Happy Scribe

Hello, friends, welcome to the show. This episode, the podcast is brought to you by shady raise, shady raised sells high quality shades for far less than expensive brands, and they got the best warranty in the sunglass industry, replacements if lost or broken and lifetime craftsmanship warranty. Plus, they give 10 meals to fight hunger in America with every order. The people who make Qadi raise never understood why sunglasses are so expensive, so they set out to change it.


Qadi raises an independent sunglass company so they do things their way, something that is very rare in the industry. Qadi raise our premium polarised shades at a fraction of the price. The big name brands. You don't need to overpay for sunglasses that don't hold up in the outdoors and are just going to get roughed up anyways. And the craziest thing about Shady raises the warranty. It's one of the strongest warranties in all of eyewear. Shady res replaces anything.


If the shades are lost or broken for any reason, it doesn't matter what happens. You drop it in the ocean, drop it in a lake, anything, they'll replace them. Try that with your high priced shades and see if they'll help you. And even with that strong of a warranty, they still managed to make quality. But I can tell you, holding my hand, they're excellent sunglasses. They have great polarized lenses that look perfectly clear.


And most shady rates are just forty eight bucks. Shady Rays also provides 10 meals to fight hunger in America with every order placed and have donated over ten million meals to date, they stand behind their product. They told our team that if anyone has a problem, they throw profit out the window and do what it takes to get it right. It's just a great company. Free returns and exchanges. You either love the shades or shady raise will pay to ship them back.


That's it. Summers on the way. There's no better time to try shady raise risk free exclusively for our listeners. They gave us the best deal they have to offer. Use the code Rogan for fifty percent off fifty five zero fifty percent off two or more pairs at shady res dotcom. Buy one, get one free. You can get two pairs for forty eight bucks. That's a sweet deal. Redeem only at shady res dotcom where you can find all of their newest and best shades.


We're also brought to you by Blue Apron. Blue Apron is an excellent company that sends you in a cooler, perfectly portioned ingredients and step by step photographic instructions for delicious meals.


It's really easy to follow and they have fantastic meals. And all through the month of June, Blue Apron is repeating all the recipes that customers asked to bring back the ones they rate the highest and the ones they say they'd cook every week. So if you're looking to try a meal kit service, this is the perfect time to see why people love blue apron. Home cooking matters now more than ever, right? A lot of people are locked up in their houses.


Can't get out. Well, with blue apron, you can have peace of mind by getting fresh quality ingredients delivered straight to your door so you can cook delicious, easy meals in the comfort of your home. Blue apron takes out all the guesswork from dinner, and we mean more than just deciding what to eat. You can know your ingredients are being prepared and packaged with the highest attention to quality and safety and with their commitment to transparency and reducing waste.


Blue Apron has your back in more ways than one. They make delicious meals. Ladies and gentlemen, let me read you some of them because they're fantastic. How about this one? Fettuccini pasta and mushrooms with spiced tomato sauce, meatballs. And I don't even know what harissa tomato sauce is, but damn it looks good. H.E.R risc a tomato sauce, OK with green beans and orzo pasta. Who looks good.


Sheet pan pesto salmon. That salmon for you. Peasants' with a roasted vegetable medley. Roasted cauliflower salad with kaper, brown butter and parmesan breadcrumbs. It's interesting stuff, folks. These are not boring meals. They're really fantastic and delicious.


And you can cook them in under 40 minutes or less. Prices start as low as seven dollars and 49 cents per serving. And if you're busy, blue apron is flexible. You can schedule, skip or cancel orders when you want. And if you're traveling, you can send your box to your destination or to a friend by updating your delivery address any time. It's an awesome company and over 85 percent of blue apron's packaging is recyclable and 41 percent of their packing materials are made from recycled content.


They're also the first meal kit company to transition to drain safe, fully recyclable icepacks. Feel good about your choices and create delicious meals at home with blue apron. Don't sacrifice flavor. Don't settle for boring meals with blue apron. You can enjoy top rated recipes all month long. Check out this week's menu and get thirty dollars off across your first two deliveries when you visit Blue Apron Dotcom Rogan that's blue apron dotcom Rogan Blue Apron Feed Your Soul were also brought to you by Liquid Ivy.


I'm a giant fan of this company and I use their products every day. Whenever I exercise, I take a giant liter of water on one side. Giant, it's a leader, but I take a I drink a lot of water folks. I'm a man. I drink this liter of water with liquid ivy in it and it really makes a big difference. It makes a big difference in terms of getting me hydrated, because with one thing of liquid I've in water, it will hydrate you two to three times as fast.


One stick of liquid I.V. and 16 ounces of water hydrates you faster and more efficiently than water alone. Each serving provides you as much hydration as two to three bottles of water. Plus you get vitamin C, B three, B five, B six and B twelve. And if you're dehydrated, try liquid IV. It is the fastest, most efficient way to stay hydrated. I'm a giant fan of this company, like I said, and I've been using their products for a long time and it's made a big difference in cramping and just how I feel after workouts.


Proper hydration is crucial for your immune system. Also more vitamin C than an orange, as much potassium as a banana. It's got great stuff and and they're a great company. Liquid Ivy is actually donating two point three million servings in response to covid-19. Products are being donated to hospitals, first responders, food banks, veterans and active military to keep people healthy. And dehydration is a giant factor in your health, folks. Dehydration occurs daily in three out of four people, believe it or not, that's a crazy statistic.


It leads to headaches, dizziness, brain fog, muscle fatigue, muscle cramps, dry skin and more to stay hydrated. With water alone, you'd have to drink eight full eight ounce glasses of water a day. Well, thankfully, there's liquid IV, the fastest, most efficient way to stay hydrated, healthier than sugary sports drinks, no artificial flavors or preservatives and less sugar than an apple made with clean ingredients, non GMO vegan and free of gluten, dairy and soy.


And the reason why liquid ivy is so effective is their cellular transport technologies, the optimal ratio of glucose, sodium and potassium that delivers water and nutrients into the bloodstream. It's awesome stuff. And Liquid IV is available nationwide at Target, Whole Foods and Costco. Or you can get twenty five percent off when you go to liquid IV dotcom and use the code Jaara at checkout. That's twenty five percent off anything. When you order and use the promo code j e at Liquid IV Dotcom get better hydration today with liquid IV dotcom and use the promo code JRA.


Or you can find a nationwide at Target, Whole Foods or Costco. We're also brought to you by Blue Moon Beer. This is an easy one for me folks. I order Blue Moon all the time back in the golden days when you can go to a bar and order a beer, I would always order Blue Moon.


It's a delicious beer and it's a distinctive beer. It's a full flavored beer with refreshing notes.


Unlike any other beer. Valencia Orange peel for subtle sweetness. Coriander provides balance oats provide a smooth, creamy finish.


Best served in a glass with a signature orange garnished to showcase its beautiful, hazy color. It's a delicious beer, folks. It's one of my all time favorites and you don't have to have it just once in a blue moon. Get it? You can have it all the time and you can get it delivered.


Oh, visit Jet Blue Moon Beer Dotcom to see what your delivery. Options are in some areas, local delivery is available in one to three hours. Pretty crazy, right? They came up with a name because one satisfied taster said a beer is good, only comes around once in a blue moon and like, damn, that shit's good.


Let's stick with it next time you need a taste of the extraordinary open up a blue moon jet blue moon delivered by visiting get dot blue moon beer dotcom to see your delivery options. Blue Moon, reach for the moon, celebrate responsibly. Blue Moon Brewing Company, Golden, Colorado Ale.


My guest today has an excellent political commentary show on YouTube. He's a brilliant guy, an interesting guy, and I always enjoyed talking to him.


Please give it up for the great and powerful David Pakman girlfriend podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience Train, My Day Job podcast, my night all day coming to us live via technology from the other side of the continent.


David Pakman, ladies and gentlemen. So good to be back with you. Good to be with you, too, and I love your facial hair. As I was saying before, I say stick with it all the way. Maybe get some kind of a cult leader guru thing happening. I'm actually five days from a man, but not I want to give you what you thought about that, the man Bundes, the starter kit for a cult leader. Right?


The Manber is like, I'm trying to get people to listen to me more and take me more seriously. I'm spiritual need.


I need, like, a gimmick of some kind. I think your gimmick is just being a nice guy and smart.


How about that? Rare. Paul Nice to a fault. Oh, you're nice to a fault. I don't know, I get emails from people who are like, you don't have to kowtow to the dumb part of your audience, like you don't have to say stuff like, listen, I want to apologize in advance for using a slightly off color phrase. But people are like, you just don't you shouldn't do that. It's better for the show for you just to say the thing.


I love that you listen to those people. I think you should be yourself. And if you feel like you need to say that, I feel like you should just say that it's nothing wrong with it doesn't hurt my feelings. When you say things like that, you know, even if I understand what you're doing, it's not it's no big deal. I feel like there's too many opinions and it sucks for the people with opinions. And I think it's one of the problems with what we do and one of the reasons why people get so angry at us.


So if you and I are having a conversation and we maybe perhaps we agree on something, but someone listening is like, fuck that, this is what's wrong with that idea. And they want to say it, but they can't. And so the comments are almost inherently angry because it's really so much of it is just people who want to say something, but there's no forum for them. They only can say it in the comments. They can't they feel like they're in on this conversation that they want to jump in on and interject.


I got an email today from someone who said, I love everything you've been doing for the last six years. But yesterday you used the word anti Voxer, and I just. That's it. That was it. When you used that word. That was the David Cochran Show.


And it's like, I you can't win with that. You can't win, you know, but it's the same thing.


It's like they're angry. Right. And this is the way to get you to listen, like, oh, you're leaving. Wait a minute. They're being completely unreasonable to imagine if there was a show that you enjoy and the guy said one thing that you disagreed with, especially something like calling someone an anti voxer and you're like, fuck this, it's over.


My relationship with you is over. That purity standard is impossible to achieve, especially when you're doing something like what you and I do where, you know, we're basically just talking with a very I mean, I'm sure you have like some bullet points and things you want to cover. But your ad libbing all the time, you're what we call free balling all the time. And that's a it's a crazy standard to try to hold to ask someone to not say anything that you're going to disagree with or I say things I disagree with.


You know, I'll listen to it a half hour later. I'll think about it a day later. I'm like, why did I even say it like that?


I don't. I have videos from seven years ago where, you know, it's not that my like, my my foundational values haven't changed, but I do look at it and I say, you know, if I had known then what was going to happen four months later, I never would have done it that particular way.


Yeah, there's a well, there's a lot of things that happen in the news that force you to sort of shift your opinions and go, oh, that kind of stuff does happen. Oh, I've been naive. I've had this perception of, you know, whether it's the government or the intelligence agencies of being, like, beyond reproach. And now I find out, oh, all right, now I'm going to go and revise a lot of things that I was saying were nonsense, a lot of things that I was dismissing openly.


Now I got to go.


Oh, well, we like to think that when it comes to, like government and intelligence agencies, we'd like to think that there's some level of whether it's government or military.


There's some place that you could reach where you're like a super person, where you're not going to make any of the mistakes that we'd attribute to people based on greed or ego or pettiness or shortsightedness, that when you get to that point, you're a proven commodity and that you are you're what we're looking for as a leader. And you have to be upheld. You have to uphold these very strict standards at that spot. And we assume that there is an actual thing like that.


And I think it's one of the reasons why people get so frustrated at Trump is because he doesn't even try to pretend he's one of those things. He he behaves the same way he used to.


Well, one of the things that I was kind of in a battle with in with my audience during the primary was I would get emails from people who would say the only person who can beat Trump is Bernie, for example. And then I would get people, people who say the only person who could beat Trump is Tulsi Gabbard. Everybody else is straight up a bad person. And my message was always, listen, we shouldn't DFI any of these people.


These are just people you've met a lot of them. They've been in your studio that we're just talking about people. You're not going to agree with them on every policy position. You're not going to agree with everything they've done personally. And where I think it gets dicey is where they start movements. It's a cult of personality, really, where a movement is built around the person as an idea and they can do no wrong. And that's where you there's no way to talk those folks down about issues or about practical decisions that we have to make.


No, I think you're 100 percent right. And I also think that the position itself, the world has grown. Too large for the position. I feel like if we were if we left from all parts of the land and all parts of the world and found an empty continent, well, obviously, the United States wasn't really empty. But if you found a place where we resettled and we tried to restructure government from scratch, we would we would take that into consideration.


Now, I think our founding fathers, they were just dealing with this archetypal structure of one person that sort of runs thing. But in this case, it would be a person that we all agree to. And it was a much better step moving forward than kings. Right. But I think now that we've kind of done that for a while, we realized, well, yeah, that might be great when it's one hundred thousand people or a million people.


But once it gets to 320 million people and complicated things like international business and like trade agreements and the environment and nuclear power versus solar and wind and like, one person is going to be responsible for all these insanely important decisions. That seems crazy. And to blame one person on any one thing goes wrong seems crazy as well. It's just I don't think we would do it this way. I think we would have some sort of a council of wise people or something along those lines.


You know what's interesting to me about that? I mean, we're like diving headfirst right into, you know, a bunch of stuff here. But what's interesting about that is when you think about who to vote for, for president and I know that, you know, we're going to get we'll get into this stuff. I'm sure you're not just voting for the person you're voting for. Who are they likely to have working for them? What is likely to happen in courts?


What is likely to happen regulation wise? And so, of course, you want to think about who it is that the person is, but you also want to think about who do they bring with them. And for me, that's a lot of how I see voting in November at this point.


Yeah, most people have made that concession. And it's an interesting concession, right. Because it's not a concession we had to make if it was Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders or Amy Klobuchar or people to judge or, you know, go down the line, there's a lot of very credible candidates that would have made like entries like maybe this person could be the next great president. Maybe this person could be a great leader. But now we're in this position.


We're like, oh, God, OK, so listen, we're voting for the cabinet. You like Biden is so is whether or not he's having moments that are related to cognitive decline, which you could speculate or whether or not this is just his reaction to the most extreme amount of pressure he's ever faced in his life. And that does happen with people we know people lock up. I would imagine that a guy who's been in the spotlight as long as he has for so long probably would would be able to handle stuff.


But I think running for president is a whole different ballgame. I think everything gets turned up by ten and I think it gets turned up in this society that we're experiencing today. It gets turned up even more so because of social media, like no president other than Trump has had really had to deal with this kind of wave of social viral, you know, feedback online with Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and all the stuff that we're experiencing right now. They didn't Obama didn't have to deal with that really in his first term, maybe a little bit in his second term.


But then Trump's the first guy to tackle it head on.


And he's, you know, in a lot of ways he's showing you what can come at you. And I think that when Biden is running through these steps to try to become president, he's experiencing a wave of attention and scrutiny that he's never experienced before. And that could also exacerbate what am I, a doctor here? I'm I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with his head. But that could also be.


