reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker begins by expressing their initial lack of bias against electric cars but then reveals some shocking discoveries. They mention that the environmental benefit of electric cars is a lie, as the French environmental agency ADEME states that it takes five years for an electric car to have the same carbon footprint as a traditional car due to the production of batteries. The speaker also highlights the exorbitant cost of electric cars, stating that they are 45-50% more expensive than traditional cars, taking 10-20 years to recoup the savings from not buying fuel. Lastly, the speaker criticizes the European market for giving the Chinese automotive industry a significant advantage, with Chinese cars being 20% cheaper and equally reliable. They conclude by stating that 80% of batteries worldwide are sold by the Chinese.

The speaker states that Allstate adjusters testified under oath that Allstate directed them to change factual findings, delete material, and alter reports to make them factually incorrect, to drive down awards and increase profits. Allstate's representative disagreed with this statement. The speaker notes Allstate's $64 billion in revenue for fiscal year '24, a 12% increase from the previous year, and $4.6 billion in profits. The speaker contrasts this with an unpaid claim and the $26 million salary of Allstate's CEO, Tom Wilson, questioning why the claimant is not a priority. The speaker claims Allstate sent three adjusters, two of whom testified that the company ordered them to alter their reports against their will and render them factually inaccurate. Allstate's representative disagreed with the adjusters' statements, implying they were lying.

A regular Ford car costs $175,000, while in London, people are buying it for $10,000 every day, all day long. The FDA will do everything to support the executive order. It's transformative.

Thousands of auto dealers are urging President Biden to reconsider the government's electric vehicle (EV) mandate. These dealerships represent various brands and are speaking on behalf of consumers. The problem is that manufacturers are being forced to produce EVs, but consumers are not buying them. Dealerships are now facing a backlog of EV inventory, with up to 12 months' worth of supply. Consumers are hesitant due to concerns about infrastructure and range anxiety. The Biden administration's mandate has put pressure on manufacturers to invest in EV production, but without sufficient consumer demand. Dealerships want the market and infrastructure to evolve naturally, rather than being forced. They are not against EVs and actually make good profits from EV service. The goal is to find a balance between EVs, gas vehicles, and hybrids.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna uses its profits to help people injured by their vaccine. Speaker 1 responds that indemnities are a government policy matter and cannot comment. Speaker 0 clarifies if Moderna is unwilling to take responsibility for the safety of their vaccine. Speaker 1 emphasizes their commitment to vaccine safety but reiterates that indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 questions the moral obligation of Moderna to assist vaccine victims, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero and thanking them.

The speaker believes tariffs should be placed on goods the U.S. makes, not on goods it doesn't, and sees them as a bargaining chip. They claim that Europe and Japan have 100% tariffs on American cars, preventing Ford and GM sales. The speaker suggests the U.S. should reciprocate to force negotiation and lower tariffs, allowing American companies to compete. While broad statements are necessary when running for office, tariffs are an amazing tool to protect the American worker. The speaker believes tariffs will either generate revenue or drive up domestic productivity, ideally both. The speaker references the Marshall Plan, where the U.S. allowed Germany and Japan to tariff American goods to rebuild their economies after World War II. They question why this arrangement persists decades later, with Europe and Japan still heavily tariffing U.S. industries like auto and furniture. The speaker attributes foreign-made furniture purchases to this tariff imbalance.

Speaker 0 argues that 100-year-old automotive technology is continually refined and that exhaust from modern cars is cleaner than the air entering the intake in many cities, due to catalytic converters, NOx converters (notably in diesels), computer-controlled fuel injection, and stop-start systems. He claims that there is no justification for restricting petrol cars and contrasts this with restrictions on electric vehicles (EVs). He contends that the EV push is not about encouraging people to switch to EVs for environmental reasons but about driving people out of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. The EV zero-emission vehicle mandate, he says, forces automotive manufacturers to sell an ever-increasing proportion of EVs each year, and he asserts this will destroy, bankrupt, and reduce mass-manufacturing conglomerates such as Volkswagen, Audi Group, Ford, and others. He cites an example with Volkswagen and Audi: they are not allowed to sell the desired mix of petrol and diesel vehicles because they will be fined £15,000 per car if they fail to sell 28% as EVs. He claims they are already restricting petrol and diesel sales, and notes that this pressure is already in place for 2025. He argues that European carmakers cannot sell many EVs because European cars are more expensive than cheaper Chinese imports. He shifts to a broader geopolitical economic view, stating this is not a mere consumer issue but a plan arranged by global financiers, describing it as a one-two punch: you cannot sell petrol and diesel because of mandates, and your cars are uncompetitive with cheaper Chinese imports. He notes there are 180 Chinese EV makers, with only one or two currently profitable; trade press reports suggest that by the end of the decade, seven to nine of them will be profitable while the rest will have failed. From this, he infers that someone is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to manufacture cars at a loss so they can be delivered to Europe at a loss in order to destroy Europe’s mass-manufacturing capability. He concludes that as a result, there will simply not be enough cars to go around, and ultimately, the mandates will be moot because there will be none available.

