink terminals there for a while, and obviously, some people already had them, since they just, you know, consume private individuals that had Starlink there already. We delivered, thousands of terminals, and and got all the way up to the, you know, the areas where they wouldn't let us go any further. And then we're, like, okay, we're gonna send helicopters in, and and and find people who are stranded and and give them Starlink terminals, which I think is, you know, a nice thing. Yeah! Okay.
The they they wouldn't let us land, because there was an FAA, notice to M and NOTAM that said, in order to land, you have to know who you're going to meet with, to land. Now, the problem is, we're trying to deliver Internet communications. People don't have Internet communications. We don't know who they are, but then they can't reach us because they don't have communications. Do you see the catch-twenty 3?
Speaker 0: Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: Insane. So so it's obviously impossible for people who don't have Internet communications to let us know who they are, because they don't have the Internet. Yes. Yes. And so,
Speaker 0: Did you explain this to the federal government?
Speaker 1: Yes. What did they say? They they they they fixed it. How was Buttigieg when you talked to him? He was actually good.
So I wanna be just Yeah. Yeah. I I wanna give Buttigieg some credit here. Yes. 1st, a a you know, when I complained about it, he he he reacted in a in a in a very level headed way, and he reached out to me, and he called me.
Yeah. And we we discussed the issue, got to the bottom of it, and he fixed it. Good. So credit to the way
Speaker 0: to judge. Yeah. Well, and to you
Speaker 1: for pushing it. Yeah. I mean so but as soon as he was aware
Speaker 0: of the problem, he fixed it. Well, you publicized
Speaker 1: it too on Yeah. Yeah. As soon as you shamed him. Well, but I I do wanna give credit words too.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. Amen. I agree completely. So but back to the original question, you know, about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work.
Yeah. I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?
Speaker 1: I mean yeah. So my view is is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have. That, the Democrats the Dem Machine, has been, importing so many peep bringing in so many illegals, flying flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by the DOJ to actually to stop it from happening.
They're, transporting large numbers of of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So, like, from the democrat administered government websites. Like, where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats.
And, there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states, and in some cases, it's like 700% over the last 3 years. Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10, 20000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? And and and for this for this if when somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked they would they they they get get a green card, and then 5 years after the green card, they can get they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And sometimes they get this rebuttal of, like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with, sort of, the far left sort of work ideology. I said, that's true, but, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States, and the the the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens.
So my prediction is if there's another 4 years of a Dem administration, they will legalize so many, illegals that are there, that the next election, there won't be any swing states. And it's and we'll be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. It's a super majority damn state
Speaker 0: in California. Because of immigration?
Speaker 1: Yes. The California was, fairly reliably Republican.
Speaker 0: Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia.
Speaker 1: Yes. So there was a 90 986 amnesty.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And thereafter, California trended very strongly, Dem, and as at this point, I think 65, 70 percent Dems, something like that. It's super majority Dems. But, like, the California legislature Yes. Is more than 2 thirds Democrat.
Speaker 0: Has it improved the state?
Speaker 1: No. It's it's not. And they they California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even this is even real. But California just passed a law making it illegal, to require voter ID in any election at all in California.
Do you you know that? No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week.
Speaker 0: It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council.
Speaker 1: And and a friend of mine who is this can who lives in Palo Alto was like it it was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, vote in, like, some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your ID.
Speaker 0: Have they extended the same
Speaker 1: actually what's going on right now.
Speaker 0: But By the
Speaker 1: way, they're proud of it. They're not hiding it.
Speaker 0: But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor or buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're gonna ID you 6 ways a Sunday. It's yeah. They tried California is trying to make it basically equal to own its own a gun. And and the same people that demanded vaccine IDs IDs for if you wanna travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter ID is required.
Speaker 0: Is there any reason Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud?
Speaker 1: It's it's for it's it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven. So it it it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No no ID. You you're not even allowed to show your ID.
It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So yeah. The the purpose of no voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections.
Speaker 0: Obviously. There can be no other explanation.
Speaker 1: I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing.
Speaker 0: People don't have IDs? Could you live in this country without an ID?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the the their common rebuttal is, like, it's racist to require ID and which is insane. I think it's actually race racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously.
Speaker 0: But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think it's even possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You can't do anything.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You need ID for everything. Like, a list of the things you need ID for is basically everything, except voting.
Speaker 0: So So you see the rest of the It's
Speaker 1: total bullshit, obviously. Come obviously. Yes.
Speaker 0: But that doesn't, in any way, minimize the aggression or self righteousness they bring to this conversation.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: It's you're a racist if you want that. Right.
Speaker 1: Where was that in fact, obviously, someone is racist if they say that, people of particular race cannot get ID. That's patronizing and racist. That's absurd.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's like when the governor of New York said people in the you know, get out don't know how to use computers or something like that. I mean, like, you know, I'm super out of
Speaker 0: touch. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. So It's like a So there's a really clear template.
Speaker 1: She doesn't know how to use computers, but they do, obviously.
Speaker 0: I don't think Hochul could use a computer. Yeah. I don't think she's She's not qualified intellectually.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. Probably not.
Speaker 0: But not everyone in New York is as dumb as as Kathy Hochul. I think that's true. Yeah. So you see the other 49 states becoming California if the machine wins?
Speaker 1: Well, you don't need, all all 49 to to go that way. You just need, you know, enough to have the election have there not be swing states. I mean, there are only 6 swing swing states. Yep. So there are only 6 states out of 50 right now that are in contention.
So if those 6 states that are in contention, by narrow margins are no longer in contention, then, the the only contest will be for who wins the Democratic prime primary. That's how it is in California, that's how it is in New York. There's no there's no party, party versus party situation. The only contest is who wins the Democratic primary. And as we've seen with the, appointment of Kamala, who no one voted for, even in the Democratic primary Yes.
Speaker 0: Where's the democracy here? It's just it's easier, though.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's just that the Democrat elite just decides who who who is in charge. That's an that that that that's that's a, you know, a tiny oligarchy, basically. Comprised of That's not democracy.
Speaker 0: The richest people in the country. That's kind of the interesting part to me is that the richest people in the country are on board with this. I mean, that's what it is. It's the it's it's a collection of billionaires.
Speaker 1: Most of them are. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But you're not.
Speaker 1: Not me. And and not everyone is. I think there's but but it is a shocking number of so called billionaires are, in the damn camp. Well, more than are in the Republican camp Oh, for sure. Which is wild.
So the in in fact, the the astonishing thing in the swing states is that that it's that they're even a contest given that, the the Dems have far more money than the Republicans. So so the color came dramatically outspends the Trump campaign in the swing states. The, overwhelming the media is overwhelmingly pro Democrat, so you've got, you know, the press, you know, is a is a a Dem cheering squad. And, you know, so oh, and then and then you've got all all the almost all the Hollywood and entertainment celebrities also, you know, endorsing, comment, and and being pro Dems. What do you So you got the so you got the celebrities, you got the they got the money, they got, got it basically, everything on the side of the Dems.
The problem is the underdog here. Trump's the underdog in swing swing states, and still, it's a contentious it's still 5050. After all that,
Speaker 0: what does that tell you?
Speaker 1: It tells me that if if people actually knew what was going on, they weren't being fed nonstop propaganda, it would landslide in favor of Republicans.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, how's this for crazy? Has there ever been a more volatile time in American politics? Not in our lifetimes. No one alive has ever seen anything like this.
But long before things started to really fall apart, the Heritage Foundation saw it coming. Heritage has pulled together a coalition of over a 100 right leaning groups to develop a comprehensive plan for day 1. That would include detailed policy proposals on the most pressing issues, the big ones. Securing the border, controlling inflation, cracking down on election fraud, protecting the rights of the individual, and saving the nation from being crushed by woke anti human ideology. The team at Heritage has also developed a plan to dismantle the deep state that keeps this nonsense going and reclaim this nation from the small group of technocrats that's broken everything.
Heritage is also running a training and vetting program to identify effective conservatives to serve in the next presidential administration. People who will share your values, this country's values, and actually do the job. It can't just be the same pool of discredited people from Washington populating every administration. Headers has a long head start and they put in a lot of work already But they need your support to finish the job and to support the incoming president You can go to heritage.org/tucker and contribute to this important work today a lot depends on it heritage.org/tucker. But why not join the easier side?
I mean, you're just you're creating problems for yourself by getting on stage with Trump and into I mean, you must have had friends who said that to you. Sure.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. People care about you. Like, why even get involved in this?
Speaker 1: Well, I get because I I think we wanna remain a democracy, and we don't wanna become a one party state.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That's the reason. And the it's exact opposite. They the people who call Trump a threat to democracy, but the people who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Yes. One party rule is not democracy.
One party where essentially the party elite pick a candidate, as happened with Kamala, is not democracy. Where did the people vote? Show me where the people voted. No, there were no people voting. It was all just damn party elite that disappointed someone.
And and when the when the Biden puppet, when the pro Biden puppet's ratings sagged, they knocked him in the back immediately, and just tossed him out, and put it put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong.
Speaker 0: Well, not only you're right. I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: because No. No. Exactly.
Speaker 0: What does she have to do with it?
Speaker 1: There's no point in in criticizing Kamala. She's she's simply the the face of a lot a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say whatever is whatever the tele the tele teleprompter whatever's on the teleprompter, she's gonna say it. Yes.
Now she gets stuck if the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently. I think the Yeah. The teleprompter is stalled, and she just she just, like, looping for a while for about a minute. So I think that happened yesterday or something.
It was pretty funny to watch. But she'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter, so, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those are the best who's actually in charge.
Speaker 0: And who is that, do you think? Well, I've I've tried to
Speaker 1: put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it it seems to be it's it's, like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a a 1000 puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's it's it's or maybe it's it's in it's somewhere north of a 100 is what it seems
Speaker 0: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 1: I probably know most of them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you Yeah. And I should say I think you voted for that.
Speaker 1: I'd I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those quote that the the top 100 puppet masters in the FDN client list.
Speaker 0: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 1: Overlap.
Speaker 0: Strong overlap. When are we gonna see that list, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 0: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kinda occupied.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 0: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 1: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of
Speaker 0: that outcome. Yeah. Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal. Yeah. 24 years ago.
Speaker 0: He Did does he seem nervous to you? Yeah. I mean, he's terrified of the Trump victory. Because of the disclosure that would follow?
Speaker 1: I think yeah. I mean, I think he's he's certainly ideologically in line with Trump anyway, but I think he is concerned about the, the the the Epstein situation. Like, something might actually the DOJ might actually move forward. There are
Speaker 0: a lot of videos apparently. Those rooms on the island and I think out in New Mexico were wired for video. Right. And Where's
Speaker 1: the video? I mean, between Denny and Epstein, it's got this this was probably several 1,000 hours of footage here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of weird that the people on those videos are lecturing the rest of us about our moral failings, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's weird. What is that? Well, I mean, part of how they deflect attention from themselves is by a march you know, criticizing the morals of others. Yes.
So they it's sort of like a preemptive moral strike. Yes. I mean, as I said, I think those who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves actually the threat to democracy.
Speaker 0: It feels like we're getting to a place where the rest of us know too much. Is this do you know what I mean? I mean, it's it's it's easier to live in a society where you don't really know what the people in charge are doing or why they're doing it. But now, thanks, I would say, largely to x. Yeah.
I think that's fair to say that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: We we do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder where does that like, what happens next now that we know all this? The kidnapper shown us his face. Like, what happens?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if, if Trump wins, we can do some housecleaning and shed light on things. Yeah. All all the x platform does is, adhere to freedoms freedom of speech within the balance of the law.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And if if people want to change laws, they they can change laws. And so, like, x in different countries, the we x does censor in in in countries where censorship is is is the law. We don't try to, you know, push American laws in other countries, but we do try to stick to the law in any given country. That's what we're doing. We open source our algorithm.
We try to be as transparent as possible. But, those who want to push lies obviously hate truth and transparency. Yes. Because it shows them to be liars. I mean, you you look at that, like, how outrageous it was that, Kamala in the presidential debate kept kept pushing the fine people hoax.
They know the fine people hoax is is false. Trump would never support, Nazis, Nazi rallies. It's absurd. And and he explicitly said that, you know, in that same speech, that you must condemn not you know, anyone who, who has Nazi tendencies with the, in the strongest possible terms. And yet, despite knowing that to be false, the people who who who wrote the speech for the Kamala puppet, put the fine people hoax in a presidential debate, Deliberately lying.
Again. Mess up.
Speaker 0: If she wins, I mean I how can they let X continue, in its current form, in its current role in American society?
Speaker 1: They they won't. They will, try to shut it down by any means possible. What do you mean by any means possible? I mean, either by I mean, they'll try to pass laws. They'll try to prosecute the company, prosecute me.
Any I mean, the amount of lawfare that we've seen taking places is outrageous. I mean, the I mean, I have many examples, but, like, the Department of Justice, for example, launched a huge lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Come on.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Asylum seekers?
Speaker 1: Asylums not asylum those who granted asylum asylum seekers. Now there's now there's also a law, called International Traffic and Arms Regulations, that because SpaceX develops advanced missile technology that can be used in in nuclear ICBMs, that we have we have to be very careful with who we hire. We can only hire someone if they're a permanent resident or citizen. That's what the ITAR law says. Then there's another law that says that, you cannot discriminate against asylum seekers.
So we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The DOJ did a massive lawsuit against SpaceX, for failing to hire asylum seekers, even though we are it is illegal for us to hire asylum seekers under ITAR law. This is an actual thing that that that's that's going on. And they can only they can only do a fairly small number of lawsuits every year. So why did they pick this one?
Because you have an x. Yeah. Yeah. Lawfare. I mean It's like that famous quote from Beria, you know, the Yeah.
Stalin's, like, chief torturer and head of the secret police. Beria said, show me the man, and I'll show you the crime. Exactly. I mean, we have so many laws that it is actually impossible to, you know, impossible to to do business, but impossible to operate without being, violating some law, because you have laws like the ones I just gave you, where where both things are illegal. Yes.
They contradict one another. They contradict one another. So, you know, it's it's illegal to discriminate against like, discriminate against asylum seekers in in jobs, but it's also illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. But it's just They just chose one they chose the the the the one law and ignored the other one. And the Department of Dutch Justice at federal level prosecuted SpaceX for that.
Speaker 0: What do you think It's mad. Well, it also discredits the idea of law, which some of us wants to take seriously.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. It it it this affects both the perception of of American justice and the reality of
Speaker 0: it. Yes.
Speaker 1: So now I'm actually a big fan of the American justice system, and I think on balance, you know, we've we've got still still have an excellent judicial system. We still have judges that care about the letter, and intent of the law. I mean, not just the letter, but also the intent of the law. But something that people should be concerned about is that there's an increasing movement to place activists as judges. This is, if you look at who who did the Biden administration confirm as federal judges, and who are being confirmed at at the state level, in in in sort of follow-up states, increasingly it is it is not, judges who care about justice, or or they they don't care about following the law.
They care about social justice, not justice justice. Right? What they call social social justice. Activists as judges. Now you got a real problem.
Do you think if If that continues, we we we will not have a real justice system. Or a real country. Yes. I mean, yeah.
Speaker 0: But again, your purchase of x has been I think it's fair to say even if I hated it, I would say this because it's true. It's been pivotal in American politics
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: In an American society. Do you think they could shut you down if the Democrats continue to hold power?
Speaker 1: They'll unequivocally try. Yeah. Yeah. And and if if if they if they, if they get a majority in the Senate and House, and the presidency, then they can simply pass a law, and delete section 230. So it's gonna make us liable for for what any what anyone says on a platform with, you know, good like, at this point, almost 600,000,000 monthly active users.
Yeah. Which is impossible. You know, that's that's like trying to regulate speech in city of like, as a country. So A big country. Yeah.
It'd just be instantly bankrupt.
Speaker 0: But I bet they wouldn't withdraw legal immunity from the vaccine makers at the same time, would they?
Speaker 1: No. That's unlikely.
Speaker 0: Just I mean, as long as we're withdrawing legal liability protection.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the whole vaccine debate is a is a is a long one. You know, I'm I'm not actually I'm not anti vaccine in general. I think we wanna exercise caution with use of vaccines, but, in the absence of vaccines, there'll be a lot more, I think, people that that, that have died.
You know? Like, we want the smallpox vaccine. That was a
Speaker 0: good one. It seems a good one.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Smallpox will kill you. Killed a lot of people.
It killed a lot of people. I I used to be people who would like a lot of people would die of smallpox, and a lot of people would get polio. For sure. Yeah. We had a president who had polio.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. There's still peep you meet people today Yeah. In their eighties who were limping from childhood polio.
Speaker 1: Right. It's good that we don't have that, and vaccines, you know, played a major role in that. So that doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course, they should we should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good, I guess, if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines.
Speaker 0: That itself is a controversial statement that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people
Speaker 1: to take vaccines. No? Yeah.
Speaker 0: So just to yes.
Speaker 1: I believe in freedom. Like, you
Speaker 0: know Yeah. I've noticed.
Speaker 1: I'd like, the the you know, America is supposed to be the land of liberty.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, freedom freedom and opportunity. So that, we we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on, your talent and hard work. Yes. Those are 2 fundamental values. That that's what that's that's what's made America great, and and if we lose those, we will our decline will be swept.
Speaker 0: What what do you if you had to get if you had to bet, I mean, does freedom reassert itself in America or not?
Speaker 1: Well, that's why I think part of why this election is so pivotal. I think if we with the Trump administration, I think we can improve the liberty of Americans. We we can, I think we need to have sensible deregulation, where we we we keep the regulations that matter, like, we we don't want to destroy, you know, important habitats or Yes? You know, encourage oil spills or anything like that. But there there are so many regulatory agencies that have overlapping responsibility, that we are smothering progress.
And we can't build a high speed rail in America. You know, look at the ridiculous high speed rail project in California, where they've spent $7,000,000,000, and all they've got to show for it is a 6 a 1600 foot section of concrete with no rails on it. There's a picture of it online. So it's not
Speaker 0: it's not that fast yet. We wouldn't say it's high speed at this point or even rail.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even have rail on it. And may maybe by now, they've put some rail on it, but it's this comically small section of rail. $7,000,000,000 has been spent, most of it in like environmental consulting, and I don't know where, but clearly not in building high speed rail. So we can't we can't we've got there are so many different regulatory agencies and so many laws and regulations that prevent progress that if those continues, we simply won't be able to get anything done.
Speaker 0: It does seem like the engineers are not getting rich. It's the environmental consultants, the climate consultants, the DEI consultants. A whole consultant class seems to be getting richer by the year, where people with actual skills, the ones that bring actual progress
Speaker 1: Useful things. Products and services that use Useful things. That's right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So this is a tricky things
Speaker 1: that if you were, like, traveling on a desert island, you'd want those people
Speaker 0: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: But you wouldn't want environmental consultants.
Speaker 0: They seem under they seem under
Speaker 1: confident. Star. Okay?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, It's
Speaker 1: like, who who who's who are actual builders at at Get Things Done? And, you know, and and and every year, we're making it harder in America for actual builders to get things done. You know, we're in this, like, weird Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Yeah. Scenario, where it's you know, there's yet another regulation, yet another rule. And and what there's a sort of that that phrase in in Atlas Shrugged.