Are you are you have you taken a position on the Biden cognitive stuff that something's wrong, something's wrong?


If he was my friend he was fighting, I'd ask him to retire. I mean, if I'm looking at it that way, I have friends that I've seen their cognitive decline from fighting. I'm not saying that Biden is the same. I don't really know him from you know, I don't know him over a long period time and I don't know him at all personally.


But something's wrong the way or any of your friends, are they close to 80? Any of them? No, no.


The guys who causing cognitive decline are younger guys have been hit in the head. Yeah. When you get to 80, I have known people that have had problems and it's it's very unfortunate. I don't think he's there. Where would you know? Because he could still talk to him. Like, if that was just a guy that you knew and he was like and he said something like, we've all been endowed by, you know, the thing you know, that one famous you wouldn't say, oh, Jesus, what's going on with Ray?


You would say, oh, he had to be locked up. He had a brain fart in a mental lapse, which I've had doing podcasts all the time. It can happen, but in that moment in front of those people to do it that way while he's running for president and why he's had a few of those before, they could be dealing with anxiety, too. There's probably a lot of shit going on, but I would be concerned.


Yeah. I mean, listen, so I don't have any I don't my view is just based on actual professionals that I've talked to and people that have been in a room with him because I'm not a professional and I've not been in the room with Biden. So Andrew Yang was on with Sam Harris recently. I don't know if you saw it. And this topic came up and Andrew Yang basically said, listen, he's seventy eight years old. If you compare a video of Biden debating Paul Ryan in twenty twelve to Biden a month ago, obviously it's different.


And to some degree that's normal when someone is seventy eight years old. Yeah, but Andrew Yang's perspective was that he didn't see anything that he would call dementia or cognitive decline beyond that. So that's like one, it's just one data point. It doesn't tell us anything definitively. You know, the other thing is I've interviewed a few people and I think you and I maybe have even messaged about some of them neuroscience and neurologists and mental health professionals who are very concerned about Trump, like the oranges of an investigation, the where he is, he seems to sort of like lock up when his shoulders get sort of, you know, this thing that he does with his shoulders kind of walking that weird way.


I haven't seen any of those. Yeah, I got video of that.


He was. Just because you think it's a neurological thing, I don't know.


That's the thing. So it could be neurological, mental health, side effect of medication. There's a whole bunch of stuff.


It could be could also be an injury. Maybe, yeah, maybe, I mean, he's doing some of this back or shoulder. Well, it's weird because he when it happens, he has a verbal mistake that he makes and it coincides with this shoulder thing. And then it's almost like there's a half second gap and then someone hits the reset button and he'll get back on the teleprompter or whatever. It's weird. There's like ten or so examples.


See this I need I need to see this while I'm talking to you. So James is going to search for one. So what would he search for? I think if you if you want to, like, search that Twitter dotcom and just search the videos the way you can do and you put like Trump brain glitch, I'm guessing that some of these would come up. But the gist of what I was getting to was some of these same neurologists and mental health folks when I asked them privately about Biden and say, you are you seeing like the same type of thing, they all say no.


So, again, it's like it's they're Democrats. They're hardcore Democrats. I don't know if you just had these moments were for sure.


Something doesn't look good, right? I agree. Totally agree. So why would they say any differently? They've got to be Democrats. They've got to be hard core party loyalists.


I think that to assume that absent any evidence is maybe unfair. Yeah, it is. But I'm an unfair guy in some some respects.


But here's my thought on this right now. So let's imagine that Biden's having a real problem, right? It's absolutely for real. I'm still voting for him over Trump. Right. I mean, like so I think last time we talked, you mentioned you were pro-choice. Do I remember that right? Oh, yeah. Yeah.


So I feel like it's a it's a controversial subject for there.


You know, if Donald Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court justice, it will be someone who would love to overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, there's not even a chance he said it right.


This is what Trump has said that he is that he's pro-life and that he would pick someone that would or it's just by virtue of picking conservative.


There's it's actually there's two parts to it. One is Donald Trump was pro-choice almost his entire life. He became pro-life when he was, I think, sixty eight because he met a kid he liked and he imagine if that kid wasn't born. No, I'm serious. I believe you.


It's just hilarious. It's crazy. It's like an ABC after school special.


Let's imagine that that's true, that he had an awakening at age sixty eight after being pro-life his whole life. Yeah. He said he would pick justices that were recommended to him by I forget which conservative group you're only going to get pro so-called pro-life justices from these groups. On the other hand, Joe Biden will absolutely pick a pro-choice justice. So if I was pro-choice like you are, how do I justify voting for the guy who's going to replace potentially Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who would want Roe v.


Wade overturned? Like I couldn't do it in good conscience.


That's that's a good point. Well, I'm a get into it in a second. But Jamie just pulled up this video of Trump, and I'm going to get to watch him have this weird twitch for the first time. Could hit me with a Jamie. OK, so he's talking. I'm watching it. Is that it, that little move that he made this this is hilariously silly.


Trump neurologically malfunctions with a full spasm.


No, he's talking. And he just went like this. People do that. That's silly. Maybe.


So maybe that video there's a dozen of. Yeah, I don't know. I couldn't hear. I think you better.


A better thing is something that you showed me on your show, a better example when there was real problems with him annunciating words. And, you know, there was speculation like, was he falling? Was he sick? Was there, was he on a sedative? Was was something something going wrong? It almost seemed like his tongue wasn't working correctly. Right. It looked like he was wrestling with with a paralyzed tongue.


Your perspective matches mine. But I think I really for me, it's like we're not probably ever going to really get an answer to this. And I don't know that it's imperative to know the answers. For me to know who it is I'm going to vote for, I guess is the point I'm trying to make.


It's it's fascinating that pro-choice is such a hard line issue on left wing people and right wing people. It's really is that it's this line in the sand and people are willing to they're willing to make concessions in favor of going in that direction as because they recognize the slippery slope of limiting people's rights and the dangers of going in the other direction. They're not going to stop abortions. They're just going to stop legal abortions. It's going to be very dangerous for the women.


It's going to be it's it's almost you know, it's it's it's almost a black and white issue in that regard. But it's not a black and white issue. Is abortion itself right? Like there's a time in the baby's life or the fetus when it's inside the woman where everyone gets uncomfortable, whether it's five months and four months in three, whatever it is for you, where you like, oh, Jesus, that's a baby now. And to deny that I think is is very odd.


That's a weird thing to watch because it's so uncomfortable. What it is, is so uncomfortable. It bothers us so much that we we just draw these lines and we've got this opinion in a box and it's this in this here we go. We've got this bulletproof right wing box and you can never have an abortion. OK, well, what if your daughter gets raped by some robber? You think that your daughter should have to carry this man's child, like if they know about it immediately when it's a bundle of cells.


Really? You think that like that to me is insane right now?


If you knew that it was conceivable that Trump would put someone on the court who has that view mean pretty scary wooden boats carrying a lot of ways, it's scaring a lot of ways.


I think the more control government has over your body and the more it can dictate what you can and can't do, the scary things get. And then it gets scary in that this is a subject that, you know, it's so polarizing. And if you move in the direction of limiting it, you run the risk. I always feel of shifting even like the consciousness of the public, shifting the way people approach things like this, accepting control that the government has control over your body as one of the idea that they can come in and decide what you what you have to do for the rest of your life now based on maybe something that wasn't even your choice.


That to me is crazy. But that's not the only thing that's going on. There's so many other issues.


It's one of the reasons why picking a president and picking apart is so it's so crazy that we let one person and then his group that he gets with them shift the consciousness of the public or shift the direction of the country one way or the other.


It's just it's a really weird choice that we make. And even making a president and then doing it every four years and having all these checks and balances that you have to follow. I mean, I think it's a it's a great system for the time when they invented it is I mean, it's amazing how well it holds up from 1776 to today. It's incredible. It shows you how amazingly wise they were. But just think about what we know now and 2020, about just the nature of communication, like what you and I are doing.


I mean, this is going to affect millions of people and their opinions. If if you knew that today in twenty twenty and someone asked you to make rules based on what was going to be in place three hundred years from now, you would be like, I'm not qualified to do that. It's really it's incredible how well they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights back then. I mean, it's really it's one of the most amazing things ever.


If you really think about, like, all the the different times that it's come up and then you think about how long it's been that it was created. I mean, it's really an astounding piece of human work.


It is your argument, though, is really one or having to update the infrastructure that we write. So like as you're saying, if in order to change the way that we govern the country, as you're saying, you know, one person making all these decisions with all of these different areas that they're responsible for, if you want to change that, you do have to change that document that you just said.


I know it's kind of crazy, right? Look, we don't want to update Windows 95. Look, I'm comfortable with it. I know where the icons are. But Windows tends like, hey, you know, come, come make the switch. We've got a better system. We figured it out better. We don't have a Windows 10 of government. You know, we we're still working with ninety five. We you know, we still have the older versions of Apple's software.


We don't have OSX, 10, whatever the latest version of it is. We are in this weird place where, you know, we have this system that's better than anything that we could see anywhere else. But yet it really it doesn't necessarily work perfectly for the complicated issues that exist in managing just the three hundred and thirty million people and all their problems.


What is your sense of I mean, is there like is there a particular issue where when you think of Trump and Biden, you're on the Trump side in terms of the political position?


Like what political positions? See what my opinions on political positions especially, look, the really scary ones. Right.


Like the possibility of war, the environment, things along those lines, I, I wish I was more informed. I wish I knew exactly, you know, like when when there's some negotiations in these trade war deals with China, for instance. Like, I wish I understood that better. I wish I really knew what was at stake and what China's actually trying to do and whether or not, like in particular, you think about China, China and the military and their engagement with the companies, the reason like I was I never understood what they were trying to keep Weiwei out.


I was like, why do they keep that doesn't make any sense to me. Like, shouldn't they show that they've done something bad? And but it's a company that they feel is inextricably connected to the Chinese government. So that's like negotiating with them. And that kind of like for me to say that I think that this person is doing a better job or I like the way Biden would handle it better, like, do I really know what the fuck I'm talking about?


I don't you know, I really hope that's the case with a lot of issues mean social issues like there.


That's what I was going to say. I feel like there's low hanging fruit. We're just from listening to you. It's like, you know, when when you said that you were mostly sort of a burny guy, that in the primary, you you seem to I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that Bernie would be your primary, the person in the primary that you would lean towards their support if you pick environment. Just for one example, Bernie's big on Green New Deal and we could debate how practical is it?


Is it just a framework? Is it something that could literally be made law or whatever the case? Trump thinks climate change was a hoax created by China, whereas Biden supports the Green New Deal as a framework. It's like if you're coming from if we start with Bernie, you can see that there's a Grand Canyon sized gap between the two options. And so that's where I'm kind of interested in because, you know, I get out and I don't know if you see them or not, but there's all these articles about Joe Rogan is a left, right, center, whatever.


You and I have spoken enough now where you've made it clear that your actual positions on social issues, environment, they're pretty left and your left is really who aligns with me. OK, Biden is not Bernie for sure, but it's it's closer. And so that's where I'm interested in whether there's really anything you can identify where you're like. I just don't agree with Biden on this. Well, when you talk about Bernie and why I was interested in Bernie, what Bernie represented to me was someone who wanted change at like a societal level, wanted to help people in a way that wasn't going to make anybody any money.


It wasn't something where he was clearly doing this because of the special interest groups that put him in a position thinking this would ultimately be more profitable when he's talking about things like eliminating student loans, student and making school free for everyone. When you say that I go, first of all, that's not making anybody any money, right? That's one of those things you're only doing because you think it would be better for humans, better for our culture, better for our civilization.


I'm all for that. Those are those are the things eliminating these catastrophic health care bills that people get when they get sick and they go bankrupt. That to me, is crazy that we have this community. That's what's supposed to be right. The United States is supposed to be like almost like a giant team. And we would let others just by simple misfortune, we would let their life completely fall apart because they got injured and they come up with this bill that literally changes the whole course of their life.


If you're a person who makes fifty thousand dollars a year and you know you're doing fine and then all of a sudden a catastrophic injury comes along and you get hit with a bill, a medical bill that's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, you're fucked like your life. You don't have enough time to make that up unless you do something significantly different in terms of earning more money. So you're stuck and you're in a battle that's to me crazy. And that doesn't make any sense.


Like as a person who values community, as a person who values like we can help and it makes everybody feel good. If you can help someone who came upon some bad fortune, they feel better. They feel protected and loved. You feel better for being able to use your you know, your privilege or your fortune to to help these people. That's what we need more of. That is what stood out for me about Bernie Sanders. Now, the argument against that is the pro-business argument, right?


The pro-business argument is the stronger the businesses, the the better business does. There's a trickle down effect and the whole society will rise up because the economy is stronger. And and. Yeah, there's going to be some ruthless capitalism going on, but ultimately it benefits everybody, and that's I don't think you have to have one or the other there. I mean, I don't think that this is a these are mutually exclusive, that you can't you can have capitalism, but you can also have compassion.


And we could we could work together as a community and and try to take all these problems that we have that that are really clear. Right. Like these inner cities that never get any better. They never show any improvement unless they get gentrified. Everything stays fucked. Right. Why is that? That's not an unsurmountable problem. Like if we can fly across the planet and try to fix countries that we've blown up in war, why can't we try to fix the inner cities that are our kids go to school in like that?


Doesn't make any sense to me that people are forced to live in. That's why I was interested in Bernie Sanders.


That's what he means to me. That's clear example is an interesting one, because it really comes down to what is the main point of the health care apparatus, right? The main point is to get people as healthy as possible so that they can live the longest, most fulfilling lives that they want or are able to. That gets you one set of policies. If the perspective is health care is just an industry like any other where the participants just are there to make money.


That's a totally different policy, prescription and regulatory infrastructure. It's it's night and day.


Yeah, it really is. It really is. Night and day. And it's it's one of those things that I think people are probably going to be more interested in hearing about now after this pandemic. And they realize, hey, through no fault of your own, you could be broke through, no fault of your own. You can lose your business through no fault of your own. So all these ideas that like I know people that are pretty right wing, that would give me a hard time about call me a socialist and a commie because I'm really into Bernie Sanders.


A lot of those very same people are now wanting to get that stimulus check.


A lot of those very same people now understanding why I supported Andrew Yang and his concept of universal basic income, because his concept is based on his understanding of technology and his knowledge of A.I. and the potential possibility to just take millions of people out of the market, out of the workplace like that, almost like this, like a virus of technology that removes diseases excuse me, removes jobs instead of removes your health.


And I think that more people probably would be better off if we shifted our ideas about what socialism means and what democratic socialism means. I think the word is so toxic, maybe we should just call it community support. You know, that we should we should think of these really key things like student loans. I think we both agree about this. It is insane to start your life at twenty one years. Twenty two years old, just getting out of school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.