The speaker checked the stock app on their iPhone and saw that Tesla stock was down $2.25. The speaker joked that Tesla owners could remove the Tesla logo from their cars with dental floss.

Joe Biden's mandates for electric cars are causing problems in the US auto industry. The Green New Deal is driving up car prices and hurting American auto production. Despite spending billions of taxpayer dollars on electric car subsidies, prices are still skyrocketing. Biden's policies are projected to cost automakers billions of dollars and result in the loss of thousands of auto manufacturing jobs. Trump claims that he saved the auto industry once and will do it again, urging voters in key states to defeat Biden and reelect him.

The President has initiated a complete restructuring of the international trading system with a fair and reciprocal plan. For too long other countries have damaged our defense industrial base and threatened our national security. Take Europe, for example. The US runs a $230 billion trade deficit with them, especially in the auto industry. A Cadillac faces tariffs and VAT taxes that significantly increase its price in Germany, while a BMW coming to the US gets rebates, allowing it to be sold much cheaper. This disparity explains why Germany sells us eight times more cars than we sell them. To address this, we're going to identify how countries are unfairly exploiting us through tariffs and non-monetary barriers. Then we will determine reciprocal tariffs to counteract this unfairness, ensuring fair treatment for America. This isn't a political issue, it's an American issue. We want jobs, factories, and a strong defense industrial base here at home so we can be safe, secure, and prosperous.

Tesla's fundamental value is to accelerate sustainable energy and autonomy. Without electrification and autonomy, a new car company cannot succeed. Car companies make money selling parts for existing cars, not new car sales. After the warranty expires, companies profit from high-margin replacement parts. This creates a barrier to entry for new car companies without an existing fleet. To succeed, a new car company must charge more for its cars than competitors. The product must be compelling enough to justify the premium. Winning on both autonomy and electrification is essential to make the product worth the higher price.

Speaker 0 vents intense anger about the Israel-Gaza crisis and U.S. involvement. He says: we pivoted to the IDF and after two years of war, with brothers and sisters killed and hostages liberated, “for these sick fucks” to turn it into Disneyland and give it to the Palestinians is unacceptable; he cannot pay for it. He notes Qatar and Turkey’s involvement, and a comment by BB that if Qatar can’t come, they’ll bring them; then “Qatar’s on the board of peace,” which enrages him. He proclaims, “We have nuclear missiles,” and threatens North Korea, claiming he will show them a “Jewish North Korea.” He declares “Gaza is biblically ours” and says the new board of peace has pushed him over the edge; he does not want to come back, and wants “full deportation” of Palestinians. He argues for shutting borders for us and our friends only, envisioning Gaza becoming a banking and tax haven, free of wars. He expresses confusion over the Iran situation and asserts that their weaponry is so advanced they can “melt their flesh with our lasers,” yet laments giving Gaza to their enemies and asks, “What the actual fuck?” He ends by saying, “So I’d like to get” before the transcript cuts off. Speaker 1 adds, “to pay for it,” and then, “you forgot about the part where we pay the price tag because nobody else wants to fucking pay for it.”

In a Toyota '20 25, the screen navigation requires a subscription; "you can't use navigation unless you pay a subscription fee for it." You can't hook your phone up to use free navigation. The speaker notes subscription fees: "it's $15 a month" and "it's also $15 a month to stream music to the actual screen in your car." Together it's "$25 a month." They mention a forum claim: "it's $8 a month to be able to see your oil level and your tire pressure." They also say "The car is, like, $40" to use the car and the key fob. "Remote start" requires a subscription: "you have to literally pay a subscription fee to get remote start." The vehicle is capable of all these things, and "What the fuck reality is to use them."

Speaker 0 describes how, in a car they examined, navigation requires a paid subscription, noting it as "insane" that you can’t hook your phone up for free navigation. The subscription fees cited are $15 a month for navigation and $15 a month to stream music to the car’s screen, totaling $25 a month for those services. They also mention an $8 a month fee to view oil level and tire pressure, and that the vehicle is priced around $40 (unclear context, but presented as part of the overall cost discussion). Remote start is another feature that requires a subscription. The overall implication is that the vehicle, though capable of many features, pushes paid subscriptions for essential functionalities. Speaker 1 adds that the car had cameras not just for safety but for monitoring the driver, stating the car watches you drive to ensure compliance. If the driver touches their phone, the car would decelerate, and the system can track surrounding cars and objects, causing the car to automatically decelerate in response. The speaker notes that they connected a Bluetooth device, but it kept disconnecting every time they got in the car, and the assistant stated this happens because of the subscription model. They remark on the Toyota product they tested, noting the vehicle is “about over 70 k” for a brand-new model, implying a misalignment between the vehicle’s cost and the subscription-heavy features. They question trading in their current car, which has tangible, pressable buttons and sensory feedback, for a car that feels like it’s constantly watched and supervised. The speakers converge on concerns that many cars are claimed to be non-autonomous while being described as autonomous in practice, suggesting a paradox in the industry. The overall impression is that paid subscriptions govern core capabilities (navigation, music streaming, remote start) and ongoing monitoring features (driver surveillance and feature control), affecting the value proposition of high-cost vehicles.