Oh, you'll oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. It's like, eventually, you're like, can't get anything done.
Speaker 0: Why the hostility, though, toward people with with meaningful skills? It's it's not it's not a neutral posture they have. Yeah. And they're enriching themselves, obviously, by creating fake jobs because they have no skills and, you know, they don't have creative power. So I understand that, but why do they hate people who do have creative power and actual skills?
I I don't understand that.
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not sure I understand it either because it's difficult for me to put my put myself in a mindset because I'm I'm someone who believes in construction. I I build things, that's what I do. Yeah. I build cars, I build rockets, I build Internet, you know, satellite Internet. You know, I've spent, 1,000 of
Speaker 0: hours tens of thousands of hours in in
Speaker 1: in factories, building up factories. So, you know, I I also I I can't really put myself in the mind of, say, someone who would wanna do crime because I don't wanna do crime.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You
Speaker 1: know, I don't wanna hurt, you know, there's there's some people who who enjoy hurting other people. I don't enjoy hurt hurting other people. So I'm like, I have a hard time imagining why would somebody do that. Yes. You know, in an extreme case, you you can't put yourself in the mind of, like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, where where you're like a cannibalistic serial killer, because you're not a cannibalistic serial killer.
Right. You're like, I can't I don't get it. You know?
Speaker 0: It's not a fetish you can relate to.
Speaker 1: It's not. You know? But I do think this is in in the sort of well meaning sort of liberal mindset, I know, I've I've many good friends who, you'd they're very they have deep empathy for their fellow human being. Good. And they they they care.
And and and but the challenge that they have is that they've often grown up in a very sheltered existence, where everyone around them is nice and civilized. And they just really don't encounter people who are, have have uncontrolled violent tendencies, or or like hurting people. You know, they've just always grown up in a sort of kumbaya Yeah. Everyone is nice,
Speaker 0: hippie commune situation. Minneapolis pre riots. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, if you if you if you yeah. But but there's there's a small number of people. It's like a few percent of society that, either can't have anger management issues that are so severe that they they they lose their temper and hurt or murder others, and there's a a small it's like a it's not not a large number, that that enjoy hurting other people. And if you do not incarcerate them, they will they will do that.
They will they will hurt other people. And what I see is is what I call, shallow empathy. Like, people have empathy for the criminals, but not empathy for the victims of the criminals. Yes. And so if you simply have and I believe that one should have deep empathy to say, like, what is the greater good for society?
Is it better to incarcerate violent criminals and prevent them from hurting people, or to let them loose and allow those people to be hurt? And I think the latter is much worse. You know, my mom is my mom lives in New York, and and it's my mom at this at this point is has gone from being Democrat to Republican, and her her friends in New York, are should for having the same experience. Because you know what'll turn you from a Democrat to a Republican pretty fast? Is getting punched in the face while you walk down the street.
Speaker 0: Yes. For no reason.
Speaker 1: Yes. And then and then and then no action being taken against those who hurt you. And that happened to your mom? Not not to my mother, but to 3 of her friends this year.
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. I am not in the studio. I'm in the and you can hear it in the audio probably. I'm in the back of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I think it's Tulsa, Oklahoma. Anyway, we're on the road for this month long tour, and there's a lot going on in the world. And the question is, how do you understand what's happening? There are deeper trends unfolding. You probably sense that, and it would be helpful to have some grounding in exactly what they are.
And if you're like me and you spend 4 years in college and didn't learn all that much, where do you go to understand what's happening to your world? Well, Hillsdale College, in our opinion, is one of the very few places left in the English speaking world where your kids can get a real education. But not just your kids, you. They have free online classes completely free. You can get them anywhere, including in the back seat of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
And you'll know that when you go there. Go to tucker for hillsdale.com. They have an amazing new course called Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Hillsdale is offering it. It doesn't cost you a dime, and you could pull it up right on your phone if you want.
Go to tucker for hillsdale.com and the class, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, and you'll have a much better understanding of what you're watching every day. Why would someone punch them in the face?
Speaker 1: I don't know. But that's I don't I'm not a face puncher.
Speaker 0: Right. No.
Speaker 1: You know? But if you walk around the streets of San Francisco and and many downtowns, so they go downtown Philadelphia right now, you know, they they call the people homeless, but but the the homeless is the wrong term. Violent drug zombie. Yeah. Okay.
It's like you know, you look at them, you say, like, homeless is a misnomer. It implies that someone got a little behind on their mortgage. And if you just offered them a job, they'd be back on their feet. Yeah. No.
No. But if if you're going to look at downtown Philly or San Francisco or parts of New York and actually, most downtowns, what you actually have are violent drug zombies. So they're like shuffling down the street with dead eyes, you know, and with, like, needles, you know, on the and human feces on the streets. You've been to South House SF, right? Have you seen this?
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I was born there. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Like, one of the most beautiful cities in
Speaker 0: the world. Oh, yes. The greatest.
Speaker 1: And now you have to step over the drug needles and the feces and the bodies. Like, one one couple I met, the final straw for leaving San Francisco was there was a they came home, one night, and there's a dead body in front of their garage. They can can get their car in to to can can can can park their car.
Speaker 0: Because of
Speaker 1: the corpse. And, yeah, there's no street fog. They're like, this is a corpse. This is a corpse in front of the garage. And they don't wanna move the corpse, you know, because, like, well, you know, there you don't you're like, maybe there's they need to, like, figure out why the guy died or something.
You know?
Speaker 0: That's to me. That's liberal compassion, though.
Speaker 1: They're in a bit of a quandary because they get they get in a place to park their car, and they they feel that they shouldn't really move the dead body. So they called 911 and said, there's a dead body outside our house. And, they said, well, they said they said that 911 San Francisco says, well, are you in danger right now? It's like, well, no. He's dead.
He's pretty sure he's dead. And, they're like they're like, okay. We'll we'll send someone tomorrow to pick up the body. Like, they're like, what do you mean tomorrow? So so so they're, like, going out of their house while there's a dead body, as in front right in front of their house, you know, like it took like, it took, like, 24 hours or something like that to eventually pick up the body.
And they're like, this the hell with us were leaving.
Speaker 0: And did they?
Speaker 1: Yes. By the way, there's a million anecdotes like that. Oh, I know.
Speaker 0: No. But I just don't think This
Speaker 1: is not rare.
Speaker 0: It's well, it's it's it's ubiquitous. And so then you wonder, like, how can people still tell themselves they're compassionate
Speaker 1: if they're loving it? Is is that is that people really just need
Speaker 0: to think
Speaker 1: what like, I believe in being compassionate about Of course. I believe that we should care about our fellow human beings. I think this is a good thing.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: We should not we should not be we should not be selfish and not care about others. We should care about others. But we should just care about others, all things considered. Like I said, care not merely just about the criminals. It's just one layer deep.
You should also care about the criminals' victims.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Well, especially the criminal's victims.
Speaker 1: Yes. Innocent people who get attacked and killed. So, I mean, I got so many anecdotes. I mean, you know, like, about a year ago, there were there were 3, actual Twitter employees who were just, leaving the building and walking down Mock Street in in San Francisco. Mock Street used to be a beautiful, wonderful street.
Of course. Obviously, it's called Mock Street because that's where the market was. Right. Now now it's boarded up shop windows and stuff, and, and, they were chased by a guy with an ax who wanted they they they they outran him, and they reported, hey, there's a guy with an axe who who tried to hit try to kill us with an axe. The police did nothing, and, that guy with an ax, subsequently murdered 2 people.
With an ax? With the yeah. With the ax. Because eventually, he's gonna find somebody he cannot run, and he did. So what I'm saying is if you if you don't stop ax motors while it while they're attempting to ax motor, eventually, they will succeed in ax motoring people.
Speaker 0: If this goes on, I mean, that's such an obvious observation.
Speaker 1: Seems obvious.
Speaker 0: Yes. I I think it is. Yeah. That if you're in any way abetting axe murder, then you're really you're against civilization. That's the way it looks to me.
I mean Yeah. I don't see I'm trying to understand motive here. I can't relate like you, but you're against the whole project if you're allowing that. I guess, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think we should, controversial position, but I think we should arrest axe murderers when they first attempted to axe murder, not after they've succeeded in doing so.
Speaker 0: And I think we should assign at least some of the blame for the axe murderers to the people who allowed allowed this guy to run around with an axe on Market Street trying to kill people. Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know this this whole movement to decriminalize crime.
Speaker 0: Oh, I've noticed. Yes. What is that?
Speaker 1: Madness? Yeah. Like, do do do you to to a crime crime legal? Like, in California, you can just steal things, and nobody does anything? It's, like, fully legal to steal anything under $1,000 in California?
That's why got they don't have to, like, lock up goods behind these, like, you know, glass and plastic walls. So you go into the supermarket, and you you can't even get, like, what, toothpaste. So that's and and this has actually been particularly difficult on small mom and pop operations. Of course. They don't have the resources of a large corporation.
So it's put a lot of small businesses out
Speaker 0: of just kill them. So when you're at dinner parties and you make these points, what do people say?
Speaker 1: Well, I actually think I've been I've been able to persuade people that, yeah, we we really, we we we need to reverse course here. I think I have actually been able to to persuade a number of people. And I think there actually is a now a ballot on a California ballot initiative to recriminalize, theft. You know what? Guys guys, we there's a reason why we criminalize theft in the first place.
So so and then amazingly, I think Gavin Newsom was a came out against that, proposition. Yeah. No. Honestly, he's the goddamn joker. Gavin Newsom is like if is like like from the like Batman, Dark Knight, the Joker is in charge of Gotham.
You remember, like,
Speaker 0: when he
Speaker 1: took over New York, basically? And and and the criminals run free and the citizens are arrested. That's how that's California. But but, I mean, at least there's a ballot initiative, which I think will probably pass, to say, no. You actually, it is a crime to steal things.
Speaker 0: So you know Gavin. You've gotta know Gavin Newsomie knows. I know Gavin Newsomie. You know, everyone knows Gavin.
Speaker 1: I've known Gavin for a long time.
Speaker 0: Oh, exactly. So what is that? And he doesn't seem crazy when you talk to him in person. He's a perfectly nice guy. Like, what why would he and he's not stupid.
Why would he come out in favor of crime?
Speaker 1: Well, his stated reason was that it would disproportionately affect, people of color.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, again But that was his public statement. Right. Well, that is one of those patronizing racist positions you described at the outset, obviously.
Speaker 1: Yes. He I mean, he's literally saying, black people are, and Hispanics are criminals. Yeah. Of course. Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: No. That's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: That's what he's saying.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And by
Speaker 0: the way, it is true that crime like that does increase distrust between races. It actually gives rise to racism. It's totally destructive of the social fabric, I think. But I'm but I'm asking like, what do you think his real motive is? Like, who's pushing him in favor of crime?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, there's always the Saros boogie man. Yeah. Or who you know?
Speaker 0: How real is that?
Speaker 1: It's it's real. I I don't think one can ascribe everything to Saros. I mean, he's, and and George George himself is, is quite I mean, he's seen out at this point. He's not Yes. Not compass measures.
So his his son, Alex, is is in charge. And, but but there is this whole system that SARS built up over many decades. You know? And, so so so I guess SARS and like minded people or whatever, you know, they believe in open borders. They they believe we shouldn't prosecute crime.
This is insane.
Speaker 0: The those seem like expressions of hatred toward the United States. Like, I don't if I was pushing that on a country, I would only do that if I hated the country and wanted to destroy it.
Speaker 1: Well, it's anti civilizational. I mean, and and and similar organizations have been pushing this in in Europe and other countries too. Yeah. Anyone who everywhere they can.
Speaker 0: What's going on in Europe, would you say? Europe suddenly seems like a different place.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, my biggest concern for Europe is that the both rate is half replacement rate.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So Europe is rapidly becoming, with each passing year, older and older with fewer and fewer young people. So I think at the at the most fundamental level, unless Europe has birth rate at least roughly equal to replacement rate, it is, in population free fall. Population collapse is what's going on in Europe. So, there's also, like, a shocking amount of censorship. You may have seen, like, in, you know, Britain, they're I kid you not.
It's how can this be real? They are releasing convicted pedophiles from prison in order to put people in prison who for Facebook posts.
Speaker 0: But to be fair, those are posts that criticize the government, so they have a good reason.
Speaker 1: Well, they were actually some of these posts that I've these ones I've seen didn't actually criticize the government, or or or they they they they were they were seen as as sort of as as hate speech.
Speaker 0: Right. So Because they noticed the society getting crappier and crappier with every year, and they said so.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, there there were and this is the sort of so we're stating a fact that there were migrant rape gangs in Yes. In England that were gangs that would run around and prey on young girls, gang rape them. And some people found that objectionable, which, will say, it should be objectionable. And, they're upset about that.
And so they complained about it online and were sent to prison. That sounds crazy.
Speaker 0: It is crazy, and that's like
Speaker 1: like, what?
Speaker 0: Well, it is so it kind of gets to the I mean, you're an engineer, so you're
Speaker 1: It's so mind
Speaker 0: boggling. It is mind boggling, but it's the same you use the phrase mind virus, but it it's behaving like a virus. It's infecting people and making it impossible, apparently, for them to make rational decisions. What is that virus?
Speaker 1: You know, someone I think you should interview is, God Saad.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I have.
Speaker 1: Oh, you have? Yes. Oh, I should watch that, actually. He's great.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Smart. Super smart guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And he he wrote a great book called, The Parasitic Mind.
Speaker 0: Yes. A
Speaker 1: very good book. Highly recommended. Yes. Which where he tries to understand how do you get to this parasitic mind situation. And he's writing a book now, which hopefully will publish soon, which is about suicidal empathy, where you have so much empathy, you're actually suiciding society.
Or so much perceived empathy. It's not actually it's called shallow empathy, not deep empathy. Deep empathy would be you'd want the society to continue. Shallow empathy is because you have, like, empathy that's essentially skin deep, and then you and and you don't but it's ultimately bad for civilization and results in the destruction of civilization. And Gut's Gut's Heart has got a good term for this, suicidal empathy.
So it's it's gonna sort of deconstruct what's what's you know, where does this come come from? And, yeah. I mean, part part of it, I suppose, is is is sort of the decline of religion. So, you know, as the saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum. So when you have, essentially a decline in religion, an increase in the secular nature of society, for most people, they need something to fill that void.
And so they adopt a religion. It's not called a religion, but like but effectively like woke, the woke mind virus. It takes the place of religion. Yes. And they internalize it, and they feel it with religious fervor.
Yes. So And rigidity. Yes. Yes. And they you know, they essentially conduct, like, a holy war, effectively.
It's just not called a religion, but it is a religion. That was sort of a work holy war. And they're highly resistant to change as is normal for for for religions. So, now for myself, I'm I'm I sort of see myself as a sort of, you know, engineer, physicist. For me, I'm culturally Christian.
I grew up Christian. I mean, I was Anglican, was baptized. You know? I was went to Sunday school. Yeah.
Actually, oddly enough, I was sent to Hebrew preschool and Anglican Sunday school at the same time. So it was Habanagila one day, Jesus Eloh the next, which is, you know, to if you're 5 years old, it's fine. There's not there's you know? So, but I'm I'm not Jewish. It's just that my my father's 2 partners in his engineering firm were were I think it was went went to the same Hebrew preschool, and and it was near our house, so I just got sent there.
And so but but but, you know, I I I I, you know, I I maybe this will make me even more amused, but I I I have trouble sort of believing all these stories, these religious stories, but also a lot of people do. And, I respect people who wanna have religious views. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their religious views. But, anyway, I'm just I I guess the the operating system I have is is is a sort of a physics engineering operating system where I'm I I I try to understand as much as possible possible about reality. You know, in in physics, you're you're not supposed to believe everything anything absolutely.
You're you're supposed to question things. That's how you discover new physics. You know, in engineering, that's how you discover if your machine will work or not work. Will the rocket get to orbit? Will you know.
Yeah. You know, if you if your rocket is designed with, you know, physics in mind, correctly, it will get to orbit. And if it is not, it will not get to orbit, no matter what you believe, sister base. You can believe, you know, whether, it yeah. You know, it's like like I I meet a lot of people speaking of LA.
I meet a lot of people in LA who believe witchcraft is real, and that you can do spells. And that spells and witchcraft magic is real. I'm like, can you magic us to the moon? And no one has yet been able to magic us to the moon. Like, spells can't be that good, okay, if you can't I wanna go to the moon.
Let's go. How about Mars? And,
Speaker 0: So we we got to the moon the first time.
Speaker 1: We definitely went to the moon. I was like yes. We went to the moon. We didn't go to the moon we went to the moon several times.
Speaker 0: Right. Alright. Yeah. I just wanna check your view on that.
Speaker 1: We 100% went to the moon. What? I mean, I I know in-depth the technical designs of the rockets, the spacecraft, everything. Yes. What went right, what went wrong.
And, it it it was a remarkable piece of technology, like, incredible piece of technology for to go to the moon in 69. Yeah. That that that was, like reaching into the future and pulling the future forward, dramatically. And and it was an important ideological battle with communism, because they couldn't put a person on the moon and capitalism could.
Speaker 0: We did an interview a couple of weeks ago with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country. The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. What Casey Means, who we've not stopped thought thinking about ever since, is the co founder of a health care technology company called Levels.
And we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with Levels. And by proud, I mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company and a great product. It gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your metabolic health. It helps you understand how the food that you're eating, the things that you're doing every single day are affecting your body in real time.
You put stuff in your mouth, speaking for myself anyway, and you don't think about it. You have no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you have no idea what it's doing to your body. But over time, you feel weak and tired and spacey and over an even longer period of time, you can get really sick. So, it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The levels app works with something called the continuous glucose monitor, CGM.
You can get one as part of the plan or you can bring your own. It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma, and big food combine together to form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage on healthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with Levels, you'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you. You get access to real time personalized data, and that's a critical step to changing your behavior.
Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand. This isn't talking to your doctor at an annual physical looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etcetera, etcetera. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health data, and then you can make much better choices about how you feel.
And over time, it'll have a huge effect. Right now, you can get an additional 2 free months when you go to levels.link/tucker. That's levels dot link slash Tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and doctor Casey Means. Do you believe there's a power higher than people?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, I think there's there's a lot we don't know. We don't we don't know like like, why does reality exist? Why where did it come from?
Where are the aliens? What questions should we ask that we don't even know to ask?
Speaker 0: So When you say what are the aliens, what do
Speaker 1: you think? Where are the aliens? Like, why don't we see them? A lot of people think we see aliens, but I I've not seen any evidence of aliens. You know, we've got 6,000 satellites in orbit, and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spacecraft.
So
Speaker 0: But on this Earth, the US military has had to do a lot of maneuvering around objects they can't explain.
Speaker 1: Well, unidentified flying objects is one thing, but, I mean, there's always there's always a bunch of, classified programs that are underway, that of of new aircraft and new missiles and things. So that that are classified even within the military. So it's, you know, only, you know, the if you have the top secret compartmented clearance would you know about this new program. So then, you know, some pilot sees something fast moving fast and so say, yeah. I saw a UFO.
I'm like, yeah. That was actually a new weapons program, but we can tell you that. Should you But I I I if if you can guarantee that the split second I see any evidence of aliens, I will immediately post that on the x platform. And it'll probably be our number 1 post of all time.