That's insane. And if you go and get a Ph.D., it keeps going. It keeps going. And you get to this point where you're you're just you have this weight over you. Everywhere you go, there's this big ass weight and you're carrying it around and that you're carrying around this debt that even if you go bankrupt, you have to pay. How did that happen? How were businesses able to pollute the environment, make terrible mistakes, go under, go bankrupt, and they're absolved of their debt.


But a kid who wanted to learn something goes to a school and winds up, you know, you're 22, you're not even a fully formed human yet. And you're in debt. You're fucked. You're starting out of the gate. Crazy, crazy behind the line. Well, you're completely right, of course, about the toxic nature of the word socialism. Fact that for a second, I think that that hurt Bernie. In twenty fifteen, I was saying Bernie may well have been a socialist in the nineteen seventies.


He may still be one, but he's really running on on social democracy, which is what they have in Northern Europe. It's a type of capitalism. And this is what I think Andrew Yang actually did. Well, I don't know if it was like people centered capitalism that he called what he was doing or what phrase he used. But I do think in my postmortems about what happened with Bernie, because it wasn't by a little bit that Bernie lost.


I mean, even before he dropped out, he was down like one point eight or two million votes to Joe Biden like this. This was really not close. I do think that the continued use of that word socialism was not helpful. And I know people will hear me say this and they'll say, David, either way, they were going to call him a socialist. What difference does it make if he embraces the term or says it's not the right term or whatever?


Sure, that applies to some people, but I fail to see what the advantage was to using a term that didn't really describe what his campaign was. He what he's talking about capitalism, where you say, like you're pointing out, we can't let people drop too low. We need to ensure some basic level things happen that aren't people's fault. It's not just about you're going to do as well as you want to do. There are circumstances people are born into injuries, pandemics, all this stuff.


Yes. So I do think that whatever your opinion is about socialism, quote unquote, there was really no advantage to Bernie Sanders from using or at least to some degree allowing that term to continue being used.


Well, he wanted to redefine it. And when he came on my show, he actually did try to define it and describe the difference between the concept of socialism, which a lot of people connect to communism and what he calls democratic socialism, you know, and what he was showing a more a more tame down version of this this concept that, you know, a lot of real young lefties, like my friend, my friend Bridget was on the podcast the other day, Bridget Fettucini.


She's a hilarious writer, very funny comedian. And she was talking about how she found some stuff that she wrote when she was in her early 20s and she read it. And she's she's more center today. I would say maybe. I mean, left on many issues politically, socially, rather. But she was like, OK, she said she said she's reading this stuff. And she was like, oh, like a radical when she was young.


And I think that happens to people. You do. I'm sure Bernie was probably a full on socialist at one point in his life. But like, what did that mean back then versus what does it mean now? And even the term socialist like the term like when you when you look at the term conservative or the term socialist, you're talking about a spectrum. You're not talking about a one or a zero. It's not a it's not you can't have it.


No one has the same number factor of conservative. There's a lot of people that are conservative that, you know, they're very liberal on a lot of social issues, but yet they still vote red. And I think there's a lot of people that consider themselves like a socialist. But what it what does that at what level? You know, if you're pro fire department, I think you're you embrace some socialist values, right? If you're pro a lot of the services that we use that are a part of your tax dollars, like we're combining our money so that the world is better for all of us.


It's not just a dog eat dog fight. We recognize value in community and society and a civilization where we all work together. We just don't want to work together too much. We don't want people leeching off of it. And I'm on that side as well, because I know that although there are and we're seeing these more than we've ever seen in our life, multiple circumstances beyond your comprehension, totally out of your control that fucks up your life. But yet we also see people who are lazy and who keep fucking up their life and you keep enabling them and helping them.


It doesn't help anybody either. Both those things are true. It does. Just because you agree with one thing that we need to help each other doesn't mean you deny the fact that there's a real problem psychologically to giving people free money and to giving people free room and board and taking away incentive for them to survive. There's something, for whatever reason, that a lot of us need this sort of like inner drive, this knowledge that you you're responsible for your own destiny and you have to go out there and you have to put in the work.


You have to get out of bed when the alarm goes off, you have to do the things you're supposed to do. And there's people that don't do that. And yet they still want to be rewarded. They still want money. They still want their check. They still they still want the thing they feel society or government owes them. That's not good either. See, both of those things are not good. It's not good to let people who are sick rot and and live their life in a compromised position because they don't have enough money for the.


Medical care, that's sick, too, it's not it's not a good person, it's not a good society. So a good model to have people starve, it's not good if there's money in food. And we could distribute it more evenly, especially to people that are unfortunate. But it's also not good to let people just camp out on the sidewalk where you can't walk through it. Los Angeles is filled with tents now, especially now because of all this craziness in the pandemic.


It's gotten way worse. There's areas where you can't go anywhere. You literally you can't walk under underpasses. There are these campgrounds. That's not good either, you know? And so now we're dealing with mental health problems, I'm sure. And a lot of other issues are getting it.


I mean, there's a lot. OK, you mentioned the areas where even right wingers tend to be OK with sort of like socializing certain services. So fire departments is the one who does the road. Those those are all really easy. But I think that there's some more pernicious ones that the right is less eager to own. Like, for example, it's all about free market capitalism or profits, make a business, build up the business, et cetera.


Even when that business is built on law enforcement that's socialized to protect your offices, law infrastructure that you count on to protect your intellectual property. So put that aside for a second, but then they're OK socializing the cleanup or the fixing in many cases. So with drilling and fracking companies, for example, great, great examples. Capitalism where the profits look at me capitalist. I figured out how to do this drilling, how to how to extract this energy from the earth.


I bought the land. I bought the equipment. I'm hiring employees. Look at me pulling myself up by the bootstraps. Something goes wrong, people downwind, you know, get sick, whatever. Now they are going to say, let's socialize. That cleanup costs, though, right? Because, you know, we should do this through taxation. Let's make sure that we're cleaning this up at the state level. We want state funded. We want state funds to get this all cleaned up.


So that is an area of hypocrisy that's more difficult than just like we mostly all agree the fire department should be socialized. A few people will say no. If you call in, there's not really a fire, you should go Monnier. That's like a tiny percentage. It's an easy one. The the the ones I'm talking about are a little bit tougher and you're going to get a lot more pushback, I think if you were to focus on those.


Well I think you got a really good point with the environmental cleanup look, something like the BP oil spill. That's a really good point. And that's a weird one. It's like you don't want to it's almost like it's such a catastrophic event. You don't want to leave it in the hands of someone who is. So I mean, they fucked up in the first place to make this happen.


I don't trust them. I don't trust the way they do business. I mean, they they maybe it's just something that happens when you drill under the ocean and you pull oil out. Occasionally things go wrong. But I don't want to trust them to fix that.


I want to have some sort of environmental cleanup crew that's in place and maybe give them the bill. I mean, I don't know, what did it cost? How much did it cost BP to to have that? And isn't it still leaking? Hasn't it been proven that it's still polluting the ocean? I don't know.


Over the last year, I honestly don't know the details of when it was coming out of the ground. Oh, yeah, it's crazy. Like the world is ending.


It's a high pressure. It's just it's just open for days, right? I mean, I don't even remember how long it was just open them. But that's the point. If you don't. So this is where it starts to get tricky because it sounds like you might trust them to monetize it. But then if it gets messed up, OK, we shouldn't trust them to clean it up. Someone else should do it, which may be I agree with and you're right, we should give them the bill.


But that's the the role of regulation to begin with. If they were better supervised, we could have prevented this from the start. I mean, with the BP oil spill, I'm going back like ten years now, but there was some five hundred thousand dollar valve, I believe that was not required. I'm going from memory, so I hope I'm getting this 90 percent right. There was some regulation that was removed where they were no longer required to have this five hundred thousand dollar safety on these rigs, which would have prevented it.


And obviously the five hundred grand they didn't want to spend up front, but it would have been way cheaper than what ultimately happened. Hmm.


Jesus, you know, when I see those rigs outside, like there's a place that I love to go to in Santa Barbara that they have these offshore little oil rigs. I always look at them like that. One day in the future, we're going to look back and go, why the fuck did we ever let them put those there? These that is so crazy. Any other business? Like, first of all, that's not even our land, right?


No one even owns that. It's like if you're an oil company and you're in Texas, you have to have either a lease on the land or you have to have rights to the land, has to be yours in order to dig into the ground and get oil. But out there in the ocean, you just kind of doing it on public area. You're doing it in the world.


I mean, once you get a certain amount of miles, I forget how many miles it is offshore. It's international waters. Right. So you just. We're making agreements, we're letting these companies go into the ground and we're not profiting from it at all. All the money goes to them and they're sucking it out of the ocean. And at any moment it could go wrong, could be an explosion. And the beaches are ruined for the rest of your generation.


Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more there. I don't know if it's going to be like in 50 years or 200 years or however, how many years. At some point we're going to look back and there will be you know, the books will say we used to pull this stuff out of the ground and then refine it and then burn it. And then it would and people would say, you guys did what? What how did that work? How did you even get away with that?


Do you drive an electric car?


I don't currently, you son of a bitch plan to get, which is up in plans, OK? And the next hour will be electric.


Yeah. Once you get one other cars feel stupid. I mean, I'm really not just stupid because the environmental risk like I have a Tesla model s, it's the craziest thing I've ever driven. It literally doesn't make sense. There's so fast. It's it's like it's violating physics. It's so strange. It's like you see this enormous screen where the navigation is on you. Like, why did anybody ever have like a little screen when you have one of these things, you know, where you can see it's like having a map open in front of you?


They're incredible.


Do you, um, if you do a long trip, I don't bring them on a long trip or you don't trust it. OK, I was going to say you are you are you planning ahead of time where you're stopping to charge it?


I have friends that have driven many, many, you know, like across the country, even with Teslas. And, you know, there's a little supercharger map that's built in to the software. It's amazing you can do it. But I don't want to wait around in some town for twenty minutes while my car charges to eighty percent and look around for weirdos like, what if some shit's going down, man? What if you're, you know, if you have like 14 miles left on your charge and also a building explodes half a block away like you got to get out of there.


I like I like to build up. If I'm if I'm taking a road trip and I'm going across the country, I want options.


Maybe if they have, like, a little engine that could get you by just a little tank of gas, a little engine to get you by in case you run out of batteries, they're going I guess it's going to be solar eventually.


You could also just always not go below 50 percent.


Right. And then you would know if shit hits the fan, you've got fifty percent. Yeah. Yeah.


You could do that. Yeah, you could do that. But that would be annoying. You know, you drive, you know, the fifty percent is like 150 miles. If you're on a long trip, you go to 150 miles and pull over and then you get to wait there for whatever amount of time they're getting. Better at it, though, they're getting faster. But the point is, like, it's such a clear leap in the evolution of technology that once you drive one of those you like, oh, it's game over.


Like he told me that when Elon was here, he told me that. And I was like, oh, you're just saying that because it's your product and we're joking around about it.


But then when I drove on, I'm like, oh, OK. Yeah. I mean, it's like it doesn't even make sense. There's so much better than regular cars because it's instant acceleration. There's no no gears. It's one gears, instant torque. And it also is so quiet like like oh I don't I can think I just drive around this thing and think and total this quiet is really appealing to me and I'm looking, I'm in a few in a few weeks.


I think right now the model threes are like ten weeks out. So I'm probably going to put in an order you four or five weeks. So I get it right, right when I need it. But as far as the Elon Musk Tesla stuff, so I was I bought Tesla stock a long time ago, years years ago. I don't remember exactly when. And obviously it did really well for a really long time. And I don't remember when it was if it was a year and a half ago or two years ago.


But when Elon smoked pot on your show and the shit hit the fan, I panicked, sold half my stock. No. And the thing is, I always say I don't know anything about stocks. I invest in mutual funds. You just let it ride long term, reinvest the dividends. Don't think about it. But I'd like five or six stocks that I actually chose to buy. And this is exactly why I don't invest in stocks, because I was convinced that after that incident, the horrible things were going to happen.


And I was like, I'm selling. And obviously I regret having done that at this point.


Do you smoke? Do you smoke pot, Dave? I don't I don't smoke anything. I just think inhaling any smoke I just don't think is good. And so it's nothing. I've not done it. Well, there's definitely better ways to do it than inhaling smoke, but inhaling smokes, very effective. But, you know, eating sugar is not good either. You know, I'm sure you do that right. I try to limit it.


Certainly you're worrying that much about what would happen in the market. I get it. If you don't smoke pot, if you smoke pot, you're like, oh, it's just relax, everybody, because it seems like a drug we were drinking was clear.


It wasn't the smoking pot was the reaction to it. It was it was what happened with I think it was around the same time where he said I might have found someone to take the company private. Yeah. And Sesi got involved and I just panicked and I was like, I'll keep I'm up so much, I'll just sell half. So it's not the end of the world. I'm hedging my bets here. He has two qualities that I would never bet against, and the first one is an insane work ethic.


His work ethic is insane. It's insane. I mean, that guy will work 16 hours a day, seven days a week. He just keeps going. He was when he was trying to get the Model three production out, he was sleeping on the floor of the factory. I mean, he's a maniac and he's weirdly intelligent. Like, weirdly, some like when I'm talking to him, I feel like I'm talking to someone in the future. Like, this is what, you know, if I if I had to go back in time and have dinner with a Neanderthal, you know, I feel like it'd be real similar to when I sit down and hang out with Ellen, how he feels, because, like, I think he's like another another level of human being.


I think that that that is a natural course of progression for evolution, that we are going to eventually find people that are there. They're getting smarter. They're going to get it's we're not going to stay in a static state forever. Right. Just like we didn't stay as an Australia pithiness. We became human beings over, you know, natural selection and evolution and all that good stuff that's going to keep going. And if it's going to keep going, you're especially when it's integrated with this insane access to technology the kids have today and insane access to information.


You're going to have smarter people. It's going to be a different thing. And, you know, maybe they're going to I mean, he's a he's a person. He's a human being. So he does make mistakes, just like human beings make, like when he called that guy a Petto guy and that kind of shit. But when it comes to his ability to allocate resources and do things and get things done, like he's so smart, they just let him drill tunnels under L.A. They're like, OK, go ahead.


Like, how many people would be able to go to the, you know, the city of Los Angeles and go, I've got an idea. I want to put a tunnel go all the way to Vegas. They place guys on Coke, get them out of here. But with Elon, they let him try. It's I think he's a really important person for our culture, really important, like probably one of the most important people.


Where are you on? I mean, I guess at some point coronaviruses, a topic where where are you on what's going on with him reopening the factory and saying arrest me? And I mean, like I've been following it to some degree.