Speaker 0 asks if Moderna puts any of its profits into helping people injured by the vaccine. Speaker 1 states that indemnities are a matter for the government and cannot comment further. Speaker 0 questions if Moderna is unwilling to underwrite the risk of its own vaccine and prioritize its safety. Speaker 1 reiterates that they take vaccine safety seriously and have a good pharmacovigilance process in place, but indemnities are a matter for policymakers. Speaker 0 asks about the moral responsibility of helping vaccine victims, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 assuming the answer is zero.

Speaker: The message points out that Advance Auto Parts is closing 700 stores and that they are “forcing you into, you know, these new AI kill switch vehicles by 2027.” It then asserts who actually owns the chessboard: who owns AutoZone, O'Reilly Parts, and Advance Auto Parts. Claim: The number one and number two shareholders of AutoZone are Vanguard and BlackRock. The same is stated for O'Reilly Parts. For Advance Auto Parts, the companies that are shutting down hundreds of stores are said to be owned by Vanguard and BlackRock. Speaker: The argument continues that Vanguard and BlackRock “own the aftermarket parts industry” and that this industry is currently being systematically dismantled. The speaker then asks to consider auto manufacturers, taking Ford as an example, and asserts Vanguard and BlackRock own Ford as well, implying they own the auto building automakers’ buildings that surveil the vehicles they are forcing consumers into. Speaker: The claim is that Vanguard and BlackRock profit from the destruction of the old market and from the construction of the new one. They are described as managing over $20,000,000,000,000 combined, and as the top shareholders in, out of 505 companies and the SDMP, owning all of them. The speaker states that the number one shareholder of BlackRock is Vanguard, describing this as a closed loop. Speaker: The speaker says this isn’t a conspiracy but literally a business model: you buy the cage, and they own the patent, so stop calling this progress. The implication is that Vanguard and BlackRock control both the supply chain for parts and the vehicle technologies and systems being deployed, enabling a cycle of destruction of the old market and creation of the new one.

The White House views Elon Musk as a car assembler, not a manufacturer, because key components like batteries, electronics, and tires are sourced from Japan, China, and Taiwan. The administration aims to have these parts manufactured domestically in places like Akron, Indianapolis, Flint, and Saginaw. The current business model, where companies like BMW and Mercedes assemble foreign-made engines and transmissions in the U.S., is considered detrimental to American economics and national security. The goal is to have complete car manufacturing, including parts production, based in the United States. While acknowledging Musk's desire to use foreign parts, the administration wants him to bring manufacturing "home" for national and economic security reasons.

The speaker analyzes Tesla's situation by focusing on valuation and future cash flows rather than hype. They note Tesla has a market cap of about a trillion and is selling at around 15 times revenues, with autos and auto-related services making up 87% of sales. They argue that even if Tesla is not exclusively an auto company, valuing it on its parts yields a rough figure of about $50 per share at best, or less. A central claim is that Elon Musk stated their current system for robotaxis, self-driving cars, and related robotics “doesn't work,” which undermines a large portion of the bull case built on those future businesses. The speaker cites a recording with Gordon Johnson to discuss Tesla’s components, suggesting a generous valuation would still place the stock around $50, far below current levels. The speaker asserts this creates significant legal liability risks, implying potential refunds or litigation from customers or regulators, and mentions Tesla’s per-share earnings estimates: Gordon Johnson around $1 per share; Street consensus around $1.80, with a possibility of a loss. With 3,700,000,000 shares outstanding, they estimate a potential market-cap impact of roughly $4 to $6 billion in earnings, contrasted with last year’s $6 billion in depreciation and amortization. They project substantial capital expenditures of $25 billion, leading to cash flow negativity and the likely need to issue equity. They forecast auto sales to decline for the third consecutive year and label Tesla’s valuation at 15 times revenues as “complete insanity,” noting they will not delve into price-earnings ratios further. They challenge the defense that the company’s value lies in robotaxis and other ventures, arguing the market has already punished the stock despite hype. For comparison, the speaker contrasts Tesla with Waymo, claiming Waymo has 10 million miles and is valued at $100 billion, suggesting that even with a modest auto value (roughly $20 if generous, or $30 when including the robot/AI angle), the combined case still falls short: Waymo’s valuation implies Tesla would be far from reaching even $30 per share. They summarize the current price at $3.80 and conclude the stock is effectively priced for failure, implying a forthcoming crash. The speaker dismisses opposing views as irrelevant to the core facts presented and ends by asserting that Tesla investors will eventually realize the returns they deserve, closing with a nod to a famous quote about opinions versus facts.