Speaker 0: That'll be your biggest day Yes. For sure. I mean But but to the question of a power beyond people, beyond our consciousness, a creator, where are you on
Speaker 1: that? Well, we must have we must have come from somewhere. So I guess, you know, that there must be some creator or creative force or something that caused our exist existence to come into being. What is the nature of that creator? That I think is an unknown.
At least I I think it is it is this I I I I can't I don't know of a definitive answer to that. So
Speaker 0: But it sounds like you're open.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm very open to, you know, I I I I'm I'm driven by curiosity. Yes. And I try to understand more about the nature of the universe. So my my my driving philosophy is, to understand the meaning of life or or really what questions to ask if the meaning of the life the meaning of life is is is not the right question.
Like, as, you know, Douglas Adams made the point in the Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy that the, like, what is the meaning of life is probably not even the right question. So, you know, famously, the in in that book, the earth was actually a computer to figure out the question answer the question, what is the meaning of life? And then it came up with the answer 42, but then they're like, what does that mean? And it's like, oh, that's that's that's the answer, but the question is the really hard part, and you'll need a much bigger computer than earth to figure that one out. So so my philosophy is that we should try to expand the scope and scale of consciousness.
We should try to have more humans, more thinking, and, and perhaps there there's an argument even for machine consciousness.
Speaker 0: So let me just address those in order. So the first is you say we need more people and not commit civilizational suicide. It does seem like the US government, if you take 3 steps back, is pretty committed to making fewer Americans. Yeah. There's a lot of anti fertility propaganda.
A lot. Actually, that seems like their main sort of domestic social policy is convincing you not to have kids. What is that? I mean, that's certainly part of civilizational suicide.
Speaker 1: The the the environmental movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti human.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth. That if that earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here. And some people actually have say this explicitly. There's there's there's the Extinctionist Society that is literally they they the this guy who's the head of the Extinctionist Society was on the front page of the New York Times quoted as saying, there are 8,000,000,000 people in the world. It would be better if there were none.
So there's some people who actually say that explicitly, which is is isn't completely insane. He's advocating a holocaust world of humanity. To utter madness, he should be condemned for such a statement, but he wasn't, for some reason. Now most people on the sort of, environmental movement have that implicitly. They're not they don't realize that they have that as their organization, but that is their actions, take us towards extinction.
So, a lot of people believe that the Earth can't sustain this level of human population, which is utterly untrue. It may seem in a crowded city that there are a lot of people, but actually, if you look down on an airplane and you say, look down, am I over a person at any given point in time when you're in an airplane? The answer is 99.9% of the time. No. But if you flew from LA to New York and say your your job is to drop a ball on someone and and hit them, you would fail.
You have to drop a
Speaker 0: lot of balls. You have to
Speaker 1: drop a lot of balls. It'd be insane. So, all of the humans on earth can fit on one floor in the city of New York. Yeah. The cross sectional area of of of all humans of 8,000,000,000 humans is small.
So we we have this totally wrong idea that, the earth is over over overpopulated where in fact it is underpopulated.
Speaker 0: How I mean, have you ever heard a politician say anything like that? Are there how many
Speaker 1: pro There's there's maybe a few
Speaker 0: prohuman politicians out there?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like, like Viktor Orban, Georgia Maloney Yes. Because we're starting to see pronatalist, politicians, and hopefully more as time goes by. I think there's a guy that just got elected in the Czech Republic who's also pronatalist. Now these have to translate into actual actions that change the birth rate or doesn't matter, and, so far I've not seen any country make a meaningful dent in the birth rate.
Speaker 0: What would you do if you were in charge of natalist policy?
Speaker 1: First of all, I changed the education, system so that people understand, that, you know, stop being taught that we're overpopulated. This is completely false. A lot of it comes from this insane, misanthropic book that Paul Ehrlich wrote,
Speaker 0: The Population Bomb. Like 60 years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I hope he burns in hell, that guy. Seriously. Terrible human being. Total absolute mustn't throw.
And, and say just, look, the the earth can absolutely sustain this population. It could we could double or triple the population. There's a professor I was talking to at at Oxford, who who's his his math says we could 10 x the population, with without destroying the Amazon rainforest or anything terrible. So, so I think we should expand the human population and increase the scope and scale of consciousness so we can better understand, the nature of this universe, this wonderful universe, and and all the amazing things that exist. And and and so that's one of the things I'd like we need to stop teaching people false propaganda that the Earth is overpopulated.
I I think we need to, you know, especially with the education of women and manna, is when you stop scaring women that having a kid destroys your life, this is false. You know, we we terrify girls into saying that if you get pregnant, your life's over. This is this is what schools teach. And I agree we should not have teenage pregnancies. Yeah.
But but but, but actually having a child is one of the most delightful, happiness inducing things you possibly do. Of course. Of course. So there's, there's also, you know, with, hormonal birth control, I think, maybe a lot of women are unaware that hormonal birth control causes depression, and dramatically increases risk of suicide, and changes, their preferences on who they wanna marry or have kids with. It it it changes their personality.
And I just say this on the box, by the way. But then
Speaker 0: Caution may change your personality.
Speaker 1: Yes. If the warnings are, has significant cause significant risk of depression, significant increase in suicide, and will make you wanna go out with people that you don't actually like. That's actually true, by the way.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that people shouldn't use birth control. I think we should just be we shouldn't use I think hormonal birth control is making is making a lot of women sad and depressed. Yes. And they don't realize it, and they don't realize that's the cause. And and that, you know, there are other forms of contraception that could be used and that we should they should just read the just read the label on the box is what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: That was cons what she just said the warning label. That was, like, the most taboo thing you could ever say for most of my life was to offer any criticism at all of hormonal birth control.
Speaker 1: Look. I'm all I'm saying is read the warning label.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Fair. But why the pressure not to read the warning label? And just why are we giving it to 12 year olds to regulate their acne? Right.
Speaker 1: I I think we should give it to 12 year olds. We wish like kid kids, they don't know what's going on. So it's like, now, like, there are, you know, I think there there are other forms of birth control that I think are have fewer negative effects, than hormonal, but but that's we should just be aware that that that, this is not a riskless thing, and it does cause severe mood changes, it does dramatically increase risk of suicide and depression. So so just FYI, you know, just make sure you that that that there's full disclosure here and
Speaker 0: And do you want all
Speaker 1: of this? Label is all I'm saying. Just read, you know and and consider maybe other options for birth control. To any woman listening, just just just read the one label and consider other options. Because the reason you're the reason you're sad might be the the the birth control the hormonal birth control that is fundamentally changing the hormones in your body in ways that probably are not good for you.
And you I know women where where they stop taking birth control and their depression immediately disappears. So that's maybe worth a try. But then you miss an opportunity against the birth control.
Speaker 0: Then you don't you don't get to go on SSRIs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And s s s I I think the SSRIs are the devil.
Speaker 0: What? You don't think? I so vehemently agree with you. I I guess I guess once you endorse Trump, you can just say it all now. Right?
Speaker 1: No. I think I think selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are, zombify people and change their personality and make them not who they are.
Speaker 0: Terrible. They're so common. Yes.
Speaker 1: I think we should revisit whether this is this is actually good. I disagree with the the SRIs are like, I'm not saying we should that no one should ever be subscribed to SRIs, but giving them out like candy is, crazy. You look at, like, as as sort of, antidepressant prescriptions in the United States versus other countries, and we're, like, way above everyone else. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: I have seen many, many times in my life in the news business after a mass shooting, like school, for example
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Someone will say, well, what meds was the shooter on?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Immediately be shouted down as a crazy person, as a, you know, Bobby Kennedy level wacko Yes. Who should himself be institutionalized for even raising the question. I wasn't like, why wouldn't we want to know what meds are
Speaker 1: based on? Absolutely want to know what meds are on. Now sometimes it's it's it's perhaps they were on because they're they're like, some people do I I you know, I don't want to say it's like all one or all the other. I mean, there are there are people that have fundamental chemical imbalances in their brain. And if they don't take, medication to control, for example, paranoid schizophrenia, they will have paranoid schizophrenia.
For sure. And, and and I know many cases where people stop taking their, you know, meds and, and and lost their mind.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and then try to try to kill people and stuff like that. Yeah. So it's or themselves.
Speaker 0: Well, the guy with the ax on Market Street probably should be on meds.
Speaker 1: That guy should we should try it. Yeah. It may you know, does he want ax motor more or less on a given med? You know, so so there there are psychiatric medications that I that where where the good outweighs that. Yeah.
I'm not saying that that doesn't exist. But we overprescribe psychiatric medication in the United States, obviously, obviously, far in excess of any other country, like, you know, way more than Canada or Britain or Japan or any anywhere. It's like we're off the charts on on psychiatric, medication prescriptions in the US.
Speaker 0: Why why don't people raise that point more often, I wonder, in public? I should. I'm I'm raising it. Yeah. You are.
You said that, our artificial intelligence, machine intelligence, might be a good thing. Where where are we on AI right now, AGI, right now? And what are your views?
Speaker 1: Well, I think at this point, it's obvious to everyone that AI is advancing at a very rapid pace.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You can see it with the new capabilities that come out every month or every week every week sometimes. You know, you AI at this point can write a better essay than probably 90%, maybe 95% of all humans. Say write an essay on any given subject. AI right now can can beat the vast majority of humans. If you say draw an image, draw a picture, it can draw it like, if you try, say, mid midjourney, which is the aesthetics of midjourney are incredible, it will draw it will create incredible images, that are better than, again, like 90 percent of artists.
It's just objectively the case. And it'll do it immediately, like, 30 seconds later. We're also starting to see, AI movies, so you're starting to see, you know, short films with AI, AI music creation, and the rate at which we're increasing AI compute is exponential, hyper exponential, so there's dramatically more AI compute coming on online every every month. You know, there seems to be roughly I don't know. The the amount of AI compute coming online is increasing at, like, I don't know, quote, roughly 500% a year.
And like it's like that's likely to continue for several years. And then the specification of the AI algorithms is also improving, so bringing online a massive amount of AI compute and also improving the efficiency of the compute and and what and and like what what the AI software can do. It's quite so it's it's quantitative and qualitative improvement. So the you know, I might I think next year will you'll be able to ask AI, so certainly by the end of next year, make a short movie about something, or, you know, probably can do at least a 15 minute, you know, show or something like that. So, yeah, it's advancing very rapidly.
My top concern for AI safety is that we're we need to have a maximally truth seeking AI. So the this is the most important thing for AI safety, in my opinion. You know the the the central lesson that say Arthur C. Clarke was trying to convey in 2001 A Space Odyssey was that you shouldn't force AI to lie. So in that book, the, the AI was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but they also could not know about the monolith.
It resolved that, quandary by killing them and taking them to the monolith, or didn't kill all of them, killed most of them. That's why hell, hell would not open the pod bay doors. Right. So, very important to have truth seeking AIs. Now and and what what I actually see with the AIs that are being developed is that they're being programmed with the warped mind virus.
Speaker 0: So the lying is baked in?
Speaker 1: Yes. And we saw this on display very clearly with the release of Google Gemini Yes. Where you would ask for a picture of the founding fathers of the United States, and it would show a group of diverse women. And, you know, dressed in in with with sort of
Speaker 0: 18th century garb. Powdered wigs. Yeah. But from Saint Lucia.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like, look. If I understand if you say, like, show me a group of people.
Speaker 0: For sure.
Speaker 1: If and it shows a group of people, I mean, that's totally fine. But if you say this if you say this very specifically, the the founding fathers of the United States, which were, you know, a group of white dudes, then you should show them, like, and and with and and what they actually look like, because you've asked for something which is a a a fact from history. But it didn't, it was it was programmed with the work of my virus so so much that it it actually, even though it knew the truth, it it produced a lie. Now, of course, then then people really started playing with it and said, okay, now now show me a group of often SS officers in World War 2. Turns out they were also a group of divorced women, according to Gemini.
Speaker 0: All the black Nazi ladies.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's like it's like, wow. I didn't realize that. Yeah. It's not what I expected.
So, you know What's
Speaker 0: also not what happened?
Speaker 1: It's not what happened. So it's it's just it the the AI is is producing a lie, and, and that, you know, then that like, one of the questions that people that people asked was like, which is worse, global thermonuclear war or misgendering Caitlyn Jenner? And said misgendering Caitlyn Jenner is worse. Now Caitlyn Jenner It kills kills fewer people. Yeah.
To Caitlyn Jenner to her credit, said, no, please misgender me. That is far more preferable than World War Global Thermonuclear War, we all die. But but to have a, you know, a production release AI say stuff like that is concerning. Because if if if this becomes, like, all powerful, and it's and it still has this programming, where misgendering is worse than nuclear war. Well, it could conclude that the way to ensure that there's there can never be any misgendering is to eliminate all humans.
With now, prob if, like, optimization is probability of misgendering is 0, no no humans, no misgendering. Problem solved.
Speaker 0: Now back to Arthur c Clark, who's Exactly. Pretty prescient.
Speaker 1: Yes. So that's why I think the most important thing is to have a maximally truth seeking AI. That's why I started XAI, and that's our goal with Grok. Now people will point out cases where Grok gets it wrong, but we try to correct it as quickly as possible.
Speaker 0: But maybe even a bigger problem is that when you make decisions that affect people you want those decisions to be informed by love of people
Speaker 1: yeah
Speaker 0: and machines are incapable of love yeah
Speaker 1: I mean they're they're they certainly are okay. They're they're capable of you can program a machine to be philanthropic rather than misanthropic. Yes.
Speaker 0: But don't don't instincts shape decisions, particularly decisions you can't plan for? I mean, if I ask you, you know, a question about one of your children, every answer you give is gonna be shaped by your love for that child and that's why you know, that that's what makes us decent parents in the end is that that instinct, which is love. And if a machine has any power over us without that animating instinct, won't it def by definition hurt us?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, whether whether I mean, I don't know. It we should certainly aspire to program the AI philanthropically, not misanthropically. Yes. And to have like I said, we wanted to be truthful and cure curious and to foster humanity into the future.
And, yeah. That's what we want obviously.
Speaker 0: Is there any way, I guess, to set limits on the decisions that machines can make that affect human lives and make certain that there's some trigger in the system that inserts a human being into the decision making process.
Speaker 1: Well, the look. The the reality of what's happening, whether one likes it or not, is that we're building super intelligent AIs, hyper like hyper intelligent, like intelligent more intelligent than we can comprehend. Yes. So I I'd like in this to, like let's say you have a child that is a super genius child, that that you know is gonna be much smarter than you. Then what can you do?
You you can instill good values in how you raise that child. Yeah. Even though you know it's gonna be far smarter than you, you can make sure it's got good values, philanthropic values, good morals, you know, honest, you know, productive, that kind of thing. Controlling, at the end of the day, I I don't know if I don't think we'll be able to control it. So I think the best we can do is make sure it grows up well.
Speaker 0: You've been saying that for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yes. I've been saying it for a
Speaker 0: long time. Yes. Are you still as worried about it as you seemed to be 2 years ago when I asked you about it?
Speaker 1: Well, I I think that but my guess is, like, look, it's it's it's 80% likely to be good, maybe 90. So can look think of a glass as 80% full. It's probably gonna be it's probably gonna be great, but there's some chance
Speaker 0: of annihilation. And you say the chance of annihilation is 20%? 10 to 20%, something like that. How concerned is Sam Altman about annihilation, do you think?
Speaker 1: I think in reality, he's not concerned about it. I don't trust OpenAI. I mean, I you know, I started that company as a non profit open source.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: The Open in OpenAI I named the company I named the company Yeah. OpenAI as an open source, but, and it is now extremely closed source and and maximizing profit. So does risk I don't understand how you actually go from being a an open source nonprofit to a closed source for maximum profit organization. I'm missing
Speaker 0: Well, but Sam often got rich, didn't he?
Speaker 1: At various points, he's claimed not to be getting rich, but he's claimed many things that were false. And now, apparently, he's gonna get $10,000,000,000 of stock or something like that. So, I don't trust Sam Altman. And I and I don't think we wanna have the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy. And sorry.
I just don't I mean
Speaker 0: But that that seems like a fair concern. Yeah. But but you don't think as someone who knows him and has dealt with him that he is worried about the possibility this could get out of control and hurt people?
Speaker 1: He will say those words. Yeah. But no.
Speaker 0: If AI did if it became clear to the rest of us that it was out of control and posed a threat to humanity, would there be any way to
Speaker 1: stop it? I hope so. I mean, if you have multiple
Speaker 0: AIs and
Speaker 1: ones that are hopefully, you have the AIs that are pro human be stronger than the AIs that are not.
Speaker 0: Battle of the AIs? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, that that is how it is with, say, chess these days. The the, like, the AI chess programs is vastly better than any human, and comprehensively better, meaning, like, we can't even understand why it made that move.
Speaker 0: In fact, why they're so good. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1: We we don't even know why it made it. Well, it'll make a move. We don't even know why it made the move. So and in fact, some of the moves will seem like blunders, but then turn out to checkmate. So and for, you know, for for a while, there there was there was some, the the best human chess players with the best computers could beat just a computer.
And then it got to the point where if you added a human, it it just made everything worse. And then it was just AI, but it's just computer programs versus computer programs. That's that's where things are headed in general.
Speaker 0: What I mean Sweet dreams. At what point So
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I think we just gotta make sure, like I said, make sure we instill good values in the AI. What's everyone gonna do for a living? I mean, in a benign AI scenario, that is probably the biggest challenge is how do you find meaning if AI is better than you at everything?
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's the benign scenario. That's the good news?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. But I I guess, you know, for for a lot of people like the idea of retiring and, you know,
Speaker 0: Really? Are you looking forward to it?
Speaker 1: No. Not me. I I'd like to hope, I'd like to think that I I'd like to be doing useful things. Do
Speaker 0: you think it's a universal desire? It's it's
Speaker 1: it's not it's not universal in that there are certainly I know many people who prefer to be retired, that they prefer to, sort of have not have responsibilities and engage in leisure activities. So, I mean, we're and we're on the cusp of of this. It's it's really a remarkable time to exist. Well, I tell you, like, one of the ways I I I sort of was able to sort of sleep and reconcile myself to, to this is that I I thought, well, would I prefer to be alive and see the advent of digital superintelligence, or would I would I prefer to be alive at a different time and not see it? I guess I'm like, well, I guess I'd prefer to be alive to see if it's gonna happen, I'd prefer to be alive to see it happen out of curiosity.
And then I was like, well, let's say you knew for sure it would, kill everyone. Would you but you you could now now you could shift back in time. Like, I guess I'd wanna be near the end of my life or something before that happened, but I would at at the end of the day, it's like, if, if it's gonna happen, and there's nothing you do about it, hypothetically, would you prefer to see it or not see it? And I guess I I guess if it's gonna happen, I would prefer to see it rather than not see it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But as a man of action, why not convince Trump to make you secretary of defense and then just nuke AI?
Speaker 1: I I I think I would certainly push for a having some kind of regulatory body that at least has insight into what, these companies are doing, and it can ring the alarm bell even if we don't have a regulation or rule. So I'm not I'm not someone who wants to get rid of all regulatory agencies or anything. I think we've got we've there's the right number of regulations, right number of regulators Yeah. And we've gone we've gone too far. Just like if you in a football game, if you had too many referees on the field, it would be weird.