It's really complicated, right? It's like who should be able to decide when you can or can't go back to work? It's not it's not straightforward. It's not cut and dry. Because if you say the people should be allowed to make their own decision, you run into the very real possibility that especially if you have to go to work at that factory and you can't not work and you do get sick and you do go home and you do spread it to your family, a loved one could die.


That's that's real. On the other hand, the government doesn't really seem to have any sort of straightforward plan as to how people can economically bounce back from this. I mean, there was one of the weirdest quotes. I think it was Trump that said this. We're talking about businesses and restaurants that they'll be open, maybe not with the same owners, but they'll be open again. Did you did you see that quote? No, I don't.


I don't I didn't see that. But it's like, what does that really mean? Does that just mean, like, a different business will be created?


That's exactly what it means. It means that he's just being pragmatic and maybe cold. Whoever made that quote, that is probably how it's going to go down, is it? Trump says restaurants will make comeback just maybe with new owners.


Yeah, said I mean, that don't that does not make me feel good.


Mean if I'm a restaurant owner, you know, and there's a few restaurants that I'm always shouting out on the podcast that like are owned by friends of mine, that these businesses are hurting so bad.


They're they they went like that to no customers or a very small percentage of customers who order takeout when they were you know, they had dining every night and they have these bills and they had their business set up in a way that, you know, you have to make X amount of money in order to stay open. And they were successful and they're doing well and one of the toughest businesses to be successful in. And then all sudden the rug gets pulled out.


So what's the solution? Should people just be able to go to restaurants and everybody works there as a waiter or cook or they just maybe get sick and then more people die? Boy, that doesn't sound good to anybody either. So what is the solution? I don't know. But I don't think that in our particular case, I don't think our governor has the answers. I'm one of the things he's been criticized for is he's decided to open up production for television and films, but not churches.


You know, there's another thing they've done that's really not so. My friend Adam Curry turned me on to they closed Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but liquor stores were an essential business. That is yeah, that's not good government, it's not good thinking, there's so many things where they've put into place these lists of what's approved and not approved. And I don't I just don't think that it's first of all, I think the information is constantly changing. And I think that they're going off this old information.


They haven't made adjustments. And then on top of it, I don't think they're qualified, too. I don't think they're qualified, just like we're talking about a president, like one person who's involved in the economy and environment, all these different things. I don't think one governor can really be smart enough to know, A, what kind of impact is going to have economically to close all these businesses down and be which ones get to open up and what is essential and why.


And it's just it's very frustrating for all involved. And it highlights one of the reasons why, you know, the way we do government is it's you know, it's not perfect.


It's it's not it's definitely better than a lot of ways, a lot of places in the world. But it's still there's a lot of holes in it.


Yeah, I share I share your frustration with constantly changing messages. You know what is essential in one state versus in another state? The issue of churches is a big one. I mean, on the other hand, in Massachusetts, churches were included in the first phase of reopening and a lot of public health officials say that doesn't make any sense. And the suspicion is that it's there because of a lot of pressure and that it probably should have been, you know, in phase two or maybe even phase three.


But I think it's hard to really talk about the state by state without acknowledging the disastrous response from the federal government. And I don't know where you stand. You may totally disagree with me on that. And I think that there's a lot of straw men that are being put in place to argue that Trump handled it beautifully, use his term. But I think if you start with the idea of the coordinated federal response, we could have had a lot of these other issues that we're having now just wouldn't be issues.


And I'm glad to get into it more if you want. I don't know if you've talked about that a lot.


Yeah, I think it'd be really interesting to talk about this because what do you think they could have done differently? Look, what do you think the government should have done differently?


The federal government got it. So here, here's the narrative has been a lot of two sides that are arguing people who just vaguely say Trump failed, he didn't do enough, and he was slow without, like, really giving specifics, which I will give. And then on the other hand, you've got a lot of people who are just reflexively defending, hey, he shut down travel from China really early and he took it seriously. And we've done the most tests, which is a whole other fiasco talking point that we can get into.


But for the most part, I think that the critiques and the praise is just not tied to real dates. So in January, we had our first case, January 20th, I think it was, and South Korea had their first case January 20th. We then often skip over February. So a lot of people will defend Trump by saying you're not going to shut down a country when you've got one case. And I totally agree, you're not going to shut down a country over one case.


We're not going to shut down a country over fifteen cases. There was this point where we had fifteen and Trump said, we've got fifteen and soon it's going to be zero. I don't think that it was logical at that point to say shut it all down, but just to, like, pick a date and then we can work around it. March five, OK, March 5th, China had eighty thousand cases, so we already had proof that, like, this was this was going to be big.


Italy had 4000 cases, so this is this is March five, so we already had proof that it'll travel really far and it'll get bad far from China and we had two hundred and twenty one cases on March five. It would be very reasonable on March 5th for Trump to say this is a problem. FDR like delivery. I know hard to imagine Trump doing that, but we've got to work together. This is going to be difficult. We're going to do a 30 day.


I need all 50 governors to to help me on this. Let's do 30 days of stay at home. He probably would have. Then on April 5th, I've had to ask for another 30. So we would have done like 60 days, March five to May five. And where would we be right now? We'd be in really, really good shape. So it's really easy to just say, dude, you're not going to shut down a country with five cases.


I agree. But we had the information on March 5th, March 10th, March. Well, right at any one of these points, if we did a real shutdown, we'd be in such good shape.


First of all, I think that the support for a shutdown that early would have been almost zero. I think you would have a really hard time convincing people that this was going to be that big of a deal and that there wouldn't be something they could do to stop. I think a lot of this is Monday morning quarterbacking, right? We're looking at what happened factually, like we're looking at it in the past. This is when where there was this amount of cases, when it was happening live.


There was a lot of confusion. First of all, the World Health Organization as recently as January was saying that according to China, this is what they wrote on a tweet. It's not it doesn't get transmitted from person to person. So this is in January, right? In March, they were saying you don't need a mask. This is there's been a lot of confusion. It's not like there was like real straightforward, clear advice. It's hard for us.


It's so easy for us to sit back. Here we are in late May and say, oh, he should have done this. And if he'd done that, everything would have been great. The support for shutting down the whole country for 30 days at the beginning of March was zero. I don't think anybody would have noticed that.


So no question. And I also I do think we want to be careful, though, if we if we write any retrospective analysis of this Monday morning quarterbacking, it's then it's not even worth discussing. Right. Because we could just say throw it out. It's Monday morning quarterbacking.


I mean, no, you're right. You're right. Yeah. No, it's definitely look, it clearly wasn't perfect. So there's always going to be room for critique. But like, the idea that we could have shut everything down. Boy, that is such a hard sell. Remember when Cuomo was saying that they're not going to shut down New York? It'd be to shut down the AMA when de Blasio.


I mean, that they're not they're Democrats. And from a Republican, I don't care about that. I mean, certainly there's no doubt that Cuomo and de Blasio are deserving of some blame here as well. In one other example, there was a period we'd have to look at covid tracking dog to get the exact numbers.


But there was a period in either late March or early April where South Korea, remember, South Korea had their first case, the same day we did within out within like six or eight hours. It might have been January nineteen twenty or vice versa. But there was a point in late March or early April where South Korea had as many positive tests in a day as we did tests total. Hmm. So this is really important to understand the discrepancy here.


You know, there was a day where we tested eight hundred people in the United States and they did so many tests that they had 800 positive cases. And so the slow testing response is a disaster. And the proof is, you know, we can say it's Monday morning quarterbacking, but South Korea got it right. Taiwan got it right. In terms of places in Europe, Greece did really well. New Zealand did really well. So we may be looking at it retrospectively, but there were examples of countries that were on the ball with testing and it made a huge difference.


Yeah, did. There's no doubt about that. And David, maybe you would know the answer to this, wasn't there? There was some sort of a pandemic department that was people were moved out of that department and it sort of was absorbed. Yes, so there's so so there's video of this, it's so funny because Trump was asked about this at a press briefing a couple of months ago. This is when Anthony Forgety was still allowed in public and when the question when the question was asked, why did you shut down the pandemic response team?


Trump turned the videos out there. Trump turned and said, I don't know anything. Did Tony do you know anything about that? There's video of twenty eighteen bragging about shutting that down. So I got to get back to our cognitive decline thing. Is it possible Trump literally had no memory of that when he was asked about it a couple of months ago?


Maybe. Yes, there is. Here's why. Here's why that my brain, my memory is going to shit. And I think one of the reason why my memory is going to shit is I do too many things. I have too many podcasts going. There's too many subjects. I'm researching too many different topics for future guests. And I really feel like you can only have so much data in your head. I really you know what that would Dunbar's numbers.


Yeah, it's it's related to it's some number of items, right, that you can see simultaneous humans and you can have some sort of one by name relationship, recognize their face.


People that you know are going to be in your circle of humans. You interact with Dunbar's number and it's somewhere around one hundred and fifty. And they think it's based on how we evolved in these small tribes. And we you know, we've evolved to know the people that are around us. And that's all the database you needed. You know, you didn't need a full terabyte for people's names and addresses. You just needed 150 of them. I think that's the case with everything.


And I think when you see a guy like Trump and he's got fucking towers all over the place with his name on it, and how many different businesses is he juggling and all these different deals going on and he's cheating at golf and all this different crazy shit. I mean, there's so much data.


And then on top, he supposedly not doing it. Like as far as they've told us, he hasn't been involved in his businesses for three and a half years. You're still guys.


He must have something to do with it. I just I believe that, like, this has been something that people say to me, like, hey, I'd love you to get involved in this business. And I would say, I don't have it any time. Well, you wouldn't need the time. Well, it doesn't matter. I would need the time because I'd have to think about it. If I give you money now, I have to think like, oh, what's that money?


What's happening over there? That's one more thing. It's one more unit of the mental bandwidth that you have.


This fucking guy's taxed out. He's taxed out with just the arguments that he's getting with the press. Just think about how much that's how much real estate that's taking up in his head. Right. And then you think about the disease, you think about restarting the economy. You think about he very well might not remember bragging about disbanding the pandemic team.


It's very possible. Maybe he doesn't. To your question, there was this pandemic response team. He disbanded it in twenty eighteen and he sort of bragged that, hey, you know, we're we're not going to do stuff where we don't need these people. We just they're not really doing much. So we just we don't really need them. So he didn't do that. Well up to this. Think this thing about the press though, you know, and he's busy with between the press and the virus and reopening and all this different stuff.


I don't know if you saw the reports that he often gets into what we would call work like at noon or later after watching like five or even more hours of TV and tweeting. It doesn't strike me that he's that busy with actual work.


I think he is and he isn't. I think he is still taking up bandwidth in his head. But look, it is so American that he does that. You know, I'm saying I mean, it's not the best way possible, but it's so we're so comical in so many ways that our president, he's eating junk food and watching TV and tweeting, angry, tweeting people always watching Fox News. It's so, so OK, here's the point I want to make about that.


OK. One of the things that scares me about the way that this president is sometimes covered by sometimes people who call themselves centrist or sometimes it's people who say I'm just I'm just reporting facts and not giving an opinion or whatever. One of the things that really scares me is that this is being treated like a normal presidency when, as you're pointing out, it's really not a normal presidency. And the analogy that I would sort of apply to it would be like, imagine that you're doing UFC commentary and I'm going, this is like me going out on a limb because this is not my area of expertise.


But let's see if the analogy will work. Imagine that one of the fighters comes in and he at one point tries to light his opponent on fire. And you as a commentator say this is an unusual strategy that's very aggressive. You're treating it like it's within the realm of normality.


This is the destruction of the system. Right? Like what if it's not an aggressive strategy? This is crazy, right? That's incorrect with me. It scares me because I see you know, I like to use the term enlightened centrist and it's a little bit pejorative, but it's someone who believes themselves to be above the fray of the of the bias of the left right stuff where they'll say, you know, listen, yeah, Trump kind of has a different way of talking about politics, but I think he's pretty good on trade.


It's like, what are you talking about?


And that really scares me because there's like a normalization going on. That's that's crazy.


Well, there's also a thing that we desire as humans that's for our leaders to exhibit virtue and and and dignity. There's there's like a thing we expect them to be a statesman or a stateswoman. Right. You expect them to like. Tulsi Gabbard is an excellent example that to me of someone who who speaks like someone that I would appreciate addressing the nation in some sort of a disastrous state, like if something was going wrong, I would want someone who speaks the way she speaks, talking about it.


You know, there's there's a certain Cuomo has it. There's a certain characteristic that you would want from someone who is in a position of leadership. Like I get a certain amount of calm out of listening to him break down the current situations and what they're doing to remedy and mitigate all the problems in New York. And when you think about it, New York got hit harder than anywhere in the excuse me, anywhere, I guess anywhere on the planet.


Right. In terms of a city, I mean. Yeah, I think so, yeah. So at this point, it's anywhere on the planet. I mean, he's done a remarkable job of exhibiting all the characteristics, whether or not you think his decisions were correct or not, because there's some real arguments, especially with the early days of letting old people go back to nursing homes when they had tested. And that's obviously horrible. But the way he communicates, he communicates like a guy that you would feel comfortable.


He's going to make good decisions, that he seems like a president.


Yeah. And I think that this is why, you know, a lot of mistakes have been made during this. And a lot of it came from, like you're pointing out, we had incomplete information. Masks are good and they don't work. It's transmitted through droplet versus how much is happening the surfaces. And it's dangerous for this group versus a lot of mistakes were made because of lack of information. But not everybody was saying stuff like 15 cases will soon be zero.


Anybody who wants a test can get a test. It'll wash through by April. And we're not going to have cases by the that stuff that has a very particular effect on people who basically want a license to go out and act. However, they want to act regardless of what the facts are. And that's why it's been so dangerous to see that stuff.


Well, it also is dangerous because people dismiss some of the things that he said when he was talking about, like using UV inside the body as a disinfectant or using Lysol or maybe a cleaning. He was saying one of the problems that came out of this, I don't know if you're aware of this, there was a publicly traded biotech company that had a concept for UV light that would go in through when someone was intubated. You would go in through the same tube and they would use that UV light and it would kill the virus from inside.


That is something that UV light actually does work to kill bacteria and viruses. In fact, at my house, I have a cell phone cleaner. You put it in there, you close it and it uses UV light to kill all those things.


I mean, this is something that they've had forever in sterile pens. A sterile pen is something that backpackers and hikers use. You could take water out of a creek and you take this light bulb. It's like a long wand and you wave it for a certain amount of time in the water, in that UV light kills all the bacteria. Yeah. So this company had this product that was going to use that UV light through the tube. And they got pulled off a Twitter, they got their account, got banned because it looked like something that was aligning with what Trump said, even though it's legitimate science and OK, it was real.


That was a real issue.