In 2009, the government destroyed the used car market through the program known as cash for clunkers, which offered drivers up to $4,500 to trade in older vehicles for new, more fuel-efficient ones. It was sold as good for the economy and good for the environment. The program led to a dramatic increase in showroom traffic at local car dealers. What it actually did was carry out a government-mandated destruction of some of the most reliable, easy-to-repair vehicles Americans still had on the road. If a car qualified, the dealership couldn't resell it. The engine had to be intentionally destroyed, so mechanics were made to fill their engines with sodium silicate, liquid glass, and run them until they seized for good. Nearly 700,000 vehicles were wiped out, and a lot of them weren't junk. They were older cars and trucks that could last for decades, be fixed in a driveway, and kept running without software, screens, sensors, or thousand-dollar repair bills. Then they were replaced by newer vehicles that cost more, brake more easily, and push ordinary people back to the dealer for repair bills. Cash for Clunkers was sold as progress, but to a lot of Americans, it looked more like the deliberate destruction of cheap, dependable transportation. The cars they killed were simple, durable, and paid off, which may be exactly why they had to go.

- In March 2026, the EPA issued an emergency waiver allowing E15 gasoline (15% corn ethanol) to be sold nationwide year-round; Congress is attempting to make that permanent. - E15 is illegal to put in cars built before 2001 because ethanol is a powerful solvent that eats rubber fuel lines, corrodes steel gas tanks from the inside, and attacks water, causing engine choking. - Mechanics note that the alcohol scrubs years of varnish off the tank, clogs filters, and causes vapor lock. - Automakers warn that using E15 could cost drivers up to $4,000 in per-vehicle repairs. - The corn ethanol lobby allegedly spent $187,000,000 buying influence in Washington and has received over $20,000,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies to promote ethanol, which the speaker claims waters down gasoline and increases production costs. - The speaker asserts this is a pipeline and mandate fuel that slowly destroys older independent vehicles, making repairs expensive and forcing consumers to buy new cars, which allegedly come with AI mandatory kill switches.

Auto workers are being taken advantage of by Joe Biden and their leadership for pushing electric vehicles. Electric cars are not popular. A new economic plan will create jobs and benefit the nation. Inflation is due to energy prices rising significantly.

The White House understands Elon Musk is primarily a car assembler, not a manufacturer. Many parts for his Texas plant, like batteries, electronics, and tires, come from overseas. The administration wants these components made in America, specifically tires in Akron, transmissions in Indianapolis, and engines in Flint and Saginaw. The speaker contrasts Musk's current business model with foreign manufacturers assembling vehicles in the US using imported parts, which they believe is detrimental to American economics and national security. The goal is to have complete car manufacturing, including parts production, based in the United States. While acknowledging Musk's desire for foreign parts, the speaker emphasizes the importance of bringing manufacturing "home" for national and economic security.

Multiple adjusters testified under oath that Allstate directed them to change factual findings, delete material, and alter reports to make them factually incorrect in order to drive down awards and increase profits. Allstate's revenue for fiscal year '24 was $64 billion, a 12% increase from the previous year, with $4.6 billion in profits. The CEO, Tom Wilson, was paid $26 million last year. The speaker contrasts this with a claimant, Ms. Miguel, who has not had her claim paid out. The speaker alleges Allstate sent three adjusters, two of whom testified that the company ordered them to alter their reports against their will and render them factually inaccurate. Allstate's representative disagreed with the adjusters' statements and denied that this is their process, implying the adjusters were lying.

Speaker rents a car for repairs and asserts, 'These new cars are cell phone towers. That's what that is right there. See that?' and, 'you can't turn them off.' They suggest buying an old car to avoid being blasted with radio frequencies the entire time checked out, like a cell phone tower while you're driving around. 'So when they ask where all the chat GPT information is coming from, guess what? Here you go.' They mention 'GSR speed assist app.' 'This tracks your speed so that Google gets your information the entire time,' and claim, 'Google knows and they can get send you a ticket.' Finally, 'In the newer cars, you're not allowed to turn this LTE off. You can turn off Bluetooth and Wi Fi, but you can't turn off your car being a cell phone.'

The speaker claims that foreign countries intend to sell cars into the United States and destroy the auto industries in Michigan, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. The speaker states this will not happen because they will impose a 100% tariff on every car coming across the Mexican border. The speaker says the only way to eliminate the tariff is to build a plant in the United States operated by American citizens. The speaker specifies they want plants built in the United States, not just across the border.