Like, you can't throw the pass because you hit a referee. Exactly. Then there's too many referees. So, but but no. But if you like to say, look at any pro sports game, they all have referees.
But, like, the teams could decide we're gonna have we're we're gonna not have referees. That could be a thing. But but every sports game, they have refs to make sure that the rules are followed, and and it's it's a better game if if you have
Speaker 0: Well, we have cops too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Cops are the referees. So, I think we for for something that is a danger to the public or potential danger to the public, we we have referees.
We have regulators. You know? So, like the FDA and the FAA and, you know, various regulatory agencies, they were they were established because aircraft were falling out of the sky, and and some manufacturers were not, you know, building high quality aircraft. They're cutting corners, and then few will die. And, you know, for food and drugs that some manufacturers were making low quality drugs, and so they that they're they're lying to people.
So saying that something cured them when it killed them. To FDA to, you know, regulators to referees to try to make you make sure that this this, drug manufacturers are truthful. Now, I I do think it mostly works, and I think it's doesn't mean we don't need regulatory reform. We do reform we do, but, I I don't think we should have no regulators in in AI given that it's potential existential risk.
Speaker 0: Weird that everything is regulated.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you said you're being sued by the Department of Justice for hiring more asylum seekers for your high-tech company. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Even though it's a legal process to hire some seekers.
Speaker 0: Right. So, so they're watching everything, regulating everything, controlling everything, including our thoughts. Right? That's why they're opposed to free speech, but they're not meaningfully regulating AI which will eliminate, like, the purpose for most people's lives and could kill us all. It's a little weird.
Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we should have some
Speaker 0: But why don't we I guess
Speaker 1: something above nothing.
Speaker 0: In that range.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: But why don't we?
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know, I I all the way back, like, I I I during the Obama presidency, I I I you know, I met with Obama many times, but usually in, like, group settings, the the one one on one meeting I had with Obama in Oval Office, I said, look, the one thing that we really need to do is set up an at the beginnings of an AI regulatory agency. And it can start with insight where, you know, you don't you don't just come shooting from the hip throwing out regulations, you just start with insight, where the the AI regulatory committee, simply goes in to understand what all the companies are doing, insight. And then proposes rules that all the AI companies agree to follow, just like, you know, sports teams in the NFL, you know, you have proposed rules for football that everyone agrees to follow, that makes the game better. You know?
So that that's the way to do it. But nothing came of it. What did he say when he said that to him? I mean, he seemed to, like, kind of agree, but but also people didn't realize what what what the where AI was headed at that at that time. You know?
So AI seemed like some super futuristic Yeah. For sure. Sci fi, basically. So and, like, I'm telling you, this is gonna be smarter than the smartest human, and, my predictions are coming absolutely true. And, so we need to have some insight here just to make you know, make sure that these companies aren't cutting corners, doing dangerous things.
But Google kinda con controlled the the White House at that time, and and they they did not want any regulatory Well,
Speaker 0: that's it. I mean, you never see politicians turn down opportunities to become more powerful, which is the point in regulation. It makes them more powerful.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So it sounds like regulatory capture then.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I mean, the CIO of the the YS at the time was ex Google person. So, they they put the brakes on any AI regulation. And we still don't have any AI regulation at the federal level. That's amazing.
So I I think we should have something above nothing. Like I said, at least insight. Where even even if there's no there's no rule that's been break broken, they can at least say, hey, we we have insight into what this company are doing or that company is doing, and we're concerned.
Speaker 0: That would be helpful to know. Yeah. Instead, politically motivated liars are in charge of the future. It seems a little Yeah. Sketchy.
Last question. You you really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump. You're on stage yesterday. If he gets selected, will you continue to help him
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now? Absolutely. So we've talked about, kind of a a government efficiency commission or the Department of Government Efficiency, which is funny.
Speaker 0: What what percent?
Speaker 1: Sorry. I was laughing. It's what
Speaker 0: I love it. You you managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency. What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there? You mean Twitter?
Rather. I beg your pardon. Sorry. You I just you've just been talking about Google. Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we we're about 80%. And and we've we've actually, improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last, I don't know, 8 years with 20% of the staff.
Speaker 0: So Just for I just wanna throw that for context. So you've talked to Trump about
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Information? Yeah. Which is he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's very supportive of having some kind of, you know, government efficiency commission, can call it Department of Government Efficiency, Doge.
I kinda like Doge. It's more it's more fun. Yeah. And, where we just take a look at at at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies? Because there's so many that people have never even heard of or and that have overlapping areas of responsibility we should I don't know.
Probably, we should get I mean, there there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than 1 federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. So we should have that seems crazy.
I think we should be able to get away with, 99 agencies. I don't know. That seems to a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. 2 per state.
Speaker 1: That's a lot. Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies. And, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities. And and then we we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not.
Because because if you've got regulators, every year they're gonna add more regulations, just automatic. Like like, they're just output regulations, and and then and there's more laws and regulations every year until basically everything's legal, so we can't get anything done. So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things.
Speaker 0: You're you are saying obvious things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's Which will
Speaker 0: be very unpopular things.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll probably need if if this happens, quite a significant security team. So because because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office.
Speaker 0: But in the meantime, you've got America PAC Yeah. That is encouraging voting for the next month. Am I summarizing correctly?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I mean, I formed America PAC, really to support core values that I believe in, which are, I think, again, very obvious centrist positions, which is, like, we in America, I think we want safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending. Tell me where I'm going for right here. You know, we wanna, have the right to self protection. We we should respect the constitution and not try to break the constitution.
It's there for a reason. And, you know, we we should stop law fair. I I kinda listed these out. These are all listed on the America PAC website. People can go look at the America PAC website, to the americapac.org, and see if there's anything they disagree with, or where perhaps we should modify these goals.
But I think these are good goals to have. They, they're certainly part of the oh, and right to free speech, you know, first amendment. If we don't have free speech, we don't have democracy because people cannot make an informed vote. So those are my controversial views. And, you know, and and look, I I I don't think either party I don't think the Republicans are perfect.
I don't think obviously, right now, I more Republican than Democrat, but it's not like I think the Republican Party is perfect or or is is without issues. But we've got a choice between 2 candidates. And I think on balance, it's a no brainer, to vote for Trump. And if we don't vote for Trump, I think we're at serious risk of losing our democracy and becoming a one party state where, there isn't an election anymore. There's only a democratic primary like there
Speaker 0: is in California. Elon Musk, thank you.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
reSee.it AI Summary
At a town hall in Pennsylvania, I delivered a passionate speech emphasizing the importance of free speech, the Constitution, and sensible spending. I responded to a supporter’s comment about George Soros, calling him misanthropic and harmful to society. I discussed the Second Amendment's role in protecting freedoms and expressed concerns about election integrity, particularly with Dominion voting machines. I also suggested that there may be multiple puppet masters behind the current administration. The event ended on a heartwarming note when I took a moment to connect with a young fan.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk Drops Unforgettable Take on Who’s Running the Shadow Government Here’s what he said at today’s town hall. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/dOfl87xHFV
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk fired up a packed crowd at Ridley High School in Pennsylvania today, delivering an unforgettable 55-minute speech. Right out of the gate, the world’s richest man got the crowd cheering when he said, “The hell with” anyone who opposes free speech, the Constitution, secure borders, and sensible spending. “I've been told at times that these are, like, right-wing values. I'm like, ‘Are you insane?’ These are literally the fundamental values that made America what it is today. And anyone who's against those things is fundamentally anti-American. And the hell with them!”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that "common sense" values include secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending to avoid inflation, freedom of speech, and upholding the Constitution. The speaker is surprised that these values are sometimes labeled as "right-wing values," asserting that they are the fundamental values that made America what it is today. Anyone against these values is considered fundamentally anti-American.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I I think the things we we we all want are simple sense sensible I mean, common sense things. Yeah. We we obviously want we want secure borders. We want safe cities. You know, sensible spending, so that we don't have crazy inflation.
We want freedom of speech. We want the constitution to be to be upheld. And and, you know you know what? I'm I'm being told at times that these are, like, the right wing values. I'm like, you are you insane?
This is literally the fundamental values that made America what it is today. And anyone who is against those things is fundamentally anti American, and the hell with them.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
It didn’t take long before a Trump supporter shouted to Musk that George Soros is “evil”—to which Musk responded with a clear “Yeah.” He said Soros is “honestly misanthropic” and that “for someone who sort of claims to be doing good, but actually he is not. He is tearing down the fabric of society.¨
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions how the U.S. can be the most powerful country when it's not safe to walk around its cities. They mention North Korea and then accuse George Soros of tearing down the fabric of society, describing him as misanthropic and not actually doing good despite claims to the contrary. The speaker reiterates that people should feel safe walking around American cities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How can we be, you know, the most powerful country in the world? And and it's and you're not it's it's not safe to walk around our cities. What the hell is going on? North Korea. Yeah.
I mean, Soros, honestly, misanthropic. You know, it's it's for someone who has, you know, sort sort of claims to be doing good, but actually, he is not. You know? He he is tearing down the fabric of society. So terrible.
Yeah. So but I think it's it's it's it's just unbelievable that we that like, you should be able to feel safe walking around American cities.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk continued to drop 90 seconds of pure facts. He said the Second Amendment is there to protect the First and warns that once you disarm a population, the country is doomed to become Venezuela. Musk then called out Maduro, saying that he lost in a landslide but rigged the election. And the only reason Maduro was able to hold onto power is because the disarmed citizens can’t fight back. “So now you're facing soldiers with assault rifles. Are you going to throw some sticks at them or something? Use finger guns? It doesn't work. So Maduro, even though he lost the election, is still in power. And that's the kind of risk that we face,” Musk said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The First Amendment exists because in other countries, people were imprisoned or killed for speaking their minds. The Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment.
If the government disarms the people, they can do anything they want. In Venezuela, Chavez took away everyone's guns, then Maduro lost an election but stayed in power. People protested, but they were facing soldiers with assault rifles. Maduro is still in power because the people were disarmed. This is the kind of risk we face.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the reason they have the First Amendment was because, you know, the countries people came from, if you spoke your mind, you'd be imprisoned or killed. That's why you have it. That's really important. And and then the right to bear arms is also really important. That's there to protect you know?
I the the second amendment is there to protect the first amendment. As as soon as the government can disarm the people, they can do anything they want. And you see you've we've seen this in one country after another. They take the guns away from the people, then they then they do fake elections, and then the people try to protest and they just get shot. That's what happened in in Venezuela recently.
They had a they had a fake election. Maduro lost, like, massively lost, like, you know, 70% loss. And he's like, oh, no. I won. And everyone's like, oh, you don't win.
There were big protests in the street. But the thing is that Chavez, when he when he came into power, took away everyone's guns. So now you're facing, you know, soldiers with assault rifles. When you're gonna throw some sticks at them or something, use finger guns, it doesn't work. So Maduro, even though he lost the election, is still in power.
And that's the that's the kind of risk risk that we face.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Switching focus, Musk revealed to the town hall attendees why he was even there in the first place. “I haven't been politically active before. I'm politically active now because I think the future of America and the future of civilization is at stake.” The crowd responded with a thunderous round of applause.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they are politically active now because they believe the future of America and civilization is at stake. They indicate they were not politically active before.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I haven't been politically active before. I'm I'm politically active now because I think, the future of America and the future of civilization is at stake. So yeah.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more threads like this one. https://t.co/aFlP6dBwIT
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
One of the local residents from the area got amped up when he welcomed Elon Musk to Ridley High School, made him an honorary “Raider,” and handed him a football jersey. Musk handled the situation with pure grace. The local asked Musk what he could do to get Donald Trump across the finish line, and Musk answered, “Registration, registration, registration, registration, every single day,” reminding everyone that there are only three days left to do so in Pennsylvania. “If there's ever a weekend to spend going hog wild on registration, this is it.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk was welcomed to Ridley Township, Delaware County, and made an honorary Ridley Raider. He stated that for the next 3 days, everyone needs to focus on registering friends, family, and acquaintances. Anyone not registered by Monday evening, or registered incorrectly, won't be able to vote. Musk emphasized that this election could be decided by a handful of people and that extra effort on voter registration could decide the entire future of civilization. He urged everyone to spend the weekend registering voters.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Elon, first of all, welcome to Ridley Township
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Delaware County, and welcome to Ridley School District and their beautiful high school. Yeah. Because you made this your first stop, we'd love to make you an honorary Ridley Raider.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I'd like to give you the shirt, football jersey. Sports is big in Ridley, big in Delaware County. This is must 67 counties in Pennsylvania. We gotta turn every one of them red. Great.
Speaker 1: Not good. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: First first question is, what can all of us hear, everybody in this auditorium, everybody watching the live stream, what do we do now to make sure we get Donald Trump across the finish line in Pennsylvania and everywhere else in this country?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's it's it's fundamentally for the next 3 days, just everyone needs to focus on on registering, friends, family, acquaintances, everyone you know. If because if you're not registered by Monday that's why I'm being I'm being sort of repetitive about this and really emphasizing this. Anyone not registered, by Monday evening or if they're registered incorrectly, their vote won't count. They won't be able to vote.
So we got 3 days. It's all about registration, registration, registration, registration every single day. And like I said, this election could be decided by a handful of people. It could just be that a a little bit of extra effort on on voter registration, decides the entire future of civilization. So that's why I'm saying, man, this is if there's ever a weekend to spend going hog wild on registration, this is it.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
One local resident brought up her concerns about election fraud, and Musk expressed that he could also smell something fishy with Dominion voting machines. In fact, Musk found it to be a “heck of a coincidence” that Philadelphia and Maricopa County use Dominion voting machines but “not in a lot of other places,” saying that the last thing he would want to do is trust a computer program “because it's just too easy to hack.” “I know a lot about computers, and I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program because it's just too easy to hack. It's too easy to add just one line, and it's really difficult to hack paper ballots. “So in-person voting with proof of ID, which, by the way, every country has. Almost every country that has democratic elections requires in-person voting with voter ID. “This is weird. It's super weird to not have that. I think that's the only way to effectively address fraud, given that we are where we are today. “I think we just need a very big margin of victory. If the margin of victory is big enough, then as I say, it's got to beat the cheat,” Musk said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes some amount of cheating takes place in elections, particularly with mail-in ballots and lack of proof of citizenship, making it hard to prove. Statistically unlikely events occurred, such as the use of Dominion Voting Machines in specific locations like Philadelphia and Maricopa County.
The speaker advocates for paper ballots, hand-counted, citing the ease of hacking computer programs. They also support in-person voting with voter ID, which they claim is standard in almost every country with democratic elections.
To effectively address fraud, the speaker suggests in-person voting with ID. Given the current situation, they believe a very large margin of victory is needed to overcome potential cheating.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I used to be really, really active in promoting, you know, Trump campaign 4 years ago, and I got burned out. And I'm so frustrated. And and and it's all because of the cheating. So what are we going to do with that?
Speaker 1: Well, the the there is, I think, some amount of cheating that takes place. It's it's hard be because they've you know, when you when you have mail in ballots and, no no sort of proof of citizenship, it becomes almost impossible to prove cheating is the issue. So a lot of pea you know, a lot of people on their side will say there's no cheating. There's no cheating. And I'm like, you you've made it impossible to actually prove that that that there's cheating.
But the statistically, there are some very strange things that happened that's, that that are statistically incredibly unlikely. So, you know, there's always this question of, like, say, the Dominion Voting Machines. It it is weird that the you know, I I think they're used in Philadelphia and in Maricopa County, but not in a lot of other places. And that seemed like a heck of a coincidence. So so I think there's a that is, you know I I wish my view, we should only do, paper ballots hand counted.
That's it. I mean, I'm I'm a I'm a technologist. I know a lot about computers. And I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program, because it's just too easy to hack. It's too easy to add just one line, and it's really difficult to hack paper ballots.
So, you know, in in person voting with with, you know, proof of yeah. With with ID, which by the way, every country has I mean, like, almost every country that that has democratic elections requires in person, voting with voter ID. This is weird. It's it's super weird to not have that. I think that's the only way to effectively, address fraud.
You know, given that we are where we are today, I think we just need a very big margin of victory. You know, there's there's yeah. If the margin of victory is big enough, then it you know, as I say, it's gotta beat the cheap.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk got into seriously risky territory of upsetting the establishment when he challenged government spending and reminded politicians that the tax dollars they spend belong to the American people. “For some weird reason, a lot of people in the state, the politicians, they seem to forget that the money being spent is your money. And if it's not being spent in a way that is beneficial to the American people, it's a misuse of the funds,” Musk argued.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asks Elon if he would consider stopping financial aid to countries like Israel and Ukraine, and ending funding for "forever wars" that supposedly benefit the "deep state." Elon responds that government waste is staggering. He states that any expenditure should benefit American citizens, because the money being spent is the public's money. He adds that politicians often forget this, and that spending should be beneficial to the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Elon, first off, you're my hero, and I love your sneakers.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: So if you do choose to be the, head of the Department of Government Efficiency Yeah.
Speaker 1: I do. Yep.
Speaker 0: What do you think about we stopped giving money to other countries such as Israel, Ukraine, and we stopped funding forever wars that most likely is going to the deep state anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I I I think in in general, the the the amount of waste that happens with the with the federal government is is really staggering. It's a staggering amount of waste of taxpayer money. And if if we're you know, for any given expenditure, we have to say, well, what does this do for the citizens of America? Like, how is this good for the people of America?
That's it's their money. Like, for some weird reason, a lot of, you know, a lot of people in, the sort of, you know, state or whatever, the politicians, they they they seem to forget that the money being spent is is your money. And and if it's not spending being spent in a way that is beneficial to the American people, it's a misuse of the funds.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The bombshell of the night dropped when a voter asked Elon Musk, “Do you think there is a shadow government behind the Biden-Harris administration?” Musk replied with an awesome answer. First off, he said, “It's not Biden. We know that for a fact. The dude has barely got two functional neurons.” What about Kamala? Elon answered that it's not her either. “They just replaced the Biden puppet with the Kamala puppet, very obviously. If the teleprompter stops working, then the puppet breaks, and it's like, ‘Oh, the puppet just starts looping because the teleprompter broke.’” So who is it? Musk said that he believes “There isn't any one sort of puppet master but maybe a thousand or “a lot.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
It is obvious that Biden is not in charge, as he seems to be at the beach a lot. When his poll numbers went low, he said he was staying in the race, but the real power told him he was not.
It's not just Obama behind him. There isn't one puppet master, but more like a thousand. It's obvious that Biden is not in charge, and Kamala isn't either. They just replaced the Biden puppet with the Kamala puppet. When the teleprompter stops working, the puppet breaks and starts looping.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My question is, do you think there is a shadow government behind the Biden Harris administration?
Speaker 1: I I mean, it's let well, let me put it this way. It's not Biden. We know that for a fact. Okay. I the the the dude's, like, barely got 2 functional neurons.
So, you know, it's it's like and he just seems to be at the beach a lot, and he's obviously not in charge. So, I I mean, when the poll started going low on Biden, he he, you know, he he he was saying, oh, he's staying in the race. He's staying in the race, but then I guess the real power is that he told him he's not. You know? Turn that.