So so there's a bunch there. And I want to get to the Twitter stuff because I know about I saw the when you talked to Bridget over the weekend about the regulation of social media. And I want to talk about, I don't know this one, so I can't say too much about it. But so so Trump mentioned in that wondering aloud, he said, what if you hit the body with heat or light? And what if you put the disinfectants that were up on the TV behind them, inside the body?


So we got like four things that he mentioned. Right. So UV light it. And I think isopropyl and bleach were the four elements, so to speak, use his term that were up on the screen behind him after the fact. It was there there were these couple of papers about this UV technology and a couple people on Twitter started saying this is the stuff Trump was referring to. And it's like, no, he wasn't. Trump said, I don't know anything about this.


I'm asking you, is this something we might look at? He was doing so. He was saying he was completely wing it. So that's the number one after the fact. That's Monday morning quarterbacking going through PubMed and saying, here's something I found with UV light. I'm sure it was what Trump meant when he said his body for sure, right? Yeah. So that's number one. But in terms that this is kind of an example of like that was a wacky statement that was an out of control statement that I can't imagine almost any other politician wondering aloud about.


But there is nothing that this guy's defenders supporters won't defend like he got. It doesn't matter. It just you know, that's the scary thing.


That is a scary thing. And that was that was one of the weirdest ones to try to justify. I think the correct response was he was winging it. He obviously didn't know what he was talking about. And he was like asking questions. He was throwing some questions around. They just weren't good ones. Right. And like, say, if you or I like I don't know much about, you know, internal combustion engines. I don't really understand them that much.


I kind of know the spark plugs and, you know, fuel injection, but I don't really know what the fuck's going on. If I had to explain it to somebody like how the gas gets converted into energy and how the pistons go up and something fires and what's I don't I would be doing. So I was I was probably you got to get the gas in there in the fire and then it's exploding. And, you know, it would be similar to the way he was describing using disinfectants on people.


But one of the things that I think he did say was something about getting light in the body. I think he did say something about getting light in the body. Yeah.


He lifted it and said, is that something you can look into?


It stuck. He got stuck ramblin and he just kept going. And and it's probably pretty safe to assume he enjoys some kind of stimulant. And I don't know what it is. I don't know if it's legal or illegal. And I think, you know, if he was taking all that ephedrine that he had and is remembering that famous picture where it was the Taco Bell, that someone wrote to me and said that it is true.


There's this picture where Trump tweeted, he loves Hispanics. I don't know if you remember that tweet.


That was after he had said crazy shit about Mexicans possibly coming over here to rape and murder.


Exactly. Exactly. And there's a picture where there's an open drawer over his left shoulder and there's a bunch of Sudafed packs in. Yeah, exactly.


I was going to, like, get people to like, I would hold on. Let me open up this door real quick. All right. Now take the picture like just like just to fuck with people, just like let's let's put a needle and a baggie and a spoon in there.


Just don't say someone wrote to me though and said that that version of Sudafed, which is I guess the UK version, doesn't contain the same stimulant that the American version has. I don't know the truth, but I want to make sure we're careful about it.


I just don't. I like talking shit, though, so let's keep going. Yeah, OK. I wonder if I wonder if the UK version is stronger.


Do we even know I mean, is that possible for you to look, I know Jami's I thought it was the opposite of that.


I thought it was the opposite as well. I thought the UK version was stronger. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah, that's what I had heard. But I've done zero research, so.


Well, no, listen, I mean, you and I have talked about the tongue thing where it looks like he's essentially like his tongue is attacking him.


It was like his tongue was Weekend at Bernie's and he was moving around his mouth.


Try to keep talking, but there's the stuff where he's like, ah, he seems to struggle with S's where it's like a sound. Yeah. And there was speculation that it's dentures, but rich guys don't have dentures. You know, they, they and they, they have dental implants.


Unless you're super old school. Yeah. I guess I don't know.


And then there's pictures of him. Having really dilated pupils, even like TV lighting, which is weird because TV lighting is really, really bright, I don't really.


But are those real pictures? That's the problem. I've seen some pictures. Well, I don't know.


I guess we have to look at them one by one.


Well, dilated pupils is usually a response to some sort of drug, right? Some people get that with MDMA. They get that with certain amphetamines.


You know, to be fair, I think that the most sort of like, innocuous explanation would be sometimes it's like very icky. Trump very agitated. Trump talking fast and sweating. Yes. And then sometimes there's this like depressed Trump where he's talking really, really slowly and he has a totally different delivery. He looks depressed and sad. It's possible that or either some medication that he's actually prescribed or just like his energy cycle during the day. I mean, we all to some degree have it.


Maybe there's times a day where he's up and sometimes when he's down, like it's not necessarily stimulants, I guess maybe.


But he's also a guy who's willing to take hydroxy chloroquine. And so, yeah, let's keep taking it. Yes, I know I know many doctors who are taking it and have asked me if I want it prescribed to me to take. Yeah. Because they're taking it in very small doses. And I said, but my friend had it when he was my friend. Michael Yo was hospitalized with covid-19 and he was in a terrible place. And he said when they gave him hydroxy Hawkwind and had a terrible effect on his body.


So it was devastating. And my doctor said there's a giant difference between the dosage and the response to the dosage of a dose that you would get if you are sick with a disease versus a preventative dose. And he said there's many, many doctors that are taking preventative doses of this hydroxy chloroquine and that this stuff has been around for a long time as a malaria medication, of course.


And Dr. Drew did a whole video segment that I watched recently about that as well, saying basically the same thing.


I think that anyone, though, who's willing to just start taking hydroxy chloroquine, I mean, maybe take stuff, you know, I'm saying like as long as your doctor prescribes. You said, do you remember that article? I think you and I had discussed this. There was a journalist that claimed they found the very say, the right pharmacy that prescribed Trump speed, that we're Trump would pick up this stuff, that he would get this amphetamine for a metabolic condition to remember that.


I don't remember that. OK, but if your doctor prescribes you something like I have friends did take Adderall and they take Adderall, the doctor prescribes them Adderall and they take it and they don't think there's anything wrong with it because the doctor prescribes it. They don't even think that they do drugs. I'm like, you're on a hardcore stimulant all the time and it's really, really, really common.


So if he's a guy that's willing to take hydroxy chloroquine, which I mean, maybe it's a good thing to take, I mean, he's around a lot of people and it is possible that it has some sort of a preventative effect. Obviously, I don't know. But if you're if you're the guy who takes things, you probably take things to go to bed. You take things to wake up and eat a little, pick me up. I need it.


You know, there's a lot of people out there that take stuff.


There's a type of person who's just into trying stuff and seeing what it does for them. Yeah, that's me. I'm into stuff.


So but I don't take so I don't take medication though like that. Like that. Seems to me like who. Like what about the immune system. How much do you trust your music. These are things you could do to boost your immune system. So I have to talk to legitimate, you know, clinical researchers and nutritionists that understand the body's effect and what nutrients you're putting in and heat, shock proteins from sauna and things like all kinds of different stuff that you can do, you know, making sure you get enough sleep.


Maybe that's a giant factor. All these factors that we're not getting discussed in the news when we're hearing all these things about social distancing and covering your face. And it would be really nice if the exact same amount of effort was put to let's all use this time to make healthy choices and to understand that there's a real benefit to having a healthy body and a healthy immune system. And this is the best example of it we could ever possibly face is a pandemic that with some people, they brush it off like it's nothing.


And I know many people that have had it like that, and then I know other people that it got it and they got it really bad. I had two friends that were hospitalized, one who was on a respirator. He was there for over a month. He's an older guy, but the situation for them was terrible. But there's a bunch of factors. Nutrition, body being run down, being exhausted, too much travel, alcohol. There's there's all these different things that we need more education about that like there are preventative measures that we can take.


It's not just to simply put a Band-Aid on it. Cover your face, use hand sanitizer. That's that's good advice, too. But better advice is both of those things together.


Yeah. So on hydroxy chloroquine, I my understanding of the randomized controlled. Trials right now is that it's essentially been tested as a treatment when someone is already sick. Yes, and it doesn't seem particularly effective and there can be serious side effects. There is a study going on, I think, in the U.K. looking at the low dose prophylactically. I have no you know, I get e-mails from people who are like you're against hydroxy chloroquine because Trump's for it.


I've been talking about hydroxy chloroquine longer than Trump. I talked about it 10 days before Trump ever mentioned it, along with seven other things that we're looking at. I don't care. I want, you know, what works. That's that's my only priority. The reasons I doubted whether Trump was really taking it were that he mentioned he seemed confused about how long he had been on it and what kind of dose he was getting. Like at one point, it wasn't clear whether he was getting the weekly dose, which is how it's taken from malaria or a small daily dose.


He seemed confused. And then the letter that his doctor put out didn't actually say he was taking it. It was one of the weirdest letters. I don't know if you saw it where there's one paragraph which just says we talked about this drug and determined the potential benefits outweigh the risks or something like that.


Maybe the doctor did that because it's off label, because it is an off label drug. So if he is prescribing it to Trump, it's not FDA approved.


Who's going to get in trouble? It's the president. I mean, that's why they would write the letter was weird, is the point. It didn't. It said everything other than Trump is taking it, which is if it's a letter to prove I'm taking it, you would think it would mention that.


Well, maybe the doctor hesitated and said it's controversial. Maybe Trump asked for it. We're going way out on the speculation. I'm here. There's a thin branches. Maybe, maybe he said, I want to take it. And the doctor is like, wow, that's I mean, there's some downsides. It's like, look, I'm going to get it either way. And so he gets it from another doctor. It could be that I know a guy.


Don't worry about it. I'll call a guy in front of it tomorrow and ask for the letter.


The is after he mentioned it and people said, is he really taking it to the White House? Doctor put out a letter proving, I'm taking it and the doctor writes a letter, doesn't say Trump's on it.


Well, maybe the doctor was like, hey, man, why the fuck did you say that? You know, I mean, I don't know.


I don't know. It's there's a lot of speculation. I don't think you would outright lie about that, because the reason being is that I do know people are taking it and I do know doctors and I've discussed it with doctors that I've even been offered it. And I just I think people are willing to if they really think there's a possibility of getting ahead of this thing and some sort of a preventative measure, they'll take it. And especially if you're a type of person who takes things.


So do you think that there's going to be a period where wealthier folks with connections will be able to buy a vaccine before it's available?


I think that's a possibility for sure. Right. Don't you think if there's a small quantity that's always going to be the case? I mean, one thing that people are getting upset at me in the early days of the pandemic was that I was testing everybody that came into the podcast studio. Now, like, where are you getting these tests? Well, I'm just buying them. I'm paying for them. There's a concierge service in Los Angeles. They come to you and the doctor will administer these tests.


You just have to pay for it. And I understand that people don't have that money that that sucks, but I'm not going to not do it if I can. So this is a similar situation. I can understand what people would be upset. But if you had money and someone came up to you and said, David, we have this perfect vaccine, it's absolutely been proven. However, only one percent of the population is going to be able to get it.


But if you get it and you and your family can have it and we'll make sure you're safe, would you not take it because you wanted other people to have access to it? I think a lot of people who have access to it would probably say, listen, I have to do the right thing for my family. I'm going to try to help people get it. I'm going to try to spread the word and hopefully they'll be OK. But I have to take care of myself right now.


Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with that. It's unfortunate. How would anybody would ever have to choose that. Yeah.


And how it'll go down, I guess is a question mark like how will you how will how will people in the know be made aware that this is now something they'd potentially be able to buy?


Are you aware of I mean, look how many different. There's a bunch of different trials going on right now where they're trying to figure out how to make a vaccine. But there's so far no coronavirus vaccine has ever been successful. Right. There's not one that they can use as a model, was that correct?


There is. So there is a SARS. There's coronavirus vaccines that have worked in poultry, from my understanding, which can be modified potentially. So I think at least one or two of the vaccine candidates are modified poultry coronavirus vaccines to that could potentially be used in humans. And the other unique thing about this vaccine, potentially, as I understand it, is that this would be, if I understand correctly, it would be the first vaccine of its type that instead of having like a weakened version of the virus, instead it would be a compound that triggers the body to create certain proteins if.


I'm understanding that correctly, it would be innovative in that sense as well. Yeah, that was explained to me by Alex Jones. I had a long conversation with him about it last night where he was. It's an MRI and a virus vaccine and a vaccine. It's a but there's never been one of those that successfully been used on humans. Right. This is a new thing. Well, I don't know that there's been no discussion with biologists.


So from what I've read, there's not been an opportunity like this where the technology would be near enough, where we would try to make that type of vaccine versus the traditional kind, as my understanding do.


That one sounds scary. I'm going to wait. I don't want to be an early adopter of that one, especially if there's something. Yeah. Especially if this is something that for a giant percentage of the population in terms of the virus itself, it's not deadly. I would want to. Wouldn't you want to know if there's a new thing that's never been tried on people before when you want to know, like what the long term ramifications of taking that are just on anything, any kind of medication, anything with any.


I mean, I think what is important to remember is even if phase three of the trial is shortened, that would only lead to maybe a question mark as to how long the immunity lasts. But before you even start testing it to see whether it generates immunity, it's safety tested and by the time it's available, even to buy it as as a wealthy person, I think that the safety piece of it will be widely established. And it might just be a question of like, does it give you six months or 12 months of immunity?


That doesn't really scare me. It seems like six months is still better than zero. Yeah, if it works. Yeah. And if it if it is really safe for sure. Look, if it works and it's safe, we'd all want to take it real simple. Right. The real question is if this is a totally new thing and obviously I'm grossly unqualified to be talking about this, but if it is a new kind of vaccine, like what what are the possibilities of this going wrong and what could that mean to people that do have an adverse reaction to it?


So I want to be really careful not to say things I'm not sure of, but also not to allow false fears about the vaccine to be perpetuated, that this would be the first widely used MRI and a vaccine or a human virus does not mean that it would be the beginning of the research into using these types of vaccines in humans. And my understanding is that it's been decades that this has been researched and that it's been under development, generally speaking, and now it's being used specifically for coronavirus.


So I want to make sure that I'm not like in any way implying that I have any broader concerns about the type of vaccine, because I don't and I'm not saying that somebody might not present one of those concerns, but I'm not aware of any of those concerns. But that's a well, well worded way of describing it. Yeah, I mean, obviously, we were all hoping that it works. We're all hoping that everyone's going to benefit from this and that we'll have a cure so we can go back to as normal as possible.


But, you know, again, like I said, I think we really more than anything, we're under under appreciating the value of the immune system.


And I think that's something that is really driving me crazy about. The short sightedness of this response is that it's all about sanitation and avoidance and all these different factors. And very little of it is about strengthening the immune system and keeping the body healthy and and making a shift of recognizing that, you know, hey, we're all very vulnerable here.


We're all very vulnerable.


And we've had a wonderful Goldilocks sort of time between World War two and now, where things haven't really been nearly as bad as they've been all throughout human history. And we kind of have to recalibrate what's possible in terms of things could go wrong. And when things go wrong and we're grossly unprepared, we find ourselves in the situation that we're in right now.


Yeah, for the I've seen some really scary numbers about for the younger serious cases like under under 50, maybe even under 60. Obesity is extremely prevalent. That's really scary. There's some correlation studies about vitamin D, but there's really a lot of question marks about whether it's a causal thing and whether the infection itself can reduce your vitamin D. Like, it would be delightful to learn that if you just if you have a low vitamin D supplement, it protects you, you know, but there's a correlation and it's really not clear what what the deal is with that because vitamin D is so cheap.


I mean, it's free from the sun and it's one of the cheapest it supplements.


You know, that 70 percent of the United States is deficient in vitamin C. It's a giant in C or D, D, I say you said C, I'm a.. It's some enormous number of people do not have sufficient vitamin D and as many as I think it's I had Dr. Rhonda Patrick on the podcast a couple of days ago discuss this. It's more than 20 percent have insufficient vitamin D to the point where it's dangerous, where they can you know, it's vitamin D apparently is a hormone as well as vitamin.


And the best way to get it is out in the sun. But you can supplement it. And in supplementing it, it changes so many things about your body, about your body's ability to recover. It's for muscle development. It's for a lot of different. There's a lot of different factors of vitamin D benefits you had and most of us don't have enough of it. It's really it's kind of a crazy thing. Zinc is also been connected to recovery from covid and then one of the things they were speculating about with hydrochloric win and zinc, that they would use the two of them together.


And there's been some speculation that maybe it wasn't, in fact, the hydrochloric wind that was really benefiting these people. It was possibly the zinc and that zinc. And in combination with hydrochloric Wint was what was helping people.


Yeah, I mean, we're just spit balling here. But on the zinc thing, what I saw was it seems to only be useful for recovery from viruses and colds if you are deficient, but that if you have a normal level of zinc, that it doesn't really seem to get that much.


So the best well, it's probably just like vitamin D, the best move is to keep your body at a good state. And so few of us ever do get your vitamin levels checked. It's really an important thing and supplementing. I feel very, very strongly about this. It's been dismissed by some people as being not necessary if you have a balanced diet. The reality is most people don't have a balanced diet, and particularly when it comes to getting a wide range of nutrients that we know are beneficial.


I mean, you really should kind of vary what you eat to try to get as much of that stuff in as you can from natural sources. But man, especially in times like this, it's just very important to keep your V12 high, C, D, zinc, all those things, keep your body in a great state, drink a lot of water, you know, and we're not here again. I mean, I'm beating a dead horse, but we're just not hearing enough about this.


Yeah, I got a vitamin D and V12 at home test a month ago because I was just curious, what are my levels? I live in Boston. You don't go outside that much in the winter and it's only starting to be spring now. And they were both fine, but had my deep and low what I would have supplement that. It's so cheap and and why why not?


You know, yeah, we're very fortunate. I mean, it's really easy to get some vitamin D in. It can, you know, make a giant difference in your body.


Are you changing anything about your lifestyle or your your your obviously you're stuck at home, but are you changing anything in terms of, like, going, OK, I need to make some corrections to make myself healthy or corrections to get better sleep or not?


Really, because, I mean, I felt pretty good about what I was doing before. Obviously my gym is closed, so I'm running outside and riding my bike and working out at home.


Do you feel weird when you run past people and your real close to them? Because you're like, OK, so so I'm I'm wearing a mask. Anytime I go anywhere inside, like I go to the grocery store, I'm wearing a mask. If I have to go to the post office, although I'm trying to avoid it, I wear a mask.


From what I've read, 90 percent of the contagion is in four places home offices, public transit and large gatherings. The other 10 percent is happening mostly indoors and other situations. The outdoor contagion, from what I'm reading, is like almost zero unless you're doing something really stupid. So I don't feel like if I go running, I need to wear a mask, but I do it to avoid dirty looks, to be totally honest with you like that.


It's terrible breathing through that thing. It's terrible. Well, you're terrible. You're bad with one. But I went out on my bike and I thought, you know, I'm outdoors. Like, nobody's really getting this outdoors if you're not in a group of people. And I didn't wear my mask and three bikers coming the opposite way, we're swearing at me. So I was like, all right, just to avoid that situation, I guess I'll wear the mask even when I'm just walking around.


I think there's a lot of unhappy people that are looking to yell at people and this is their new way to do it. They see you with no mask on running. I don't know why, though it wouldn't be spread through the air outside. That logic doesn't make sense of it. Spread through the air inside. Why? If you're passing someone and you're breathing out heavy because you're running, it would make it seem to me that would be a better way to walk right into it if it's in the air.


But it's particulate matter. It's in the air and you're breathing it out.


Well, this is why I'm wearing the mask. But from the studies I've seen, there were these really scary looking images where it was like black, where the particles were different colors. I saw that. And it was. Yeah, and it was like, you know, you could be 20 feet in front of someone on a bike and you could sneeze and the wind could bring the droplets directly back and they could breathe in at that exact moment. I don't deny at all that it's physically possible, but every single study that's coming out where it's possible to sort of figure out like where people getting this, I'm just not aware of it being a real risk on a six foot wide bike path run pass to people like it's got to be one in ten million right now.


I don't think so. That's why you're breathing it out if you're running right. If you if you're breathing.


Oh, you got spit. There's stuff that comes out of your mouth and then someone's going this way. It's just makes sense.


Yeah. All right. I mean, listen, I'm wearing the mask. I just am unsure how much of the contagion is happening out there. Yeah.


Oh, right. Now, Jamie, just pull this up. Joe Biden asked Amy Klobuchar to undergo vetting to be running mate.




Breaking news, David Pakman. How you feel is that the only person who's being vetted? I don't know, but she's she's she's one of them.


Democrat of Minnesota has been asked by Joe Biden to undergo a formal vetting to be considered vice presidential running mate, one of several potential candidates now being scrutinized by his aides. OK, so she's just been announced as being one of them, Senator Jeanne Shaheen.


Oh, that said something about Jeanne Shaheen there as well, that it was a. Yeah, Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who's running for reelection this year, declined Biden's invitation. She said, no, son. Senator Maggie Hassin, other New Hampshire senator, has agreed to be vetted, so it's interesting that he's definitely like he wants to have a woman. Yep, that's. Do you think that's a political ploy or do you think that it just it makes sense?


Like, why do you think he would do that?


I think that the timing of when he made that call was calculated to be advantageous. I don't remember exactly what was going on right when he said it, but I think that it was a calculated move at the time. I think, honestly, unless you pick someone who's going to actively damage your campaign, I don't think it matters that much. You need someone who's essentially going to stay out of the way, not cause any kind of new scandal like Tim Kaine with Hillary Clinton.


I don't think he did anything for her one way or the other, like he was just kind of out of the game until you just put his name up.


I forgot. Right.


Right. And I think that really what you just want to avoid someone who's going to cause a problem like Palin for McCain was. So I was a little bit of a problem. It was a problem.


Exactly. So you just why? It's like you just want to avoid a problem, I think. And I think, you know, Elizabeth Warren is probably up there. Kamala Harris is probably up there. Amy Klobuchar. Now, we know for sure.


It's just funny when you say I'm going to have a specific kind of person, like, what are the big speculation was I'm going to have a woman of color like that. He needs to have a woman of color very specific. I wish I wish he had like it would be hilarious if someone said, I want a Chinese lady, period, mainland Chinese lady. That's going to be my running mate. I'm going to I'm going to, like, heal this nation and China together.


Just only Chinese ladies. I don't care how good you are. If you're some white guy, you can fuck off like it's kind of hilarious, you know, that way. Yeah. I would want the best person that he could possibly get, especially when you consider his physical state. Mental state has been questioned. It doesn't look that great. I would want someone who I really feel like could make the cut. Yeah, I don't I'm not big on this type of of identity politics.


I mean, listen, last time I was on, we talked about that time where that this we won't even say her name, but where this woman tried to get me fired from my teaching gig because I said saying you will not consider a white or male candidate is that's that's not OK. But I do think that when you think about all of the people that have been president, so it's like almost all white men and then Obama, who was half black, there would be something pretty powerful for a lot of young women and women of all ages to see that, OK, there's a woman in this position, vice president should president like I don't want to minimize that.


But I mean, you and I have talked before. For me, categorizing people in these ways is not like my first instinct.


Yes. But it's also we're recognizing that there is racism and sexism in the world. Like it's not a fake thing. It's a real thing. We would love it if there was none. If there was none, there would be no consideration whatsoever towards image because no one would care nor would care. How good would it look to have a woman in there? No one would care if there was zero sexism and there was and no one would care if it's a woman of color, if there's zero racism.


But there is some. So we go with it. Be a great thing. I get it. It would if there was a woman president like. So one of the reasons why I thought Tulsi Gabbard would be amazing if she ran for president, became president. And you're talking about a woman who's a veteran who's served overseas twice, who's been a congresswoman for six years. I mean, that would be that would be great for everybody, like a really qualified woman who's the president.


That would be great for everybody.


It just happens to be a woman if your kids maybe they have asked you. But if they said, how come there's never been a woman president, like, how would you answer that question?


That's a good question. It would depend on which kid. And yeah, I would I would probably say that. Our society, up until first of all, until the beginning of the 20th century, women weren't even allowed to vote. And so there's a lot of catching up to do. And then women weren't really even in the business place in terms of working alongside men in offices and in industry. When did that start?


Well, there was a big push towards that in the period during and after World War Two. So the Fed trying to stimulate a lot of new industry and get, you know, just get more people working and producing stuff.




So what I would say is that men, in terms of public positions of leadership, have had this massive head start and that we're changing the way we look at what a leader is and that we we used to look at a leader as being like the alpha chimp that, you know, leads us to battle. I mean, for you go back in time, 10000 years ago, that's essentially what a leader was. And now we look at a leader as someone who can navigate the treacherous waters of the environment and industry and unions and all the different things that the president has to deal with.


And it's it's not it doesn't require someone who's male or female. It requires someone who, again, I hate to keep bringing up Tulsi Gabbard, but I think she's great. She seems like a leader, right? That's what you're looking for. You looking for someone who's going to make good decisions, someone with good ethics and good morals. That's going to sort of guide you in a way that the country will be better off with them doing that job than it would be without them.


So that but again, if I was talking to my kids about it, it's a complicated discussion. And you would you would it would be a long discussion. And I think you'd really have to go back to how different human beings are now than they were even in. You know, I've talked to my kids about my grandparents. My grandparents came over from Italy during the early days of the 20th century, and they had a hard life.


And when my grandfather used to talk to me about living on a farm and coming over here from Italy and you know, how hard it was a struggle and what their life was like, it's almost unimaginable to my kids today when I describe it to them, you know, and when I tried to describe what life is like today versus life was like for them in 1920, 100 years ago, it's it's you're talking about a totally different world. And I think that that's what we're dealing with, too, when it comes to the reason why there has been no woman president.


It's not just that there's never been a woman president because society is weird, but it's moving in a better direction. It's just been humans are changing.


We're we're we're we're changing what we find acceptable.


We're changing what we find to make sense and what doesn't make sense. And we're readjusting things all the time. But I think one of the things that you said that is an important point was that if a woman becomes president, it does send a message that this is possible and it gives people hope. And I think in a lot of ways Barack Obama did that. And when Barack Obama was in office were like, hey, if people even if people are racist, even if there are racists, there's such a small amount that you can get this guy to win the popular vote and become the president of United States while he's black.


This is amazing. It's amazing for everybody that it shows that a guy who's a son of a single mom can make it as far as the highest office in on the planet Earth, elected office, the the commander in chief of the greatest army the world has ever known. So there's there's great value in image. And this is where I think a lot of people are correct in their anger about Trump. Even people are Trump supporters, the value of the way a person conducts themselves in that highest of high offices.


It's important for the morale of all of us, you know, and when someone says ridiculous shit or attacks, you know, some reporter and the way he kind of goes about it, it's so petty. It's so it's so unbecoming of what we would hope for in terms of like someone who gets to that spot. We want that person to be better than us. We don't want you to do things that we would also we want you to be better.


Well, that's what really scares me about when I see the people who for 20 years or for however long they've been following politics, talk about what Matu Republicans I'm talking about now. What matters is that you've got to you've got to be religious and you've got to pray and, you know, be God fearing. And you've got to you know, divorce is bad and you've got to speak a certain way. And all of these different things, it was all kind of a ruse, right?


Like they never really cared about that stuff. It was just that those were the people that were being presented to them for a very long time. And then now it's Trump and he's the opposite of all of it. And they never really cared about that stuff.


Well, he represents them in some ways. You know, you just have to make concessions to be on their side. And that's one of the real problems with having to. He's right, it's like if you're not in the other party, you must be in my party. If you're not with those people you must be with. If you're saying Hillary Clinton is, you know, she's a problem and you've got to drain the swamp and these career politicians, oh, well, then you must be over here.


You know, if you're if you're against corruption. Oh, well, then you must be on my side because I'm against corruption, too. And, you know, if we had 10 different parties to choose from, it would be way better. We would have a way better understanding of the subtleties of human characteristics and what we enjoy and what we don't enjoy, what we believe, what we don't believe. I think a big part of what you're saying when you join a team, whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats, you're sort of adopting a predetermined group of opinions like you.


You you know how to fall in line like you can almost to a person. You ask someone if they're are you conservative? Yes. You can almost guess how they're going to feel about the environment or how they're going to feel about climate change, particularly freedom of choice. That's a big one, right? Like pro-choice. If you ask someone if they're a Republican boy, what percentage are going to say that they're pro-life? It's going to be a high percentage.


It's going to be a high percentage. You know, what percentage are going to be in support of the Second Amendment? It's going to be a very high percentage. Now, if you ask someone who's on the left, what do you think about gun control? Going to be a high percentage that are in favor of gun control, of favor of maybe doing something different about the Second Amendment, but a high percentage that would you know, there's but that would be pro choice.


And these lines in the sand, you got to wonder how much of these are just adopted, like how how much of these are people who have really analyzed all these issues and come to this objective conclusion based on information and based on their own discussions with other intelligent people and how many people just adopt these positions?


And I think they're signing on to the package, to the orthodoxy in a certain way. And one of the crazy things is I get emails from viewers, particularly in northern Europe, who say, you know, one of the craziest things about American politics when you're in Europe is compared to the diversity of parties that they have in many of those countries. The standard Democrat and the standard Republican are really, really close. Like what are they even really arguing about?


It's a lot it's a lot of social issues on economic stuff. It's, you know, is thirty nine point seven percent top tax rate or thirty six percent top tax rate. I mean, of course, there are Democrats who want a much higher top tax. There are Republicans who want to do, you know, do away or really drop it. But in a lot of cases, a lot of this stuff is created, as I don't want to say is theater, but it's to create a package people can sign onto.