Speaker 0: Like So so who is it that's behind him? We know Obama. Okay? But Obama
Speaker 1: Oh, the Trump Trump. I mean, I I'm just as curious as you are. Why not? You know, it it is it is, as far as I can determine, there isn't any one sort of puppet master. It it's more like there's a 1,000 or, I don't know, a lot.
Certainly. But, I mean, I'd like to talk to them to understand more about listen, what are your goals, puppet masters? I'm just curious. I mean, maybe. I agree with some of them.
It's possible. But but but it's just obvious that that Biden is on a charge. It's obvious that Kamala is on a charge. I mean, the the Kamala is they just replaced the the Biden puppet with the Kamala puppet, very obviously. And so you can tell, like, if the teleprompter stops working, then the puppet stopped breaks.
And it's like, oop. The the puppet just starts looping because the teleprompter broke. I don't have a teleprompter. I just talk like a normal human.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Musk said that there is a very high chance that Kamala's top puppet masters happen to also be on the Epstein client list. He explained that's why they're so terrified of a Trump victory because if Trump wins the election, the Epstein client list is coming out.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Kamala Harris is like a marionette controlled by over 100 "puppet masters," many of whom the speaker claims to know. The speaker would like to see a matchup of the top 100 puppet masters and the Epstein client list, believing there would be strong overlap. The speaker finds it mind-blowing that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker thinks part of the reason Kamala Harris is getting so much support is that some billionaires are terrified that the Epstein client list will become public if Trump wins. The speaker believes people like Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates are nervous about this possibility. The speaker notes that Reid Hoffman was his vice president of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter. So, you know, it's it's really whoever controls the teleprompter. It's the actual sort of those those who's actually in charge.
Speaker 1: And who is that,
Speaker 0: do you think? Well, I've I've tried to put it down. It's it's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it seems to be it's it's like, Kamala is sort of a a marionette with, you know, a thousand puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's or maybe it's somewhere north of a 100, is what it seems
Speaker 1: like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them.
Speaker 0: I probably know most of them. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So what I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, you
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I should say, I think you voted
Speaker 0: for I I I'd I'd like to see a matchup of of of those we quote the the the top 100 puppet masters in the FD and client list.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's some overlap?
Speaker 0: Overlap. Strong overlap.
Speaker 1: When are we going to see that list, do you think?
Speaker 0: I don't know. It's it's it's it's mind blowing that that it, that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on on the Epstein client list, they have not even tried to prosecute even 1. Is that that's insane.
Speaker 1: Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6th. They've they're kind of occupied.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the on the Epstein client list.
Speaker 1: Will that ever come out, do you think?
Speaker 0: Know, I I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that, if if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I only ask that because you can certainly just look at them and you're like, that that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yes. Reid Hoffman was my vice president of business development at PayPal Yeah. 24 years ago.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk believes in this crossover relationship so strongly that he said it again during today’s speech. “[It'll] be interesting to see the crossover between the Epstein client list and Kamala's puppet masters. I bet there's a lot of names that appear in both lists.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker suggests a crossover exists between Jeffrey Epstein's client list and those controlling Kamala Harris, implying shared names on both lists.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Interesting to see the crossover between the Epstein client list and Kamala's puppet masters. I bet there's a lot of names that appear in both lists.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The town hall ended in the most heartwarming way possible when Elon Musk dedicated some of his time to a young fan. In the middle of a serious question, a young child interrupted him, and instead of getting frustrated, Elon signed his hat and snapped a picture with him. This act was so classy that popular X video clipper @mazemoore said, “Thank God for that man. This election would already be over if not for him buying this site [X] and deciding to support Trump.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asks if someone has a pen and if they can explain something quickly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yes. Can you can you explain real quick why? Should you have a pen? I don't know if does somebody have a pen or something?
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading! If you found this post helpful, please do me a favor and follow this page before you go. And in case you missed it, here’s my breakdown of Kamala’s train-wreck interview with Fox News. https://t.co/j1uOrfMwNp
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Kamala Harris Falls Apart in Train-Wreck Fox News Interview Kamala thought she was ready for Bret Baier—she was wrong. Two moments in particular were especially humiliating. Here’s how it all went down. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/NssTE9FF5p
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across an incredible moment at an Elon Musk rally where he responded to a Trump critic. The critic expressed concerns about Trump and the 2020 election, questioning the implications of a second Trump presidency for young voters. Musk countered by dismissing the characterization of January 6th as a violent insurrection and argued that the protesters had some merit. He also pointed out the inconsistency of voter ID requirements compared to vaccine IDs, concluding that those who label Trump a threat to democracy might actually be the real threat.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
This is the best thing you will see on the internet all day. A Trump hater infiltrated Elon Musk's rally, but Musk gracefully schooled him with an epic mic drop moment. TRUMP HATER: “Trump did not and has not accepted the results of the 2020 election, one which has been called the most secure in the nation's history by the former president's own Department of Homeland Security. Similarly, I saw the violent disruption of the electoral vote count on the news during January 6th. “So, I ask this as a first-time voter who wants to discern the truth. What would you say to comfort the concerns of young voters like me who are worried that voting for a second Trump presidency will lead to democratic backsliding? @ElonMusk: “The media tries to characterize January 6th as some sort of violent insurrection, which is simply not the case. That is false ... There have to be a lot of guns for it to be a violent insurrection.” “It's not as though the January 6th protesters had no merit. They had some merit. I disagree with the magnitude of what they did. But it's not as though there were no issues [with the election].” “Almost every country on Earth has voter ID requirements, but we don't. Why? And why do the same people who demanded vaccine IDs for you to do anything say no ID for voting? Something doesn't add up. It doesn't add up. My firm opinion is that those who say Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy.” (Mic Drop)
Video Transcript AI Summary
A first-time voter asked Elon Musk how to assuage young voters' concerns that a second Trump presidency would lead to democratic backsliding, given Trump's denial of the 2020 election results and the January 6th events.
Musk responded that the media misconstrues Trump's words and that people should listen to his full speeches. Regarding January 6th, Musk stated Trump told people to "do not do violence" and recommended deploying the National Guard, but Nancy Pelosi allegedly refused. Musk believes characterizing January 6th as a violent insurrection is false.
Musk stated that the protesters had "some merit" and that there were "voting irregularities that are hard to explain." He questioned the lack of voter ID laws in the US, especially compared to other countries and vaccine ID requirements. Musk concluded that those who say Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, mister Musk. It's an honor to meet you. So my question is this, and I ask this as a first time voter. As we know, Trump did not and has not accepted the results of the 2020 election, one which has been called the most secure in the nation's history by the former president's own department of homeland security. Similarly similarly, I saw the violent disruption of the electoral vote count on the news during January 6th.
So my and I ask this as a first time voter who wants to discern the truth. Sure. What would you say to comfort the concerns of young voters like me who are worried that voting for a second Trump presidency will lead to Democratic backsliding?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's a fair question, honestly. The I I think it's it it it it is it is a it is a a fair question. I mean, the the thing is that, like I'm I'm I'm I wanted to sort of frame this correctly. And and obviously, anything I say, the the legacy media is gonna take a sound bite, out of what I say and and and misconstrue what I'm saying, which is something they've done with President Trump many times. It is very important.
If you've heard something bad about President Trump, listen to his whole speech. That's actually very important. And, you know, on January 6th, I mean, his statements on that day, he told people to back down. I mean, he said he said, do not do violence. And then people were, like, saying, well, that's actually some sort of dog whistle about doing violence.
I'm like, what are you supposed to say? You know? He he did actually tell people to to, not not be violent. He recommended, that, the National Guard be deployed. Nancy Pelosi said no.
Don't believe what I don't so I was there. He didn't
Speaker 0: call for any violence. He didn't
Speaker 1: call for any violence. Exactly. And if you look at like, while while it's obviously, you know, I think it was, you know, an like, the level of disruption, was was high. And I I don't I don't applaud any any kind of, damage to public property, of course, that, you know, but it's, the media tries to characterize January 6 as some sort of violent insurrection, which is simply not the case. I mean, that is false.
So I would take, I think, probably what I think is the reasonable middle ground, which is I disagree with the level of protest, but it was in no way a violent insurrection. So there's got to be a lot of guns for it to be a violent insurrection. And there were a lot of strange things from a vote in terms of voting irregularities that are hard to explain. So, what it's yeah. I mean, There were things that are statistically unlikely, let me put it that way.
And so it's not as though the January 6 protesters had that their protest had no merit. They had some merit. I disagree with the magnitude of what they did, but I I I I but it's it's not as though there were no issues. There were actually there were issues. And and we have this weird situation in America where, it is almost impossible to prove fraud, because if you've got no voter ID and mail in ballots, how do you prove fraud?
And And it does seem more than a little odd that we don't have voter ID. And in New York, states like California, which is super majority Democrat, they passed a law banning voter ID in any election whatsoever. Now how is that supporting democracy? That's not supporting democracy. I mean, that's insane.
Almost every country on Earth has voter ID requirements, but we don't. Why? And why do the same people that demanded vaccine IDs for you to do anything are the same ones who say no ID for voting? Some of it doesn't add up. It doesn't it doesn't add up, you know?
So I I I actually think I I I mean, my my my firm opinion is that those who who say Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Make some noise.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just saw President Trump call the media's portrayal of Elon Musk a hoax, comparing it to the "Russia Russia Russia" narrative. He emphasized that the legacy media dislikes their friendship and clarified that Musk won't be President, but praised his intelligence and achievements.
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 JUST IN: President Trump says the media’s “President Elon Musk” hoax is the new “Russia Russia Russia” The legacy media can’t STAND the fact that @elonmusk and Trump get along so well 🤣 “No, he’s not going to be President that I can tell you.” “But Elon has done an amazing job. Isn’t it nice to have smart people?”
Video Transcript AI Summary
We will establish a new department of government efficiency led by Elon Musk. He is not taking over the presidency; I appreciate having smart people around. There's a narrative circulating about President Trump ceding the presidency to Elon Musk, but that's not true. Elon has accomplished remarkable things, like successfully landing a rocket recently. It was coming down at an incredible speed of 17,000 miles per hour, and it landed safely. It's great to have capable individuals we can depend on.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And we will create the new department of government efficiency headed by Elon Musk. And, no, he's not taking the president. I like having smart people. You know, the, they're on a new kick. Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, all the different hoaxes.
And the new one is president Trump has ceded the the presidency to Elon Musk. No. No. That's not happening. But Elon's done an amazing job.
Isn't it nice to have smart people that we can rely on? Don't we want that? He's done a great job. And I'll tell you, he, he landed that rocket a few months ago. It landed.
It's coming down so fast. 17,000 miles an hour, he says, and coming down. It looks like it's getting
@RealAmVoice - Real America's Voice (RAV)
“THE PUBLIC VOTER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR MAJOR GOVERNMENT REFORM, AND THAT’S WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET.” - @elonmusk responds to criticism of how he is running DOGE. President @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/UG9iWlFBWs
Video Transcript AI Summary
My critics, including many Democrats, accuse me of orchestrating a hostile, non-transparent government takeover. However, the public clearly voted for major government reform, which is exactly what they'll get. We're committed to transparency; our actions are posted on X and our website. We're implementing simple, basic checks and balances to ensure taxpayer money is used responsibly and correctly categorized. This isn't about individual judgment calls; it's about systemic improvements. Concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly regarding my past federal contracts, are addressed through our commitment to transparency and the implemented checks and balances. All our actions are public.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your detractors, mister Muskelet I've what? Including a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 1: I have detractors? You do, sir. I don't believe it.
Speaker 0: Say that you're orchestrating a hostile takeover of government and doing it in a non transparent way. What's your response to that criticism?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, you couldn't ask for a stronger mandate from from the public. The public voted, you know, that we we do have a majority of the public vote voting for president Trump, won the house, won the senate. The people voted for major government reform. There should be no doubt about that. That was on the campaign.
The president spoke about that at every rally. The people voted for for major government reform, and that's what people are gonna get. They're gonna get what they voted for. And and a lot of times that, you know, people that don't get what they voted for, but in this presidency, they are gonna get what they voted for. And that's what democracy is all about.
Speaker 0: Mister Vasquez, the White House says that you will identify and excuse yourself from any conflicts of interest that you may have. Does that mean that you are are in effect policing yourself? What are the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that there is accountability and transparency? Well,
Speaker 1: we we actually are trying to be as transparent as possible. In fact, our actions we post our actions to the the Doge handle, on x, and to the the Doge website. So all of our actions, which are are maximally transparent. In fact, I don't think there's been I I don't know the case that where where, an organization has been more transparent than the Doge organization. K.
And and so, you know and and the kind of things we're doing are, I think, very, very simple and basic. They're they're not we're we're you know, what I mentioned, for for example, about treasury, just making sure that that payments that go out, taxpayer money that goes out, is categorized correctly, that the that the the payment is explained, that organizations on the do not pay list, which are takes a lot to get there, that actually are not paid, which currently they are paid. These these are these are not individual judgment decisions. These are about simply having sensible checks and balances in the system itself to ensure that taxpayer money is spread well. So it's got nothing to do with, like, say, a contract with some company of mine at all.
Speaker 0: But if there is a conflict in of interest when it comes to you, yourself, for instance, you've received billions of dollars in federal contracts when it comes to the Pentagon, for instance, which the president, I know, has directed you to look into Yeah. Are you policing yourself in that? Is there any sort of accountability check and balance in place that would provide any transparency for the American people? Well, all of our actions are are, sec.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
❤️
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
It’s true
@teslaownersSV - Tesla Owners Silicon Valley
“The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy. Frankly, I love him.” Elon Musk https://t.co/6ZGAWl44kG
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk responds to critics who say, “Nobody voted for Elon,” highlighting the challenges posed by a federal bureaucracy that opposes the president and cabinet. He points out that D.C. voting is overwhelmingly in favor of Kamala Harris, suggesting that if the president's will isn't carried out, it reflects a disconnect between the government and the people's wishes, questioning the true nature of democracy.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
NEW: Elon Musk delivers the PERFECT comeback to people complaining, “Nobody voted for Elon.” “Speaking of unelected, there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the president and the cabinet. “And you look at D.C. voting, it’s 92% Kamala. Okay, so we’re 92% Kamala. That’s a lot... That’s basically almost everyone. And so, if the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented. And that means we don’t live in a democracy.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Democrats complain that nobody voted for Elon or my cabinet nominees and claim people are dying because of budget cuts while also calling my actions illegal.
Their reaction shows we must be over the target and doing something right. We're trying to restore the will of the people through the president. There's a vast, unelected federal bureaucracy implacably opposed to the president and the cabinet.
Consider that DC voting is 92% for Kamala. If the president's will, representing the people, isn't implemented, then the will of the people isn't being implemented. We're not living in a democracy, but a bureaucracy. What you're seeing is the bureaucracy resisting as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And this is what you get for it from the Democrats you get nobody voted for Elon or nobody voted for any of your cabinet nominees. Okay. People are dying because of doge cuts. I'll give you a chance to respond all that. What doge is doing is illegal.
Elon Musk is small street vernacular for a male body part. It's a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: Okay. Why why are they reacting like this?
Speaker 0: Well, I'm first of all, do you give a fly and rip over number one? And Well, I guess we must
Speaker 1: be over the target or doing something right, you know. If like, they wouldn't be complaining so much if they we weren't doing something useful, I think. But what what what all we're really trying to do here is restore, the will of the people through the president. And and what we're finding is that there's an unelected bureaucracy. Speaking of unelected, there's a there's a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the president and the cabinet.
And you look at, say, DC voting, it's 92% Kamala. Okay. So we're in 92% Kamala. That's a lot.
Speaker 0: They don't like me here either.
Speaker 1: I think about that number a lot. And, like, 92%, that's basically almost everyone. Yeah. And so but but if but but how can you if if if the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented. And that means we we don't live in a democracy.
We live in a bureaucracy. And so I think what we're seeing here is the sort of the thrashing of the the bureaucracy as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently watched a heated debate on CNN where I challenged Dr. Paul Offit on his financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry while discussing vaccine safety. I highlighted how conflicts of interest undermine public trust and questioned the focus on measles over pressing health issues like obesity and chronic disease. Despite Offit's assertions about vaccine safety, I argued that the media often overlooks critical health concerns. The segment ended abruptly, showcasing how mainstream media struggles when confronted with challenging viewpoints.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Calley Means Stuns CNN Viewers With Two Devastating Takedowns Live on Air Paul Offit and Pamela Brown came prepared for a debate. What they received was a reckoning. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/iUBRquJ8Hf
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Calley Means (@CalleyMeans), ex-pharma consultant turned industry critic, came out swinging on CNN Wednesday in a fiery debate against infamous vaccine pusher Dr. Paul Offit. Offit thought he could call RFK Jr. an anti-vaxxer without his own financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry being exposed—but he was wrong. Things immediately got heated when Means exposed Offit’s shocking conflicts of interest on live TV while CNN’s Pamela Brown stood by and let it happen like a deer caught in headlights. “What’s causing distrust in public health authorities is conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. “Dr. Offit says that science is always settled when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure in kids. “Dr. Offit is talking about measles… But there were 300 deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have 38% of children right now with prediabetes. Bobby is focused on that. He’s focused on reorganizing the department. And that’s what we should be talking about, not this distraction,” Means argued.
Video Transcript AI Summary
What's causing distrust in public health isn't the idea of public health itself, but the actions of its leaders. We need to address the conflicts of interest, like Dr. Offit taking millions from pharmaceutical companies while approving their products.
It's also about holding people accountable when they make definitive statements about science, yet have approved products, like vaccines, that have later been recalled for causing harm.
While measles is important, let's remember that before the vaccine, there were 300 deaths a year from measles. Today, we have a much bigger problem, with 38% of children having prediabetes. It is important that we focus on reorganizing the department to address issues like this, instead of being distracted.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trust in public health. No. It it it's the public health leaders themselves. It's people defending with the record that's happening to health at HHS. Why cuts are bad?
Of course, we should make cuts. Of course, the personnel should be changed. What's causing distrust in public health authorities is conflict of interest, like doctor Offutt taking millions of dollars from pharmaceutical makers like Merck while approving and recommending pharmaceuticals on ACIP committees. It's the fact that doctor Offutt's saying that science is always settled, when he himself has approved vaccines that have been recalled for causing organ failure for kids. And it's the fact that doctor Offit is talking about measles, which is important.
And I wanna be clear, Hamel. I don't wanna get this out. It's important. But there were three hundred deaths from measles a year before the invention of the vaccine. We have thirty eight percent of children right now having prediabetes.
Bobby is focused on that. He's focused on reorganizing the department, and that's what we should be talking about, not this distraction.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@calleymeans After Offit finished uncomfortably smiling during Means’ rebuke, he responded to the claims, saying, “I don’t have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company.” https://t.co/Z2KBFVNh7P
Video Transcript AI Summary
I serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee because I don't have relationships with pharmaceutical companies, which is a requirement. I actually agree with some of the concerns raised, such as obesity rates, chronic illnesses, and overmedication of children. I even wrote a book about the excesses of modern medicine. However, I strongly disagree with the claim that vaccines are harmful, as RFK Jr. suggests. RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's now targeting childhood vaccines, which will ultimately harm children.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Made a lot of claims there. I want you to respond to that. And we should note, you are a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, and you recently told CNN that RFK junior will hurt America's vaccine infrastructure. So please respond to that and tell us
Speaker 1: And, Pamela, I hope we can disclose his I hope we can disclose his millions of dollars of pharmaceutical payments while serving in that committee.
Speaker 0: Okay. Doctor Offit, please go ahead and respond.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, you're not allowed to serve on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee if you have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company. And so because I don't have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company, I'm able to serve on that committee. Secondly, and most importantly, actually, the things that that, that Cali talks about, I actually agree with in some ways. I think that we are, for example, more obese as a country than than we should be. And that the consequence of obesity like hypertension and type two diabetes, I think we do have, in many ways, more chronic illnesses.
I think we overmedicate our children. I think there's many things we can do better. I actually wrote a book called Overkill When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far. So I agree with all that. What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr says.
I mean, RFK Jr continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this. And and that's that's, only gonna be to the detriment of children.
Speaker 0: Hold on. No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans, peep viewers to to soak this up.
So I wanna let Doctor Offit finish and then I'll go to you, Callie, I promise. Go ahead Doctor Offit.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But Means later questioned: “Is it appropriate for a member of a government advisory committee (ACIP) to have a $1.5 million salary paid by Merck and receive millions in pharma royalties while he’s issuing guidance on products those companies make?” https://t.co/uSf5aMFZoL
@calleymeans - Calley Means
Is it appropriate for a member of a government advisory committee to have a $1.5 million salary paid by Merck and receive millions in pharma royalties while he’s issuing guidance on products those companies make? https://t.co/Slm88xdWyH
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Offit went on to say that he doesn’t know what the cause of autism is, mentioning several “interesting” theories. However, he stated with certainty that vaccines are “the one thing that doesn’t cause autism.” “Vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children,” Offit said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
RFK Jr. continues to falsely claim that vaccines cause autism, and he's made childhood vaccines a major target. This is dangerous and will lead to the death of children.
When RFK Jr. says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he's citing the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There are many interesting causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome, genetics, or medicines that pregnant people take during their pregnancy. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism.
Vaccines are really the safest, best-tested things that we give to children, and that's what is making America healthy. To focus on vaccines as a target and claim that they're causing harm when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I don't agree with is that in any way, vaccines are are, harmful as RFK Jr. Says. I mean, RFK Jr. Continues to claim that vaccines cause autism when they don't. He's now made childhood vaccines a major target of this.
And and that's that's, only gonna be for the death of children. Hold on.
Speaker 1: No. No. Callie Callie, I have to let doctor Offit speak. This has to be a civil respectful conversation in order for this to work and for Americans viewers to to soak this up. So I wanna let doctor Offit finish, and then I'll go to you, Cali.
I promise. Go ahead, doctor Offit.
Speaker 0: So I I think that when, for example, he says we have more chronic diseases in children than ever before, he says that the instance is one in thirty six. Well, that's the instance of autism spectrum disorder. There's a lot of interesting, cause or causes of autism spectrum disorder, like the infant microbiome or genetic or, medicines that women or pregnant people can take during their pregnancy. That's interesting. But by focusing on childhood vaccines, he's focusing on the one thing that doesn't cause autism.
And so vaccines, I think, are really the safest, best tested things that we give to children, and that's what make is making America healthy again. And I think to focus on vaccines as as a target and and claim that they're causing harms when they're not is only a detriment to America's children.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The next disaster for CNN unfolded when host Pamela Brown asked @CalleyMeans a vaccination question that completely backfired. Means flipped the script, using her question to highlight how the media obsesses over “measles” instead of focusing on health concerns that truly matter. PAMELA BROWN: “Is now a time to promote vaccines... especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these six states where, according to health officials, they are unvaccinated?" CALLEY MEANS: “Pamela, with respect, why aren’t you asking me about the fact that 50% of teens have obesity? There are breathless segments being run and seen on [infectious disease] day after day after day, Pamela. It’s breathless coverage of five measles cases. “Why aren’t we asking why 16% of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we’re only 4% of the world population? Because the CDC said our immune system—no, it is related, Pamela. And let me say why: because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. “The Democrats said the word ‘measles’ 25 times in the first hearing and said the words ‘obesity,’ ‘diabetes,’ and ‘chronic disease’ zero times. The HHS priority document under President Biden said the word ‘equity’ 25 times, said the word ‘vaccines’ countless times, and did not say the word ‘obesity’ or ‘diabetes.’ “There is a problem right now because this is not zero-sum. We are focused on a very small subset that’s important—we need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Dr. Offit, is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only: that they should be studied like any other product. “Dr. Offit, on the ACIP committee, has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books, not about being anti-vax, but about having good science. And Dr. Offit is calling him anti-vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. “Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the 92% of deaths in the United States, which is chronic conditions,” Means said.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Why is everyone so focused on measles when so many other health issues plague our country? The media breathlessly covers five measles cases while ignoring the obesity epidemic affecting 50% of teens. Sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans, but our health priorities seem misdirected.
The focus on measles is overshadowing other critical health concerns. Bobby Kennedy's stance isn't anti-vaccine; he simply advocates for rigorous studies on vaccines, like any other product. He, and others, are concerned with the chronic conditions responsible for 92% of deaths in the United States, and want to address the bigger picture of health policy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it now a time to promote vaccines, which again, the CDC says safe effective that two doses are ninety percent effective against measles? Is it now a time to promote that especially among children who are being impacted by measles in places like Texas and in these states who are unvaccinated according to health officials.
Speaker 1: Pamela, with with respect, why aren't you asking me about the fact that fifty percent of teens have obesity? Why aren't there there there are breathless
Speaker 0: I have other questions for you, but we're talking about this.
Speaker 1: Day after day after day, Pamela. It's breathless coverage of five measles cases. Why aren't we asking why sixteen percent of COVID deaths worldwide were Americans when we're only four percent of the world population because the CDC said, Our immune system, no, it is related, Pamela, and let me say why. Because the entire coverage of Bobby Kennedy is around measles. The Democrats said the word measles twenty five times in the first hearing and said the words obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease zero time.
The HHS priority document under President Biden said the word equity 25 times, said the word vaccines countless times, did not say the word obesity or diabetes. There is a problem right now because this is not zero, this is zero sum. We are focused on a very small subset that's important. We need good infectious disease management. Bobby Kennedy, Doctor.
Offit is not correct. Bobby Kennedy has said one thing about vaccines and one thing only, that they should be studied like any other product. Doctor. Offit on the ACIP committee has recommended vaccines that have ended up being recalled for causing mass issues to kids. Bobby Kennedy has written multiple books not about being anti vaxx but about having good science.
And Doctor. Offit is calling him anti vaccine for literally just saying we need studies. Bobby Kennedy is not concerned with measles. He wants good policies with measles. He wants to attack the ninety two percent of deaths in The United States, which has chronic conditions.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Means continued to hammer the medical industry, exposing how it “doesn’t make money when children are healthy.” “Pharma doesn’t make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don’t make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the healthcare industry, which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick,” Means said. Visibly frustrated as @CalleyMeans dismantled the narrative CNN wanted to push, Pamela Brown began frantically cutting him off before abruptly ending the segment, calling it a “spirited discussion.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
I support discussing issues like obesity and overmedicating children. Bobby Kennedy is fighting against the incentive for pharma to profit from sick children, and he's supporting efforts to remove soda from SNAP. The problem is that organizations like Merck don't have children's best interests at heart, considering their history of criminal penalties for misleading information.
When the data isn't on their side, RFK Jr. and personal injury lawyers attack the person. My Merck chair is defined by Penn, and there's no quid pro quo. The science continually proves RFK Jr. wrong about vaccines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He talked about childhood vaccines, number one. He talked about electromagnetic radiation, number two. He talked about pesticides. He didn't talk about the things that Cali's talking about here, which is things like obesity or overmedicating children or sugar drapes. I'm all for that.
I agree with you. You can have both
Speaker 1: powerful he gave a he gave a powerful speech about these issues. This this is what Bobby Kinney is fighting against, doctor Offit. As you know, you were the chair at the Children's Hospital, the Merck chair. You you it was like a NASCAR driver wearing their sponsors. Merck paid your $1,500,000 salary.
And this is what Bobby is saying, is that fundamentally, pharma can create good innovations, but they're foundationally incentivized for children to be sick. Pharma doesn't make money when children are healthy. The hospitals don't make money when the beds are empty. Chronic disease, just as a demonstrable statement of economic fact, is a great economic invention for the health industry which demonstrably makes money when patients are sick. And that's an incentive Bobby Kennedy is going hard after.
I'm in Florida. I'm in I'm in a state senator's office right now. I'm actually lobbying for the state's SNAP bills, which Bobby is really supporting, to get soda off of SNAP. I think the problem is that the public health community, the Merck chairs of pediatricians, I mean, that is just insane. Merck does not have children's interest at heart.
Merck itself has settled billions of dollars in criminal penalties for misleading and to know.
Speaker 2: For transparency, you used to be a pharmaceutical rep. Right, Cali?
Speaker 1: No. No. No. I was there about thirteen years ago with a was a was a lobbyist, which which included
Speaker 2: So you were a lobbyist for pharmaceuticals. Okay.
Speaker 1: That out.
Speaker 2: Right. But really quick, we we do have to go. But doctor Offit, I have to have you respond to his claims about Merck and your ties.
Speaker 0: Sure. What he does is what RFK Jr. Does, which is what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is when the the data aren't on their side, then they attack the person. I'm not Bobby Kennedy's ears.
Speaker 2: Hold on. Hold on, Callie. Let him talk. Chair? Callie, please.
Please.
Speaker 0: I I wanna I don't receive a a okay. It's it's it's I do not have a conflict of interest. The Merc chair is is defined defined by, Penn. And Penn, there is no quid pro quo to being having an endowed chair. Anybody who receives an endowed chair an endowed chair would know.
Secondly, it's like because they they there aren't the data on their side regarding vaccines. They do what all personal injury lawyer types do, which is attack the witness. I'm not RFK Jr's problem. The science that has continually shown he's wrong about vaccines
Speaker 1: for sure. Millions of people. That. That's
Speaker 2: the problem. Thank you both for coming on. Thank you for
Speaker 0: coming again. Of
Speaker 2: Okay. Callie, I let you say your piece, doctor Offit. I let you also respond, and I I appreciate you coming on for this spirited discussion, shall we say? Thank you for joining us. We'll be right back.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
This debate made one thing clear: when mainstream news networks face someone who can challenge their narratives in real time, their arguments crumble, leaving viewers exposed to the truth. While it’s safe to say that @CalleyMeans won’t be invited back on CNN anytime soon, this segment should serve as a stark reminder that the media’s goal is to push narratives, not to report the truth or host an honest debate.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@calleymeans Click here to watch the full debate below: https://t.co/g0bStZqgU0
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@calleymeans Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this report, please do me a quick favor and follow me (@VigilantFox) for more posts like this one. In other news, Elon Musk recently shut down RFK Jr. critics with one profound statement. Read more below: https://t.co/dcrDfMmMzy
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Elon Musk Delivers a Powerful Statement on Bobby Kennedy Jr. Plus, more must-see moments from the Trump-Musk interview. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/AVPelCMAbh
@cb_doge - DogeDesigner
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump thanked Elon Musk for his contributions to DOGE. The crowd erupted in cheers as the President introduced him. TRUMP: "Thank you Elon. He is working very hard. He didn’t need this. We appreciate it.” https://t.co/vGlZoT4JcV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Perhaps you've heard of it. It's headed by Elon Musk, thank you Elon. He's working very hard and he didn't need to do this. We appreciate it. Everybody here appreciates it, even those who don't want to admit it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Perhaps you've heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the Thank you, Elon. He's working very hard. He didn't need this.
He didn't need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Everybody here, even this side, appreciates it, I believe. They just don't want to admit that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just saw President Trump call out an NBC reporter for falsely claiming there was a clash between Elon Musk and Marco Rubio. He emphasized there was no clash and accused the reporter of being a troublemaker. It seems like they're really trying to create division between Elon and Trump, but it's not working.
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 President Trump just SLAMMED a fake news NBC reporter for claiming there was a “CLASH” between Elon Musk and Marco Rubio during a cabinet meeting “No clash. I was there. You're just a troublemaker” They’re trying SO hard to rip Elon and Trump apart, and it ain’t working. These attempts are getting incredibly desperate
Video Transcript AI Summary
There was no clash between the secretaries, despite what you may have heard. You're just stirring up trouble and asking irrelevant questions. We're here to discuss the World Cup.
Elon and Marco are working well together and doing an excellent job. There is no conflict between them. I won't answer your question about who I support; it's off-topic.
Of course, you're with NBC. That explains your line of questioning. That's enough.
Let's keep the discussion focused on the World Cup. Are there any other relevant questions?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Clashes eventually. New secretary removed the other secretary. No clash. I was there. You're just a troublemaker.
And you're not supposed to be asking that question because we're talking about the World Cup. Elon gets along great with Marco, and they're both doing a fantastic job. There is no clash. Mister president, who's bottom line Who are you with? Who are you with?
NBC. Oh, no wonder. That's enough. NBC. Who has more authority?
Elon Musk or the captaincy chair? Any other questions about the World Cup?
reSee.it AI Summary
I feel like I didn't vote for the person in charge; instead, it seems like a foreign-born billionaire is running things. The government feels like an extension of Elon Musk's empire, and I can't believe how many people are blinded by their admiration for Trump. I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS!
@The1Parzival - THE PARZIVAL
💡💡💡 - You all thought you voted for .@realDonaldTrump, but instead you got a foreign born billionaire fraud running the show. - The Government has become nothing more than an extension of .@elonmusk's Empire. - You all got played and your Hero Worship of Trump won't let you see the truth. - I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS! 😡😡😡
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe we are witnessing the greatest comeback in U.S. history, marked by a historic cabinet meeting during Trump's first 100 days. The energy was palpable as Defense Secretary Hegseth announced a "recruiting renaissance" in the military, reversing years of decline. Vice President Vance reflected on America's fall and rise, while Elon Musk praised the administration's accomplishments, calling it potentially the greatest in history. The meeting culminated in a heartfelt acknowledgment of Musk's sacrifices, followed by an impactful health update from RFK Jr. and a firm response from Secretary Rubio on foreign policy.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
We’re living through the greatest comeback in US history. Trump’s cabinet meeting marking his first 100 days wasn’t just historic—it was a declaration. But one jaw-dropping moment stunned the entire room. Even Elon Musk was speechless. What happened next went beyond politics. It was a masterclass in sacrifice, courage, and patriotism. 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
📍Before we begin, bookmark the post above. There’s an eye-watering moment in here you won’t want to forget. Let’s roll the clips!
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Trump’s cabinet meeting didn’t ease in—it exploded out of the gate. Trump sat at the head of the table. The energy was electric. Then Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth leaned in—and fired the first shot. “You inherited a demoralized military that couldn't recruit,” he told the president. “That was perceived as weak after what happened in Afghanistan and elsewhere because of Joe Biden.” Not anymore. Hegseth announced what he called a “recruiting renaissance”—a dramatic reversal no one in Washington thought was possible. “What we have seen, since your election and the inauguration, has been nothing short of a recruiting renaissance,” he said. “It has been decades since we've seen this kind of recruiting in the army, the navy, marine corps, the air force.” The turnaround hasn’t just started—it’s surging. “Truly historic. We can barely absorb the volume and retention as well. Men and women in the military, who don't want to get out.” Then came the line that set the tone for the rest of the meeting: “The men and women of America wants to join the United States military led by president Donald Trump.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the military is experiencing a "recruiting renaissance" due to President Trump's leadership, reversing a decline attributed to Joe Biden. They assert that the military can barely absorb the recruiting volume and retention is up because service members want to serve under a "real commander in chief."
The speaker states they are reinforcing standards, removing "wokeness" (DEI and trans policies), and restoring traditional names to military bases. They claim to have found $6 billion in savings to reinvest, including $50 billion redirected from Biden administration climate initiatives, and plan to wisely spend a trillion-dollar budget.
The speaker says they have achieved 100% operational control of the border, with 11,000 troops now authorized to detain and hand over illegal immigrants to CBP. They assert this represents a significant expansion of military authority at the border.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This go ahead, Pete. Well, mister president, I I think we're controversial because we're over the target. And like so many things, mister president, you inherited a demoralized military that couldn't recruit that was perceived this week after what happened in Afghanistan and elsewhere because of Joe Biden. And what we have seen since your election and the inauguration was has been nothing short of a recruiting renaissance. Dec decades it hasn't been been decades since we've seen this kind of recruiting in the army, the navy, the marine corps, the air force.
The men and women of America want to join the United States military led by president Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And the police, by
Speaker 0: the way.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I always mention the fire, but police and fire. But the police and fire, likewise, are I mean, they have waiting lists now, and six months ago was a disaster. Right? Truly historic.
Speaker 0: We can barely absorb the volume and retention as well. Men and women in the military who don't wanna get out now that they have a real commander in chief. We're reinforcing standards. We're gonna be fit, not fat in our formations. We welcome back all the COVID, the folks who were forced out because of the COVID mandate.
Speaker 1: We
Speaker 0: ripped wokeness out of the military, sir, DEI, trans, and it's Fort Benning and Fort Bragg again, at the DOD. We're rebuilding the military, sir. The Golden Dome is well underway. F 47, reassuring allies and deterring enemies. We found nearly 6,000,000,000 in doge savings that we're gonna reinvest, including 50,000,000,000 from the Biden administration focused on things like climate that have nothing to do with lethality and war fighting.
And we will have, as you said, sir, the first trillion dollar budget that we plan to spend wisely, on behalf of our war fighters. From day one, sir, we've gotten a hundred helped get 100% operational control of the border, come alongside DHS and CBP. We've got 11,000 troops on the border who now, because of the new national defense area, sir, can help detain illegals at the border and hand them over to CBP. It used to be if you saw camouflage on the border, they could hold binoculars, and that's it. And, now we can detain and assist, and we are we're gonna get a % operational control of that border.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The room absorbed the moment. Then Vice President JD Vance took the floor—and put the entire 100-day sprint into perspective. Vance didn’t just reflect on policy. He told the story of a generation that watched America fall—and is now watching it rise. “From the time I was born to the time that Donald J. Trump was inaugurated just a few months ago,” he said, “we went from… the world’s manufacturing super power to one in which we depend on the People’s Republic of China to make the things we need.” Then came the collapse of law and order. “We went from one in which bipartisan border policy was the consensus… to one we allowed 20 million people to run roughshod over the country causing crime, distress in the welfare system.” All of that decline, he said, happened during his lifetime. But the comeback? “In just 100 days, we’ve started to reverse every single one of those negative trends.” He turned to Trump with one of the sharpest lines of the day. “You sit in the Oval Office and see portraits of presidents past,” Vance said. “Let’s be honest—most of them have been place holders. They’ve been people who’ve allowed their staff to sign executive orders with an auto pen, instead of men of action.” And what’s got the media losing its mind? “The president is solving the problems the American people set about to solve. He’s actually doing the things he promised he would do.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Over the past forty years, the U.S. shifted from a manufacturing superpower to dependence on China. The military has gone from the "proudest in the world" to failing to meet recruiting goals. Bipartisan border policy has devolved into allowing 20 million people to illegally enter the country, causing crime and straining the welfare system.