Yeah, for sure. And I think that's one thing that Trump has done well, ingratiating himself with religious folks, because it's never really been his thing.


And now all of a sudden, you know, he kind of goes through the motions, does all the God stuff.


He says all the things when, you know, you don't believe it for a second. Right? What Santa Clause?


What do you what do you. I believe if I believe he's become religion. Yeah. Religious, rather. One of my favorite interviews was this one guy who is a preacher. He's one of those televangelists. He was talking about Trump and someone trying to bring up Trump's past schools. That was before he was born again.


And I can name it. And everybody was cheering. Yes, that was before he was born.


Yeah. Their their concept is completely absolve someone that would be nice if you could just how many times can you be born again? Can you fuck up a gang at times and B, just be reborn every time with a fresh slate would be very beneficial.


Yeah. I don't know what the answer is to that as a concept. That's a great idea. Like I would love if I, you know, like you're a man, feel real haunted by my mistakes. Son, just raise your hand. We're going to take those mistakes away. You have done them, but you're free. Do you know General Naked is, you know, general butt naked? No, no, this is the best example that you're ever going to hear.


General Butt Naked was he was a in the civil war in Liberia and he was known for getting buck naked, taking off all his clothes and going to war so he would go to war. And, you know, he's killed many, many, many people. And on video on Vyse, back when they had the vice guide to travel on video, he was talking about what they would do if they captured children from the opposing army, that they would cut their heart out and eat pieces of their heart.


He's talking about this murdering children and eating their heart. Then he found Jesus and they absolved him of everything. And now he's a preacher. So General Butt Naked is now preacher and he runs around and, you know, he's killed. Who knows how many thousands of people and eaten kids hearts and the like. But that was before. Now he's a man of Jesus. Pretty amazing. It's great. That's a great cause if you want someone to join up.


Oh, my goodness. Yeah. Oh, have you seen the the preachers and the televangelist selling the coronaviruses stuff either like you send them money and they'll pray it away or like the silver stuff and all of these different things.


Yeah, we were watching that one guy was blowing was what's his name again. Kenneth Copeland. That same guy. You know, he's the same guy that that lady came up to him and asked him about flying public. And he was like, you know, saying that there's demons on those planes. Are you going poor people, demons? I never said that. And he got crazy with her. Who?


Yeah, just that video alone of him and his wild eyes pointing at her is so goddamn terrifying. Oh, yeah. It's it's dark. All that stuff's dark. It's but again, it's what you talked about where it's lack of information combined with a desire for some general better health. Yeah. But instead of going out and exercising and getting some sunlight, it's maybe, you know, a silver toothpaste is going to prevent the virus or something like that.


It's crazy.


It is. But there's also obviously these are the same people. Jim Baker was one of them. Right, who was selling survival slop. He was selling these buckets of survival food that you could actually use as the base of your table, like you don't know where to put this stuff. And he had tables where he had like the table top is sitting on these survival buckets and selling the shit. And and he's even eating it on the show. Very good.


Like it is. One of the televangelists are one of the very weirdest elements of society where we are. We're allowing people to just lie, like clearly lie. But we feel like the lie is so obvious that you have to be so dumb to believe them. I can't help you. And this is I made this analogy recently because I was talking about YouTube censorship and how YouTube is decided that they're going to pull down videos from doctors who have different opinions on how to handle the coronavirus and criticisms of how things are.


And I'm like, it's really interesting that they make that line, that that's the line that doctors practicing physicians, they'll pull their video down. But people talk about the flat earth, they'll leave that up because it's it's like it's so dumb. It's like you can leave that up. That one's down so dumb. You have to be a moron to think the earth's hollow and that there's aliens living inside it, traveling around on laser beams. There's videos that say that they'll leave those up and they'll leave televangelists up.


But then it gets to these doctors that are saying, we're looking at statistics. This is the deaths, this is the deaths in terms of age groups. And this is why it's not nearly as dangerous as we thought it was. And these quarantines are not the best way to handle it. We think there's better they'll take that video down, even if it's someone who's saying rational things. And I yeah, I don't think that's smart. I don't think that's a healthy way to handle things.


I don't think it's good for the debate. I think, in fact, it strengthens the resolve of the people on the other side that watch those videos. And some of those points resonate with those people, I think. That's not the way to handle it. I don't think removing those videos is the way to handle it. I think the way to handle it is let other people with opposing points of view put their videos up and let people discuss and debate and see which one makes more sense to you.


And usually the weight of the information overwhelms the bullshit. And at least with most people, I don't understand why it's OK to leave some obviously full of shit videos up, but take down things that are very, very controversial but debatable.


OK, so this this now gets into that part of your episode with Bridget from over the weekend that I saw where you basically accurately characterized the view that I had last time I was on with you about the regulation of social media. Yeah. So just to play devil's advocate, just for a second on why do you leave up flat earth but take down the coronavirus videos that YouTube or whoever disagrees with one can make an argument that there is no real action someone would take because they believe the earth is flat that would endanger others.


I mean, I guess you might try to go to the edge and see if you fall off or something like. But there's no actionable thing for the most part, that flat earth belief does, cause that's a good point. Whereas if this disinformation about so like I'll give you one. There was a video I saw about coronavirus where there was a doctor saying, you know, these quarantines are dangerous because if you're not exposed to bacteria, your immune system will be out of practice essentially.


And it's not going to shut down. It's not going to work as well. And then another doctor, another YouTube guy who has a YouTube channel did a counterpoint where he said he's talking about the hygenic theory, but he has it backwards. It is true that if you were never exposed to dirt and bacteria and whatever, it will impact your immune system. But it's actually the opposite is what happens. It's that because you're not regularly exposed to things, your immune system will overreact and it'll start attacking things that aren't really a threat.


OK, so what's the harm? I guess, right? Like there was a video where these doctors identified what they think is the problem with the quarantine.


And then another guy second there. I think it's both things, though. I think it's actually been proven that, yeah, that does happen where your immune system overreacts to people that don't get exposed to enough. But I think there's also it's also been proven that people that are around a lot of different people and constantly exposed to people have stronger immune systems because of that, that it does get practice and it does get strengthened by exposure.


Oh, yeah, I think that's what the sort of fact check was saying, which is it's completely true that exposing kids to the world out there is good, but that what is being asserted will happen from staying home for two months is is both wrong and it wouldn't happen. And we like the idea that a weakened immune system.


Yeah, I was wondering about that. Whether or not it was like a cardiovascular system like that, it only responds to the level of, you know, work that it needs to to do like your cardiovascular system. You know, if you run if you take some time off, boy, it slack off really quickly. It would be a real shame if that was the case. The immune system.


I don't think it is so. But I mean, I guess the point I was trying to make was if you there are a lot of people who are understandably frustrated by what's going on and they're looking for any excuse to just let it rip, so to speak, and go and do whatever. And so I think that to play devil's advocate, there is a different level of risk from allowing some of this disinformation to be propagated that doesn't exist with leaving that earth up.


That's a very good point. Very good point.


But but that being said, you know, last time we talked, we had this conversation about like, OK, if a platform gets to a certain size, does it not kind of enter some new space where you need someone to establish some guidelines?


Can I ask you real quick, one of the problems with this argument, though, is that particularly those doctors in Bakersfield, they weren't spreading disinformation. They were basically spreading the actual facts of fatalities and age groups. And, you know, they just had a different interpretation, but not even the different interpretation because they're basically just going over the statistics. But they had a different viewpoint of how they should move forward. And they were also discussing things like furlaud, doctors and nurses because hospitals are no longer doing elective surgeries.


So in the many hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy, which apparently is true. Yeah, the problem is that's not disinformation. And so if you're saying that if giving people this information makes them make poor choices, then they could be putting themselves at risk or putting loved ones at risk because of that. Yes. OK, I'm with you. Yeah, I agree. But this isn't disinformation. This is factual information. It's just information with a different perspective other than what we're getting, which is only one point of.


You from the World Health Organization and people who subscribe to those ideas, so it's not it's not a lie, but I think your point of if someone believes in the flat earth, there's no harm in that. That's true. So if someone believes in pizza, they think that there's kids being held in a basement somewhere and they go and shoot up the store, then it is a problem right now. That kind of a video I could understand where someone would say, hey, you know, that shouldn't be up there because this is bullshit and this is this is what gets costs from that.


I don't think it's the same argument when we're all trying to figure out what's going on with a medical situation and to practicing physicians, to actual medical doctors are talking about their perspective on this virus. So I don't think they're really on the same line.


Yeah, I totally agree that these are not all equivalent situations. Yeah. For the purposes of our conversation about like who what regulation should be in place. Right. Who gets to regulate or this sort of thing. The the point that I had made last time we talked about this was not necessarily that I'm in favor or against having some kind of infrastructure that says here's how a social network has to operate YouTube, Twitter, whatever. We could talk about that.


And I'm glad to my argument last time we talked was I don't know what the legal case is. How do you define legally what it is that is supposed to happen? Is it like what would be the legal framework for that? And there's also a double standard element of it, because there's a lot of really, really loud right wingers who are saying the left is being propped up on social media and the right is being suppressed, to put it very simply.


Right. And they're calling for regulation. They're against new regulation on gun safety. They're against business regulation. They're against stay at home, et cetera. Now they want to regulate tweets like that's where now they want regulation. That seems extremely cynical and hypocritical to me. But we don't even necessarily have to dig into that to think about, like, OK, if we regulate it, how do we regulate it? Who gets to decide is where?


David, I think we're dealing with a thing that's very similar to what we talked about earlier. The founding fathers who set up this country in the seventeen hundreds had no idea what twenty twenty was going to be like. And I think when you're talking about freedom of speech, it's like, do you still have freedom of speech? If you could just talk and you can't tweet? Well, I guess you do, right? Do you still have freedom to get the word out?


Well, you do, but you don't have freedom like you or I do what you could tweet or you can make a YouTube video. And who gets to have that? And is that an essential service? Is that a thing like the post office or a thing like the electricity and the utilities? Is it essential, an essential thing? I think one could make the argument that in twenty twenty it's used by so many people to convey so much information.


And it's so significant that I believe it is an essential thing. And I think that just banning someone because you don't like what they say or you don't like how they say it, I don't think that's the solution, nor do I think there's a clear solution, because I think that if you have someone who is hateful and is doxing people and insulting people and stalking people online and saying horrible things, that's not good either. Right? There's there's laws about that in person.


You can't harass people in person. Why can you harass people online? Why can you put up your address and have a bunch of people send terrible things to your house? What? Why is that OK, well, it shouldn't be OK either. We need to figure out what's OK and what's not OK. And I think one of the problems with isolating tech, I think tech people and people, whether it's Google or Apple, and you've made a really good argument that they may appear left socially, but they absolutely operate right when it comes to finance, when it comes to their business.


And I think that is true. But I think that when you're dealing with the ability to discuss things and you might say that your perspective is the one that you want to hear because you're a left wing person and these are your beliefs, but you're isolating the whole other team from being a part of that conversation. And maybe they have something you want to hear and maybe they don't have anything you want to hear, but to not allow them to communicate, you are alienating a giant chunk of the population.


And if someone gets to a prominent level where they're they're communicating a certain way and you just decide that that certain way is unacceptable and you kick them off, you don't just kick them off. You also silence all the other people that are along or aligned with them because they have similar ideas and they don't want to speak out either. When you when you ban James Woods, you don't just ban James Woods. You burn a lot of other people from saying something they might be furious about, you know, the Rush investigation or whatever they want to express themselves.


And they they they panic, they get scared. They worry that they're going to get that censorship. That's a form of censorship. And I think these companies, I don't blame them. Because I don't think they had any idea what they were going to become and I think they're all adjusting along the way, I think when Twitter was first, when Twitter first came out.


Remember that like you would right at David Pakman is going to the movies. You like you like you know, Joe Rogan just had a great pizza. That's what you did. I mean, it wasn't this thing where you got to express yourself in two hundred and forty, whatever characters. And we're in a different world now. And I think this different world needs some different examination about what the ability to communicate online is. And this is a an important point because Alex Jones made some crazy video after a conversation that I had with him yesterday where he was saying that I'm going to war against censorship in a war against YouTube.


That's I'm not doing any of those things. I made this deal with Spotify, OK? I made the deal with Spotify because it's a great company and it's a great deal. And I'm excited to be in a partnership with a company as opposed to like a company that I just put my stuff up on their platform, whether it's Apple or YouTube. I don't like that YouTube censors things. I don't like that they do that like those doctors in Bakersfield.


But I'm not at war with them. I'm not at war with anybody and I'm not OK. I don't I don't envy them their position. I don't think it's smart to censor practicing doctors when they have differing opinions. I think we need to find out who's right. And I think the way you find out who's right is you get people who are experts and they disagree. There's Nobel laureates out there. And I've watched several videos that are talking about this lockdown and that it's not a good idea.


There's people that believe in herd mentality versus immunizations and or vaccines. And I don't know who's right. And I would like them to all be able to discuss it equally and openly. That said, I don't envy Twitter, I don't envy YouTube. I don't envy any of these people. The idea of trying to manage this in real time while it explodes and takes over the way human beings communicate over a period of a decade just like that, that's so instantaneous and mistakes have been made.


And in my opinion, when it comes to the way things are censored and the way it's it's these mistakes, particularly on Twitter, far favor the left and they're not balanced like this. Some horrible things that people on the left say about people on the right. And it's nothing. It just gets washed away. But when the people do it who are on the right about people on the left, they get banned. It's not fair. And when things aren't fair, one side has a better argument that they're being censored and that there's some sort of a conspiracy and it divides people even more.


It strengthens the hate instead of instead of like I think most people, the vast majority, 70, 80 percent are reasonable people that you could have a conversation with if you were in front of them one on one, when they don't feel like they're a part of the conversation or when they speak their side and their stuff gets deleted or removed or put into some, you know, some shadow band category, it's it's fucking infuriating for people.


It's not good for all of us as a community. And I think that is the burden that these places like YouTube or Twitter, they have to shoulder this burden. And I don't know how to do it. I don't know. I mean, Republicans have one perspective. There's many people like yourself that have the perspective like it's their company. Should not they be able to make their own rules? I think they're too big. I think they're too big for that now.


And I think that it's in this position where it literally is a part of who we are as as human beings. The ability to express ideas and communicate is so critical right now. And as we're evolving and as we're we're evolving our culture and our civilization discourse is so important.


It's it's it's it's a giant part of being a human being in 2020. And I don't think it should be just flippantly removed from people.