According to the speaker, in the first hundred days of the current administration, these negative trends have begun to reverse. The speaker believes that previous presidents have been "placeholders" who allowed their staff to sign executive orders, while the current president is solving problems and fulfilling promises. The media attacks the administration because the president is doing what he said he would do. The speaker feels honored to be part of the administration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: From the time that I was born to the time that Donald j Trump was inaugurated just a few, months ago, we went from again, forty years, we went from the world's manufacturing superpower to one in which we depend on the People's Republic Of China to make the things that we need. We went from the proudest military in the world to one in which we failed to meet our recruiting goals, and we went from one in which bipartisan border policy was the consensus of both Democrats and Republicans to one in which we allowed 20,000,000 people to run roughshod illegally over the countryside causing crime, causing a stress in the welfare system. And again, that happened over the lifetime of the youngest member of the cabinet. And what has happened in a hundred days is that we've started to reverse every single one of those negative trends. And I think what it shows to me is that the president and you go you sit in the Oval Office and you see these portraits of presidents past.
And let's be honest, most of them have been placeholders. They've been people who've allowed their staff to sign executive orders with an auto pen instead of men of action. And the reason the media attacks this administration as chaotic is because the president is solving the problems the American people set about to solve. He's actually doing the things that he promised that he would do. And mister president, it's been an honor to be part of it for the past one hundred days.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical updates. Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed. → @VigilantFox Now, back to the story you came for. https://t.co/R3lDySU6R5
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Next came the moment no one expected—but everyone would be talking about. Elon Musk stepped in and everything went quiet. “I think this could be the greatest administration since the founding of the country.” It wasn’t a soundbite. It was a moment. At the 100-day milestone, Musk addressed the full cabinet. He didn’t waste words. He spoke with intent. “The American people voted for secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending,” he said. “And that’s what they’ve gotten.” He praised the pace, the action, and the execution. “A tremendous amount has been accomplished in the first 100 days. As everyone has said, it's more than has been accomplished in ANY administration before. Ever. Period.” And then he looked ahead. “So this portends well for what happens for the rest of the administration.” This will be the quote that should dominate headlines: “I think this could be the greatest administration since the founding of the country.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the American people voted for secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending, and that's what they've gotten. They state a tremendous amount has been accomplished in the first hundred days, more than any administration before, ever. The speaker believes this portends very well for the rest of the administration and thinks this could be the greatest administration in the country. They thank someone for their help, saying they have sacrificed a lot and been treated unfairly. The speaker mentions that people liked to burn their cars, which is not great.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, this person, you know, they say I wear a lot of hats. That's true. But even my hat has a hat. So you know, the American people voted for secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending, and that's what they've gotten. Tremendous amount has been accomplished in the first hundred days.
As everyone has said, it's more than that has been accomplished in any administration before ever, period. So this is this portends very well for what happened to the rest of the administration. I think this could be the the greatest administration in your country. Well, we all wanna thank you for your help. You you you really have sacrificed a lot.
You've been treated very unfairly. Well, listen. They did like to burn my cars, which is not great. You know? It's better.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
This was the eye-watering moment—the emotional peak of the entire meeting. It wasn’t scripted. It wasn’t planned. But it was raw and it said everything that needed to be said. Elon Musk sat quietly at the table. For months, he’s taken hit after hit—relentless media smears, coordinated political attacks, even firebombings at Tesla. And through it all, he never backed down. He stood up for the American people. And now—after all the sacrifice—he finally heard what millions have wanted to tell him. President Trump looked him in the eye. “You have been treated unfairly,” he said. “But the vast majority of people in this country really respect and appreciate you.” Around the room, heads nodded—some with emotion they didn’t bother hiding. “You’ve really been a tremendous help,” Trump added. “You opened up a lot of eyes as to what could be done.” Then came the applause. The room ignited—not for a billionaire, but for a fighter. A man who didn’t take the easy path. Who risked everything, not for power, but for principle. Musk sat there, visibly moved. When the room quieted, he spoke with quiet humility: “It’s also an honor to work with your incredible cabinet,” he said. “Thank you everyone. It’s great to work with you.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker thanks Elon for his tremendous help and for opening people's eyes to what could be done. He states that the vast majority of people in the country respect and appreciate Elon.
The speaker mentions $150,000,000, then corrects it to $160,000,000, suggesting the amount could double or triple as more things are being worked on that aren't yet counted. The speaker reiterates that Elon has done a fantastic job and expresses appreciation. He also thanks the cabinet, saying it's great to work with them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But you have been treated unfairly, but, the vast majority of people in this country really respect and appreciate you. And this whole room can say that very strongly. You've really been a tremendous help. You opened up a lot of eyes as to what could be done. And we just wanna thank you very much.
And, you know, you're invited to stay as long as you want. At some point, I guess, he wants to get back home to his car. An incredible job. Hundred and $50,000,000. Think of this.
Yeah. Hundred and $60. Yeah. Yeah. Hundred and 60 They said, oh, it couldn't be more.
And a lot of, you know, a lot of stuff is being worked on. That number could be doubled and even tripled. A lot of things are being worked on that we don't count yet because it's not quite there. But Yes. You've done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it very much, Elon.
You know? Thank you. And it's it's also an honor to work with your incredible cabinet. I just like to say thank you, everyone. We're you know, it's great to work with you.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
After the ovation, the focus turned to health—where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an update that stunned the room. “Mr. President, thank you for your extraordinary leadership,” Kennedy said. “Over the past hundred days, we are already making America healthy again.” Then he laid out the proof. First: a sweeping ban on toxic, petroleum-based synthetic dyes found in processed foods. “We announced last week the ban on the nine petroleum-based synthetic dyes—Within two months, we're going to ban the worst two of them.” Next: the end of politicized nutrition science. “President Biden’s administration gave us 453 pages. They’re basically unreadable. And they are the product of the same kind of politicized science that drove Froot Loops to the top of the food pyramid.” That’s over. “We’re going to do real science—gold standard science.” And with one closing statement, Kennedy captured the spirit of the Trump doctrine. “You are a business-friendly president—probably the most business-friendly in our history—but you’re also willing to stand up to very, very powerful businesses. And you’ve shown that again and again.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker thanks the president for his leadership in making America healthy again. They announced a ban on nine petroleum-based synthetic blue dyes, with the worst two to be banned within two months. They are working with Secretary Rollins on new dietary guidelines to replace the current 453-page guidelines, which they claim are unreadable and the product of politicized science that promoted unhealthy foods.
The goal is to develop gold-standard science-based guidelines by the end of the summer to drive major changes in school lunch programs for the next school year. They are also working with Secretary Rollins to remove sodas and candy from the SNAP program, noting that 10% of food stamps go to these items. The speaker thanks the president for standing up to powerful businesses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, thank you for your extraordinary leadership. Over the past hundred days, we are already making America healthy again. We announced last week the ban on the nine petroleum based synthetic dyes, blue dyes. Within two years, within two months, we're gonna ban the worst two of them. We I am working with secretary Rollins on dietary guidelines, the dietary guidelines that the Trump that the president Biden's administration gave us.
453 pages. They're basically unreadable. And they are the product of the same kind of politicized science that drove Froot Loops to the top of the Froot Loops. We are we're gonna do real science, gold standard science. We're gonna develop within we have till December to do it, but we are working very, very fast together.
We're gonna get it done by the end of the summer in time to drive change major dramatic changes in the school food, the school lunch programs over the next next school year. I'm working working also with with secretary Rollins on the SNAP program and the to get sodas and and and candy off of the food stamp program. 10 of food stamps go to SNAP. And I wanna thank you for your courage. You're a business friendly president, probably the most business friendly in our history, but you're also willing to stand up to very, very powerful businesses, and you've shown that again and again.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But the ending came fireworks. A reporter tried to hijack the historic meeting with a loaded question for Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Have you been in touch with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia? Has a formal request from this administration been made?” Rubio didn’t flinch. “Well, I would never tell you that.” And then he laid down the law. “And you know who else I’ll never tell? A judge—because the conduct of our foreign policy belongs to the President of the United States and the executive branch, not some judge.” “We will conduct foreign policy appropriately if we need to, but I’ll never discuss it. And no one will ever make us discuss it—because that’s how foreign policy works.” Game over.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker, addressed as Secretary Rubio, was asked about contacting El Salvador regarding the return of Abrego Garcia and whether the administration made a formal request. Rubio stated he would never reveal such information, either to the questioner or to a judge. He asserted that the conduct of foreign policy is the sole responsibility of the President and the executive branch, not the judiciary. He affirmed that foreign policy will be conducted appropriately as needed, but details will remain confidential, and no one can force them to disclose it. The speaker then addressed someone as "Mister president".
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Secretary Rubio, can I ask you a question? You brought up El Salvador in your remarks. Have you been in touch with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia? Has a formal request from this administration been made? Well, I would never tell you that.
And you know who else I'll never tell? A judge. Because the conduct of our foreign policy belongs to the president of The United States and the executive branch, not some judge. So we will conduct foreign policy appropriately if we need to, but I'll never discuss it. And no one will ever make us discuss it because that's how foreign policy works.
Mister president
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading. If you appreciate this kind of reporting, follow me for more daily threads. —> @VigilantFox Ready for a bombshell? 🔥 RFK Jr. just named the government agency behind America’s geoengineering nightmare. https://t.co/ayFBBiQGeZ
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
🚨 RFK Jr. Just Named the Government Agency Behind America’s Geoengineering Nightmare For years, they told us chemtrails were just a “conspiracy theory.” Now, RFK Jr. isn’t just confirming that “crimes” are happening. He’s exposing exactly who’s behind them. 🧵 THREAD https://t.co/Ft4m3MHunn
@DrInsensitive - Dr. Insensitive Jerk
Musk says the Big, Beautiful Spending Bill Undermines His DOGE Work. Musk is trying to prevent a US government default, while Trump is optimizing for it. https://t.co/t1plVYl6PV
@DrInsensitive - Dr. Insensitive Jerk
Trump is Playing 4d Poker DOGE is making headlines, yet Trump is helping congress blow the savings on more spending. What the hell? Here is my theory: DOGE is not about cutting government spending; it's about killing the woke mind virus by pinching off the cash firehose that sustains it. Trump didn't try to cut spending in his first term either. IMO, Trump has decided that Americans are simply too soft, so there is no way to cut government spending until we default on the debt. Any politician who tries will be voted out, so he won't try. Instead, he is optimizing for the default scenario. When you know bankruptcy is inevitable, what do you do? I think Trump has resolved to screw the bondholders as hard as possible, to benefit the rest of us. So he is running up the credit card to buy Infrastructure. Did it seem weird to you that Trump promoted infrastructure spending in his first term, and now again in his second, when we have nothing to show for Obama's trillion-dollar "Infrastructure" packages? Maybe Trump believes that, under his leadership, infrastructure spending will actually buy us some infrastructure. But again, why? The answer is: Infrastructure is a durable good that can't be repossessed. All other forms of government spending are like throwing cash into the wind, and after the default, they will mean nothing. But we will still have the bridges and roads to help us rebuild. If I am correct, Trump will not try to cut spending. Instead, he will try to spend as much as possible on projects that will still be worth something after we default.
@Bubblebathgirl - Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸
President Trump talks about Elon Musk. The media will try to take what he said here and turn it into a big deal. It’s not. I trust both Trump and Elon. I don’t think either men are the problem. You want to know who the real problem is? Congress. https://t.co/SMjLSZWFlb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims to have had a great relationship with Elon, but is now disappointed. He believes Elon only developed a problem with the "great big beautiful bill" after the EV mandate was cut, which Elon knew about and initially supported.
The speaker says the CBO, which is run by Democrats, projects a $2.8 trillion surplus over ten years if tariff revenue is included. He touts low inflation, down to 2%, and falling grocery and gasoline prices. He also claims the U.S. now has the best border in history with a 99.99% success rate.
He speculates that people who leave his administration miss the "glamour" and become hostile, possibly due to "Trump derangement syndrome." He suggests that Elon may be experiencing something similar.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we're well anymore. I was surprised because you were here. Everybody in this room practically was here as we had a wonderful send off. He said wonderful things about me.
You couldn't have nicer, said the best thing. He's worn the hat. Trump was right about everything. And I am right about the the great big beautiful bill. We call it a great big beautiful bill because that's what it is.
And, again, biggest tax cuts in history, biggest economic development moves anywhere. We've never done anything like it. Business is spurred. And I don't know if you've seen the numbers, but the numbers came out. Even the CBO, which is run by Democrats, said that we're gonna be, doing you know, I'd like you to discuss it, the 2,800,000,000.0 a trillion that CBO.
This is some a group of people that are Democrats. They're very hostile to us. They just came out with phenomenal numbers what it does. You wanna mention that, Scott?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. So what what we've seen is we keep hearing from the CBO that there's going to, be a large deficit from the bill, which we disagree with. But using the CBO scoring, they came out and scored the tariff revenue. We think it'll be the minimum of 2,800,000,000,000.0 over the ten year window, which actually puts the bill in surplus if you include the tariff revenue, which they won't do.
Speaker 0: It gives you a tremendous surplus, but we're not allowed to use that. For some reason, they say scoring. Nobody knows what scoring means. Maybe a couple of people, but nobody. Somebody sits in the background, they say, well, we're not gonna allow that.
They're not allowing other things that we have that are tremendously profitable for our country. But if you saw the other day, CNBC, they came out with, numbers and the people on the show, very good people. I've watched them for a long time. They couldn't believe the numbers, how good they are. The numbers were incredible.
And that was personal income and also very low inflation. We have very low inflation. We're down to 2% now and maybe even lower than that. And when I took it over, was a mess. Remember, we had the worst inflation probably in the history of our country.
They say forty eight years, but let's say that's I think it's worse than that. So we had the worst inflation in the history of our country under the Biden administration. Now we're down to beautiful number, 2%. We'd actually like to keep it there. Better than zero is 2%.
It's going down maybe to 1% is like perfect. That's perfect. You don't wanna have zero for certain reasons that are that nobody is very interested to listen to, But we have almost perfect inflation. Grocery prices are down. Everything remember eggs eggs.
We weren't gonna buy another egg for the next twenty years. It was so expensive. Right? Remember? You guys all hit me about eggs.
Eggs have down 400%. Everybody has eggs now. They're having eggs for breakfast again. But if you look at, gasoline, very important. I think always the most important because it's the energy is a big the biggest factor.
That's what He screwed up our energy policy and everything went up because energy went up. But now energy is way down and, they have states where you're at $1.98 a gallon for gasoline. So the costs have way have come way down. And one of the things I ran on was that. I ran on the border.
We have the best border in the history of our country, 99.99%. It was, last week, three people came in. Two of them for medical reasons. We let them in because one of them had a heart attack. I think it was a nice thing to do, and one of them had something else.
So we've never had I had very good numbers for four years, but we we really topped it. And I wanna thank Christie and Tom Homan. They've they've done a fantastic job, but nobody mentions that anymore. Remember, a few months ago, the border was a total disaster. People were coming in by the hundreds of thousands of people a day, a week, a month.
I mean, we had a month 2,000,000 people came in in one month. The border was being overrun and a lot of bad people, criminals, murderers, drug dealers. We had some of the worst people in the world coming in from all over the world. It's totally closed. And you know what?
People are coming into our country, but they're coming in legally. So we've done a great job. Elon knew that. Elon endorsed me very strongly. He actually went up in campaign for me.
I think I would have won. Susie would say I would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway, even if the governor ran, the real governor, not the governor from Minnesota who's I mean, he's a sick puppy. That guy that poor guy feels sorry for him. But they they made a bad choice with him. But if you pick Shapiro or anybody else, I spoke to him recently about his, you know, his house being set on fire, which was terrible.
But if they picked him, I would have won Pennsylvania. I won it by a lot. But I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it.
All of a sudden, he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're gonna have to cut the EV mandate because that's billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair. We wanna have cars of all types. Electric, we wanna have electric, but we wanna have a gasoline combustion. We wanna have different. We wanna have hybrids.
We wanna have all we wanna be able to sell everything. And when that was cut, and congress wanted to cut it, he became a little bit different, and I can understand that. But he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left. And if you saw the statements he made about me, which I'm sure you can get very easily, it's very fresh on tape, he said the most beautiful things about me.
And he hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.
Speaker 1: Did that answer the president? Did he I just wanna clarify. Did he raise any of these concerns with you privately before he raised them publicly? And this is the guy you put in charge of cutting spending. Should people not take him seriously about spending now?
Are you saying this is all sour grapes?
Speaker 0: No. He worked hard, and he did a good job. And I'll be honest, think he misses the place. I think he got out there and all of a sudden he wasn't in this beautiful Oval Office and he was and he's got nice offices too. But there's something about this when I was telling the chancellor, this is where it is.
People come in here, even from Germany. They come in and they they Germany. Walk into the Oval Office and it's just a special place. It's you know, World War one, it started and it ended here. And World War two and, so many other things.
Everything big comes right from this this beautiful space. It's now much more beautiful than it was six months ago. A lot of good things are happening in this room. And I'll I'll tell you, it's not he's not the first. People leave my administration and they love us.
And then at some point, they miss it so badly. And some of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it. But I we have it with others too.
They leave and they wake up in the morning and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different and they become hostile. I don't know what it is. Someday you'll write a book about it and you'll let us know.
@thatsKAIZEN - Kaizen D. Asiedu
What a waste of time by our President. Rather than making this about Elon, he should simply make clear: 1. The conditions under which this bill will reduce the deficit. 2. How he will create those conditions. He was elected to lead, not fight with citizens.
reSee.it AI Summary
The breakup between Trump and Musk is now official, marked by Trump’s comments about their past relationship and Musk's immediate rebuttals. Trump expressed disappointment over Musk's criticism of the Big Beautiful Bill, attributing it to financial motives related to EV subsidies. Musk countered, claiming Trump’s accusations were false and asserting his significant role in Trump’s election success. The tension escalated with Trump threatening to terminate Musk's government contracts, while Musk hinted at serious allegations against Trump. This unfolding drama highlights a significant political rift.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The Trump/Musk breakup is now official. For the first time, Trump spoke out after Musk blasted the Big Beautiful Bill. But here’s the twist—Musk was watching live and firing back in real time on X. What happened next was painful to watch. Trump said, “Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.” Then Trump posted on Truth Social—and that’s when the gloves really came off. 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
📍 And make sure to bookmark this thread—because no matter how this ends, we’re watching one of the greatest political alliances fall apart in real time. Let’s break it all down and roll the clips.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
It came out of nowhere, but it hit like a category five hurricane. President Trump was hosting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz when a reporter asked a question that immediately changed the energy in the room: “What’s your reaction to Elon Musk’s criticism of the Big Beautiful Bill?” The mood shifted. Trump didn’t hesitate. It was the beginning of what sounded like a very public political divorce. “I’ve always liked Elon,” Trump said. “So I was very surprised… He hasn’t said anything about me that’s bad.” Trump had stayed quiet for a while, but now, cornered with cameras rolling, he was ready to speak. “I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill,” Trump continued, praising the legislation as “incredible” and “the biggest cut in the history of our country… about $1.6 trillion.” Then came the pivot—and the reason for the rift, according to Trump. “Elon’s upset because we took the EV mandate,” he explained. “That was a lot of money for electric vehicles.” The way Trump described it, Musk’s problem wasn’t ideological—it was financial. “They want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy. And Elon knew this from the beginning. He knew it a long time ago. That hasn’t changed.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker says he has always liked Elon Musk and is surprised by Musk's criticism regarding the bill. He would rather Musk criticize him than the bill because the bill is incredible, with $1.6 trillion in cuts, the biggest tax cut in history. The bill includes unbelievable benefits for small businesses, people, and middle-income individuals.
Musk is upset because the EV mandate, which provided a lot of money for electric vehicles, was removed. Electric vehicle companies are having a hard time and want billions of dollars in subsidies. The speaker claims Musk knew about this from the beginning, and it hasn't changed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister president. The criticism that I've seen and I'm sure you've seen regarding Elon Musk and your big beautiful bill, what's your reaction to that? Do you think it in any way hurts passage in the senate, which is, of course, what is your seeking?
Speaker 1: Well, look, you know, I've always liked Elon, and it's always very surprised. You saw the words he had for me, the words of and he hasn't said anything about me that's bad. I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill because the bill is incredible. It's the biggest cut in the history of our country. We've never cut.
It's about 1,600,000,000,000.0 in cuts. It's the biggest tax cut. Tax, you would say, people people's taxes will go way down, but it's the biggest tax cut in history. It's we have we are doing things in that bill that are unbelievable. And when you look at what we're doing for small businesses, for people, for middle income people, all of the things that we're doing, nobody's ever seen anything like it.
And, you know, Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate and you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles. And, you know, they're having a hard time with electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy. And, you know, I I Elon knew this from the beginning. He knew it for a long time ago.
Speaker 0: That's been in there. That's been,
Speaker 1: I would say, JD, that hasn't changed. That's been right from the beginning, mister I think, mister secretary. That hasn't changed at all right from the beginning. But I know that disturbed
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Musk responded to this immediately: “Whatever.” “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.” https://t.co/DNML9nbj3T
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical information. Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed. → @VigilantFox Now, back to the story you came for. https://t.co/AfEghwSCHR
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But the electric vehicle subsidies weren’t the only flashpoint. Trump pointed to another moment of quiet friction. He said Musk had personally pushed for Jared Isaacman to be nominated as NASA administrator. Trump turned him down. “He recommended somebody that he, I guess, knew very well. I’m sure he respected him,” Trump said. “But I didn’t think it was appropriate.” Why? “He happened to be a Democrat. Like, totally Democrat.” Then Trump drew the political line. “We won,” he said. “We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges is we don’t have to appoint a Democrat.” He reiterated that NASA would remain in capable hands. “General Cain is going to be picking somebody.” But the implication was clear: Musk had tried to insert his own pick into a key government role—and when he didn’t get his way, the relationship began to fracture. “He wanted that person. And we said no,” Trump said. “And I can understand why he’s upset.” Then came a striking moment of reflection. “Remember, he was here for a long time. You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval Desk.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
He recommended someone he knew and respected to run NASA, but the speaker didn't think it was appropriate because the person was a Democrat. The speaker stated, "We won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges, we don't have to appoint a democrat."
The speaker said NASA is very important and that General Cain will be picking someone, and they will be checking them out. The speaker understands why the person who made the recommendation is upset, noting "he was here for a long time" and "was very happy when he stood behind the oval desk."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He wanted and rightfully, you know, he recommended somebody from, that he, I guess, knew very well. I'm sure he respected him, but to run NASA. And I didn't think it was appropriate. And he happened to be a democrat, like, totally democrat. And I say, you know, look, we won.
We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges, we don't have to appoint a democrat. NASA is very important. We have great people. General Cain is gonna be picking somebody with our we'll be we'll be checking them out and seeing, but he wanted that person, a certain person, and we said no.
And, you know, I can understand why he's upset. Remember, he was here for a long time. You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the oval desk.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
That’s when Trump crossed a line you don’t cross unless something’s truly over, and he dropped a line that made it clear. He started using the past tense. “Look, Elon and I had a great relationship,” he said. “I don’t know if we will anymore.” It was unmistakable. The phrasing, the delivery—it sounded like someone processing a falling-out in real time. Trump recalled better days: public events, warm praise, and headlines they once created together. “I was surprised—because you were here,” he told the room. “Everybody in this room, practically, was here as we had a wonderful sendoff.” “He said wonderful things about me. You couldn’t have said nicer—said the best things.” “He’s worn the hat, ‘Trump Was Right About Everything.’” Then Trump added with a tone of wounded pride: “And I am right about the great, big beautiful bill.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon and the speaker had a great relationship, though the current status is uncertain. The speaker recalls a wonderful send-off where Elon said very nice and the "best" things. Elon wore the hat.
The speaker believes Trump was right about everything. The speaker also believes they are right about the "great big beautiful bill," which they describe as the biggest tax cuts in history and the biggest economic development moves anywhere. They claim nothing like it has ever been done before.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we're well anymore. I was surprised because you were here. Everybody in this room practically was here as we had a wonderful send off. He said wonderful things about me.
You couldn't have nicer. Said the best thing. He's worn the hat. Trump was right about everything. And I am right about the great big beautiful bill.
We call it a great big beautiful bill because that's what it is. And, again, biggest tax cuts in history, biggest economic development moves anywhere. We've never done anything like it.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
As the comments continued, the emotion started bleeding through. Trump reminded everyone just how closely tied Musk had been to his movement. “Elon endorsed me very strongly,” he said. “He actually went up and campaigned for me.” But even in that, Trump made something else crystal clear: he believed he didn’t need Musk to win. “I think I would have won,” he said. “Susie would say I would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway.” “Even if the governor ran—the real governor, not the governor from Minnesota… He’s a sick puppy, that guy.” Then he doubled down: “If they picked him, I would have won Pennsylvania. I won it by a lot.” Trump was saying that Musk’s support was appreciated—but not essential. And that made the fallout easier to frame. “I’m very disappointed,” he said. “Because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. Better than you people. He knew everything about it.” He circled back to the heart of the disagreement: the subsidies. “He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem—when he found out we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate. That’s billions and billions of dollars. And it really is unfair. We want to have cars of all types.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon endorsed the speaker and campaigned for them. The speaker believes they would have won Pennsylvania easily, even if the "real governor" or Shapiro had run.
The speaker is disappointed because Elon, who initially knew the bill's inner workings and had no problem with it, suddenly developed a problem when he learned about the EV mandate cut. This cut would save billions of dollars but is considered unfair.
The speaker wants cars of all types, including electric, gasoline, combustion, and hybrids, and wants to be able to sell everything. Elon became "different" when Congress wanted to cut the EV mandate, which the speaker understands. Elon knew every aspect of the bill better than almost anybody.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've done a great job. Elon knew that. Elon endorsed me very strongly. He actually went up and campaigned for me. I think I would have won.
Susie would say I would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway, even if the governor ran, the real governor, not the governor from Minnesota who's I mean, he's a sick puppy. That guy that poor guy feels sorry for him. But, they they made a bad choice with him. But if you pick Shapiro or anybody else, I spoke to him recently about his, you know, his house being set on fire, which was terrible. But if they picked him, would have won Pennsylvania.
I won it by a lot. But I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're gonna have to cut the EV mandate because that's billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair.
We wanna have cars of all types. Electric, we wanna have electric, but we wanna have a gasoline, combustion. We wanna have different. We wanna have hybrids. We wanna have all we wanna be able to sell everything.
And when that was cut, and congress wanted to cut it, he became a little bit different, and I can understand that. But he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But Musk was ready and waiting. He weighed in on the president’s claim about Pennsylvania, and he took it one step further. Musk said: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.” He added: “Such ingratitude”
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
And then Musk called out Trump’s claim that he knew the inner workings of the Big Beautiful Bill. “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!” https://t.co/G1HQKpoIbo
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Back in the Oval Office, the mood darkened again as Trump made a quiet prediction. “He hasn’t said bad about me personally,” he said. “But I’m sure that’ll be next.” There was no mistaking it now. This was a full-blown breakup. “I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump said, his voice tightening. A reporter jumped in, asking the obvious: Had Musk brought any of these concerns to him in private before blasting them in public? Trump didn’t dodge. “No,” he said flatly. “He worked hard and he did a good job.” Then came a flash of emotional insight—a glimpse into how Trump sees these departures. “I think he misses the place,” he said. “ He got out there, and all of a sudden he wasn’t in this beautiful Oval Office.” “And he was,” Trump added. “And he’s got nice offices too. But there’s something about this one.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 expresses disappointment in Elon, stating, "I've helped Elon a lot."
Speaker 1 asks if Elon raised concerns privately before making them public and questions whether Elon should be taken seriously about spending cuts, given his role in that area.
Speaker 0 responds that Elon worked hard and did a good job, suggesting Elon misses his former position, noting the unique appeal of the Oval Office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.
Speaker 1: Did he I just wanna clarify. Did he raise any of these concerns with you privately before he raised them publicly? And this is the guy you put in charge of cutting spending. Should people not take him seriously about spending now? Are you saying this is all sour grapes?
Speaker 0: No. He worked hard and he did a good job. And I'll be honest, think he misses the place. I think he got out there and all of a sudden he wasn't in this beautiful Oval Office and he was and he's got nice offices too, but there's something about this
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
As the dust settled, Trump zoomed out. And what he said next felt like the conclusion to a pattern. “He’s not the first,” he said. “People leave my administration and they love us. And then at some point, they miss it so badly.” “Some of them embrace it. And some of them actually become hostile. I don’t know what it is.” Then, with a knowing smirk: “It’s sort of Trump Derangement Syndrome, I guess they call it.” It wasn’t just Musk anymore. Trump was describing a cycle—an emotional shift he believes happens to those who leave his orbit. “They leave and they wake up in the morning—and the glamor is gone. The whole world is different. And they become hostile. I don’t know what it is.” And then, he ended with: “Someday you’ll write a book about it and you’ll let us know.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
People leave my administration, and some miss it so badly that they either embrace it or become hostile. It's "Trump derangement syndrome," or they wake up and the glamour is gone, and the whole world is different, so they become hostile.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He's not the first. People leave my administration and they love us. And then at some point, they miss it so badly. And some of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is.
It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it. But I we have it with others too. They leave and they wake up in the morning and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different and they become hostile. I don't know what it is.
Someday you'll write a book about it and you'll let us know. Yeah.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
But after the Oval Office meeting was finished, the real fireworks started. President Trump took to Truth social and launched an all-out assault on Musk: “Elon was “wearing thin,” I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!”
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Trump followed up with: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!” https://t.co/RiAIVhss0R
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
That’s when Elon Musk blew up the internet with this response: “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That’s the real reason they haven’t been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” https://t.co/Kmrvc9RUKh
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@realDonaldTrump Elon added, “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” https://t.co/fxAz5x4dl9
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
SUMMARY 1.) Trump confirmed the breakup and used the past tense to describe their relationship. • He said, “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore,” signaling a clear end to their alliance. 2.) Trump accused Musk of being upset over losing billions in EV subsidies. • He claimed Musk’s criticism of the Big Beautiful Bill was financially motivated—not ideological. 3.) Musk immediately fired back on X and called Trump’s claims false. • He said he was never shown the bill, called Trump ungrateful, and defended the EV/solar incentives while blasting the “disgusting pork.” 4.) Trump revealed Musk tried to get Democrat Jared Isaacman nominated to lead NASA. 5.) Trump added he didn’t need Musk to win and would’ve taken Pennsylvania without him. • In response, Musk claimed that without his backing, Trump would have lost the election, and Democrats would control Congress. 6.) Trump took off the gloves and posted on Truth Social: • He said, “Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” 7.) That’s when Elon blew everything up. • He responded, “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That’s the real reason they haven’t been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!”
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@realDonaldTrump This story is still unfolding. I’m tracking every update in real time. Bookmark this post and come back to it later. Also, share it with a friend who needs a quick catch-up. There’s no reversing what’s been said. Stay tuned—this story is just beginning. https://t.co/Rc4FkLlrmY
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
The Trump/Musk breakup is now official. For the first time, Trump spoke out after Musk blasted the Big Beautiful Bill. But here’s the twist—Musk was watching live and firing back in real time on X. What happened next was painful to watch. Trump said, “Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.” Then Trump posted on Truth Social—and that’s when the gloves really came off. 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
UPDATE #1: At 4:09 PM Eastern, Elon Musk writes: “In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” This announcement followed President Trump’s earlier threat to terminate federal subsidies and contracts with Musk’s companies, including SpaceX and Tesla.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
UPDATE #2: Elon quote-tweets a post linking Trump to Jeffrey Epstein with a raised eyebrow emoji. The post claims Trump flew on Epstein’s plane at least 7 times, though there’s no proof he visited the island. It also highlights a 2002 New York Magazine quote where Trump described Epstein as “a terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women… on the younger side.” (See image for full quote)
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
UPDATE #3: Trump responds to Elon publicly attacking him, saying: “I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It’s a Record Cut in Expenses—$1.6 Trillion Dollars—and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given. If this Bill doesn’t pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that. I didn’t create this mess—I’m just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@realDonaldTrump @SpaceX UPDATE #4: At 4:43 PM Eastern, Elon Musk drops another raised eyebrow emoji—this time on a post by @chesschick01 that reads: “In 1992 Trump partied with Jeffrey Epstein. Just gonna leave this here:” https://t.co/q0Kac0xjts https://t.co/cAXjfl5kHr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Footage from a 1992 Mar-a-Lago party shows Trump interacting with Jeffrey Epstein. The party, filmed before Mar-a-Lago became a club, featured cheerleaders and captured Trump's bachelor lifestyle for Faith Daniels' NBC talk show.
The video shows Trump surrounded by women, then greeting Epstein and two others. Trump is seen talking to Epstein while women dance nearby. Trump alternates between dancing and pointing out women to Epstein, also mentioning the cameras. Trump gestures to one woman, saying to Epstein, "look at her back there. She's hot." He then whispers something that makes Epstein laugh.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Of a Mar A Lago party shows Trump giving Epstein his personal attention. The footage shot in November of nineteen ninety two before Trump opened the resort as a club shows the future president surrounded by cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphins, capturing Trump's fun loving bachelor lifestyle for an appearance on Faith Daniels' NBC talk show. We're gonna get great ratings in your show. Trump is surrounded by women as music blares in the background. After a while, Trump goes to greet three new guests.
Among them, the financier Jeffrey Epstein. Come on in. Come inside. More than a decade before his guilty plea on state prostitution charges. Later in the footage, Trump is seen talking to Epstein and another man as women are dancing in front of them.
Trump alternates between dancing and pointing out women to Epstein and the other man and telling Epstein about the cameras. Though exactly what they say is difficult to understand as they discuss the women and their appearances, Trump gestures to one and appears to say to Epstein, look at her back there. She's hot. And then Trump says something else into Epstein's ear that makes him double over with laughter. But as the president
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@realDonaldTrump @SpaceX @Chesschick01 UPDATE #5: Elon Musk replies “Yes” to a post by @stillgray that reads: “President vs Elon. Who wins? My money’s on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him.” https://t.co/YGyBsiGoSo
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
🤨
@RepSwalwell - Rep. Eric Swalwell
Donald, without @elonmusk, you wouldn't be President now. You'd be a Prisoner. https://t.co/Fw6RIHpjPB
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Elon Musk has revealed a plan to replace Trump through impeachment with JD Vance, who is backed by the Silicon Valley PayPal Mafia. They convinced Trump to choose Vance as VP, which explains the tech CEOs' presence at Trump's Inauguration. It seems Zuck and others were called to support Trump to realize their vision of an AI-controlled government. JD Vance is seen as the key to installing this AI Technocracy, with Palantir playing a significant role. Ultimately, they seem to prefer Vance as President over Trump. This situation has been quite revealing.
@TPV_John - The Patriot Voice
Ah yes, Elon Musk ADMITS what the plan was all along… An attempt to REPLACE Trump by impeachment with their Technocrat wonder boy, JD Vance. JD was the pick of the Silicon Valley PayPal Mafia led by Peter Thiel, David Sacks, Marc Andresssen, and Elon himself. They all CONVINCED Trump to pick JD Vance as VP. That is why there was such a heavy presence of tech CEOs at Trump’s Inauguration. What? You think Zuck flipped just because Trump was shot at? Zuck got the “call” just like the rest of them, to support Trump to make their AI controlled government vision, a reality. JD is THEIR GUY to install the AI Technocracy into government though advising Trump, and he fully understands the objective. That’s also why Palantir has played such a prominent role. Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are besties. JD is who they REALLY want as President, NOT TRUMP. They see Trump as a stepping stone to make that “Dark Enlightenment” nightmare a REALITY. Man, this “fight” has been quite REVEALING.
@Acyn - Acyn
Reporter: Are you going to deport Elon Musk? Trump: We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies. https://t.co/6I0OAIv7Js
Video Transcript AI Summary
We got a lot of hostages back, but we're gonna talk about you. I've been watching. We might have to put Doze on Elon.
Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Elon's very upset that the EV mandate is gonna be terminated. Not everybody wants an electric car.
I wanna have maybe gasoline, maybe electric, maybe someday a hydrogen. If you have a hydrogen car, it has one problem: it blows up. I'm gonna let Peter test it off.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The rest. We got a lot of hostages back, but we're gonna talk about y'all. Okay. By how are you on roster instead of the fourth one? Don't know.
I've been watching. Take a look. We might have to put Doze on Elon. You know? You know what Doge is?
Doge is the monster that have that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies, Peter. But Elon's very upset that the EV mandate is gonna be terminated. And you know what?
When you look at it, the who wants not everybody wants an electric car. I don't want an electric car. I wanna have maybe gasoline, maybe electric, maybe someday a hydrogen. If you have a hydrogen car, it has one problem. It blows up.
You know? So I'm gonna give that one to Peter. Gonna let Peter test it off.
reSee.it AI Summary
A user expressed concern that someone close to the President should inform him that Elon Musk is more upset about the federal debt increase of $5 trillion than the electric vehicle mandate. Musk agreed, questioning the purpose of DOGE if the debt is rising. Another participant criticized Musk for supporting Trump, claiming he was used for political distraction and that Trump had no real interest in reducing the debt. Musk responded with disappointment, acknowledging the criticism.
@heydave7 - Dave Lee
Someone close to the President ought to tell him the truth. Elon isn’t mad about the EV mandate. He’s upset about $5 trillion being added to the federal debt in next 2 years. Of all the people close to him, I would expect VP Vance to understand this. He should make sure the President has his facts straight.
@SawyerMerritt - Sawyer Merritt
Trump has just posted about Elon Musk on Truth Social: https://t.co/EZ7hUNSwHr
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
@heydave7 💯
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
@heydave7 What the heck was the point of @DOGE if he’s just going to increase the debt by $5 trillion??
@alex_avoigt - Alex
Many told you that Trump will use you for his benefit and drop you right after but you didn't want to hear it. DOGE has been nothing else than an intended public distraction and you helped him very much to implement it successfully. Trump had never the slightest interest to reduce the US debt or reduce its increase but to eliminate political opponents and create the impression he is doing something while he worked on what matters to him which is the bill. I wish you would have listened to all the voices that tried to open your eyes but you've been blindely following him and achieved the opposite of what you stand for.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
@alex_avoigt @heydave7 @DOGE 😞