So my personal view is very similar to yours in terms of, you know, sort of like illegal content and really very specific things. My instinct is leave it up and let the sort of let people evaluate it, let people publish counter points that that's my my personal view. Now, the the conservative view on this is, you know, if you if this cake Baker doesn't want to bake a cake because of who you want to marry, you don't do anything to the baker.


You just go. And the market will if there's a demand for those types of cakes, for those types of weddings, bakers will enter the market and that's it. If you apply that here. And we'll get to the differences in a second. If you apply that here, if the James Woods is want to say stuff and a whole bunch of people want to hear that stuff, why don't they just go and make their platform and bring everybody over?


It sounds like a great business, right? Yeah, it does sound a great business. It's way harder, way harder to do than just do it. I mean, just say, why don't you make another Twitter? Well, there would be a thousand Twitters. It's obviously very difficult. No one's ever been able to do it. It's not something that's it's you talking about something. It takes an enormous amount of resources. It's it's not that.


Yes. It's not that simple. It's not that simple, but everybody already does, but everybody already does use Twitter, so I think the question really is, does Twitter have a responsibility for fair treatment? You know, and I'm sure you've seen some of those James Veritas, James O'Keefe or other Project Veritas videos where they have secret cameras filming executives talking about how to censor conservative people.


I've seen a little bit of it. What I do remember is from the Planned Parenthood era, where what they published was pretty dramatically dishonest, from what I recall. But I've not seen the one you're referring to specifically. That was a long time ago.


Was it how long ago was the Planned Parenthood stuff? Was it five years ago? Are you talking about the ACORN stuff, the stuff where they brought in a pimp to try to get money for opening up a brothel?


It's been so long that the details escape me, but I remember that there I remember that incident. I've not really seen anything recently that they've done ever.


You have deceptive editing. You know, the problem is, even if in the future you're don't you don't do that anymore. It's like everyone's always going to remember that you did do something. Yes. You did do something that wasn't straightforward. Cut and dry, no emotion journalism. Just here are the facts. Planned Parenthood awarded two million dollars in lawsuit over secret videos.


Interesting. That's not. Yeah, yeah. That was that was that's that's my big memory when you mentioned that that organization. But so I think that let's say we agree about something needs to be done. Once you're at a certain level, you enter a new category and some kind of regulation has to be done. Who does the regulation? When you look at redistricting, for example, this has been like a multi decade thing where when Republicans are in power, they draw the districts in a way that's favorable to them.


Democrats are in power. They take the opportunity to redraw the districts that are favorable to them. You have these ideas of, OK, we'll have a commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. And together they'll figure out how the districts could be drawn fairly well. How do you apply that? What the lesson from that? How do you apply it to the Trump administration, decide what kind of content must be left up versus what can be removed, but then that administration gets replaced.


Now, the next administration says here's how Twitter is supposed to operate. Like, how do you do it?


It's a really good question. It's a really hard question. That's one thing. I don't I don't envy those people. You know, I really like Jack Dorsey as a person. I really enjoy talking to him. I think he's a very thoughtful guy. And in in discussing this with him, both on the show and off the show, you know, they they don't really know exactly how to handle these things. So they don't really know what the perfect solution is.


And he's even proposed a Wild West Twitter and then a Twitter that's under some sort of moderation. And I don't know where they stand on that right now, but that was something he was actively bringing up, like let's have a Twitter where anything goes. You could. Yeah, like, read it in the early days. You could do whatever the fuck you wanted versus what what they have now. But here's another example. When when you when a person gets so big like Trump, you can get away, you could do shit on Twitter that there's no way you could do right.


Like if you've seen the recent thing where he's accusing Joe Scarborough of possibly being a part of a murder or something like that, I saw that he's breaking up. I mean, apparently totally I don't know the exact details of the story, but it's been investigated. It had nothing to do with it. It was just someone he worked with. And Trump is he's putting out this thing particularly just to try to target Joe Scarborough, get his fans to go nutty and fuck with him.


You know, and that's a weird way of that's a right wing guy who is literally the top right wing guy. Right. So, yeah, right wing bias doesn't seem to apply totally, you know, negative bias when it when it comes to the president and the president. When you get to a certain level, like you could just do shit like that, like you could just threaten North Korea, like you could say we have the best missiles will fuck you up like a tweet that he could tweet.


Hey, hey, buddy. I'm glad you fake your death. And I know you're still alive, but I just want to know we got the best missiles and we'll fuck you up. Have he tweeted that like, whoa.


But this is not really unique to Twitter in the sense that if you look at our justice system, there's sort of like the justice system for the elites and then for other people the focus on street crime instead of white collar crime. I mean, this exists in a lot of different places. What can a really big business get away with versus what can a small business owners get away with? So I don't think that's different. What one of the things I'm thinking about is what's the main point of Twitter like?


Twitter is a publicly traded corporation. So at this point, is it fair to say that the main point of Twitter is to be profitable and and deliver a return to shareholders? Because if it is all the stuff we're talking about, about how we would like. To see it operate is sort of irrelevant because they now have this fiduciary responsibility to just make money, right? What do you think Twitter's worth? Like I said, if someone wanted to come over and buy it.


What if the government bought Twitter and just supplied the First Amendment to Twitter with the government saying, listen, you guys are kicking ass. Great job, however. You're basically a public utility for communication of ideas. And it's imperative that for liberty and for the ability for people to have free speech, everyone has to have access to this. And so when you go to maybe it's like one of those things where you go to jail for a horrible felony, you lose your ability to vote.


Maybe you go to jail for something, you lose your ability to tweet, you know, I mean, could it be three hundred billion? I've no idea. I wonder how much it is.


I mean, how much are they spending on these goddamn stimulus packages? I wonder if they could probably buy cheap right now. To me, I don't think Twitter really makes money either. I don't think it makes money. You know, I think Twitter is one of those weird situations where it's worth something. But I don't I don't know if it actually does. I don't I don't think it's in the in the profitable area. Right. I don't think it's I don't think it's making.


Is it didn't you we talked to Jamie and I talked about this fairly recently. Yeah. It's complicated. You know, some things make sense. Like Google makes sense. Right? They use Google ads. They make a shitload of money. You to make sense. It's profitable. It all makes sense. Twitter's like, where are you? Where where's the money coming from? Like you. It's so valuable. But and it's it's such a useful tool.


But how does how do they make money?


I mean, so literally there are ads on Twitter as well. Right. Boosted posts, promote advertising, etc.. I have no idea how much money they're making from that versus what is the value of the user base.


Wasn't there a point recently where a very, very conservative investor bought a giant chunk of Twitter and was thinking about kicking out Jack Dorsey was not something that was brought up really recently? No, I don't know about that. You remember that, Jamie? There was a. There was a situation once, but I don't know if that's how it went down, like fairly recently, someone just bought a controlling stake or a large stake.


Look, man, I just think is there anyone you would trust to regulate Twitter and YouTube and Facebook? Like who would you who would do it?


Oh, that's a good question. I don't think it should be one person either. I think it's also like president, like being president. I don't think she should be the president of Twitter. I really think it might be wise for all of us to consider it like a public utility.


You would socialize Twitter. Yeah, that's incredible. I think something that has that kind of power when it comes to expression, it's a it's valuable for human beings that I would never want to take it away from the people that own it, obviously. But I just think as a concept that we should consider that what we have here with something like Twitter or even maybe there's a good argument for YouTube as well, that what these these new abilities to express yourself are, they're they're incredibly important in terms of the process of our culture, the process of going over ideas and evolving those ideas.


There's no better way to do that than open communication. There's no better open communication than Twitter and YouTube, like in terms of regular people. You could start a YouTube video right now on your phone. I could just set the phone up here, press record and start talking and then upload it and bam, my thoughts could be available to anybody. And I think that's so valuable. It's so it's so important in terms of our ability to go back and forth with ideas.


And we're changing those ideas. Like, obviously, the way we thought about life in 1960 is very different than the way we think about life today. And a lot of that comes from discourse. A lot of that comes from discussion and the evolution of these ideas. Jamie has something.


Yeah, I think there was a potential corporate takeover that tried that maybe happened, but they made an agreement.


Twitter reaches deal with activist fund that wanted Jack Dorsey out. They made a deal. They met on Phuc Island.


And they all know, listen, I mean, I couldn't agree more strongly with you about the importance of these platforms. My entire business is built on them. I mean, I have no business. If it weren't for what I think, I think the difficulties are what are what are the standards that are applied. And I also like I don't want to sound like one of these free market right wingers, but what's the legal bit? You would have to first establish a legal basis.


You would have to establish law that says once you have this number of users or this number of page views or whatever, you now are bound by this new set of of laws. And that is complex, to say the least.


It's very complex. It's very complex. And I don't I don't I have no idea how one would even begin and how long the process of figuring out what the rules should be, how long it would take before we all agreed on that. And I think that would be another great argument for the ability to express yourself, because in forming these laws, we would want to hear all perspectives, perspectives from people that have been harmed by social media and, you know, and Twitter mobs and shit like that.


And what should be done about that. And the same thing could be said about YouTube as well, I think. But one thing that no one can deny is how significant these these tools are, whether it's Twitter or YouTube or, you know, any new one that comes out, whether it's ticktock or whatever, they're they're really powerful. There's there's something to them that's unprecedented in the history of humanity, you know, and we can't just apply the old rules to them.


Just doesn't make sense. I don't think it's good for us. And when I have talked to conservative people about this there, I mean, if you're not accustomed to it, if you're not accustomed to feeling like you're censored and you're angry, you don't know what it's like until you're around these people. And then you see their frustration and their anger and their fury at Twitter for for doing that and for for censoring voices that are similar to their perspectives instead of just letting the process take place like it's always has been.


It's just in a different form.


The process of being able to talk through it is one of the risks of this, is that once you assert a right to a platform to exist on a platform that supersedes Twitter or YouTube's ability to say for whatever reason, because they're a company, they can have terms and conditions and they say, we just don't want this. If if YouTube was determined that they don't want gardening content on YouTube, I can't think of a legal reason why they can't say no gardening content.


I mean, as long as they're not by virtue of banning gardening content, you know, banning people on the basis of membership in some protected class or something like that. Right. Like if you are if all gardeners were of a certain race. Right, you could make the case that by proxy, by banning gardening content, they're banning people of a certain race.


I don't know how you prevent that from the. And being applied elsewhere, like what other platforms would people have a right to, and this gets to speakers who say, I was censored because a certain school wouldn't have me to speak there. It's like, well, hold on, you don't have a right to speak at any particular school. Schools can make decisions about what they want and what they don't want. As long as you're not being discriminated against based on your identity, is it not sort of the same thing with YouTube?


Like what? What is the legal basis for saying they can no longer make these decisions?


Well, it's a big there's a big difference. First of all, a school is a single destination. That's a physical place. Right. So you can decide, you know, this is a conservative school. We don't want people coming over here and talking about this or this is a very progressive school. We don't want to have someone from the KKK come here and tell us how all races are not equal, that that's a very different thing when you're when you're doing something like YouTube.


The real question is, is it just a business or is it just a business owned by people and they have the right to do whatever they want or is at least I mean, you know, you're on YouTube, you're called a partner, right? They did refer to you as a partner. David Pakman is a YouTube partner. Right. But you you know, and in some ways you are right because you put out a lot of content. You're huge.


You put out a lot of content. And that content is an integral part of like, look, they have a progressive news sort of empire, really, when you really stop and look about and homemade shows like yours, you know, like there's there's many, many of them that you could watch Kyle Kolinsky and Jimmy Dawg and all these folks are doing these shows basically from scratch. Right. There's no large production company behind it or any of the things that so they've they've they've got this whole empire of you're a part of it.


You're part of this whole news empire. And there's many categories, but.


What they are is not as simple as just a business, they are a business, but what they all are as well, what you know, all the executives, all the people that YouTube as an entity is one of the most powerful tools for expression the world has ever known. So if you have this incredibly powerful tool for expression, at what point in time or when when are you able to deny people the use of that thing and why? You know, and what is freedom of expression if it doesn't apply to these new tools?


What is the First Amendment? If it doesn't apply to these new tools? If someone can come along and say, hey, I know you're a doctor and a practicing physician, but I'm twenty eight and I live in Palo Alto and I say, fuck you because I believe in the show and I don't believe in you and I'm just going to delete your video. And it seems to me that I follow the rules that YouTube has set forth about, you know, if you don't agree with the show and you're giving some sort of contrary coronavirus information delete.


And I don't I don't think that's wise. I don't think that's wise. I think that's a very, very complicated issue that should be debated publicly and discussed publicly whether or not these people have the right to be heard. And this is just one example that we keep bringing up. But there's many different kinds of things that fit along those lines. You know, when you just want to ban all conspiracy theories, air quotes. The problem with conspiracy theories is, first of all, the word as a pejorative was created to try to steer people away from the Kennedy assassination, which is like one of the greatest conspiracies of all time.


Some some people did that, whether it was Lee Harvey Oswald by himself, I highly doubt it. I think there's probably other people involved. I think it was a conspiracy. So I don't know enough about this and I don't know much about yeah, I know too much about it. We could spend the rest of the day discussing that and let's not.


But one point is First Amendment, though, I don't think the First Amendment is in play here because you're not talking about the government when you talk about YouTube.


Well, I think we should revise the First Amendment. This is what I'm saying. I think freedom of expression used to be you. I can't infringe upon your right to express yourself. But that was like yelling on a fucking apple box, you know, like you did when when that was created.


The really other than writing something in print or yelling something in a public square, there weren't a lot of ways to express yourself. Now, the most powerful way the world has ever known has come along to express yourself. And that's social media, that's YouTube and Twitter. And what are those things and how much of a responsibility to the people who own those things have to adhere to the fundamental ideas that got us to this republic in the first place? And I think there's a real good argument that they're more powerful than simply just a company, that they have this amazing ability to get information out and that this is I mean, it should certainly be profitable.


And I don't deny them their profitability. I mean, they've made it amazing thing. They've created something that we all benefit from. They should make a shitload of money. But I think we should really be careful about who gets to use this and who doesn't get to use this. Just because someone says something that you disagree with and get other people to also agree with them doesn't mean they should be shut down. If you don't agree with what they're saying, if you don't like what they're saying, you probably shouldn't view it or listen to it or read it.


You should probably find something else to or examine why you don't like it. And this is where thinking comes in. This is where critical thinking and discussion comes in. And this is a huge part of managing a community, of managing a civilization. So the one of the biggest parts of managing this civilization, this kind of discourse is limited and it's limited and censored and people can arbitrarily decide to just remove you from it. Do you know the Zuby story?


Do you know what happened in Zuby?


I only vaguely Zuby is he's an entertainer, rapper out of the UK.


Great guy, wonderful. Ginostra doesn't even swear. Very religious guy. He was in a discussion with someone on Twitter, didn't know if that was a male or a female or what. They prefer to be mentioned as what their pronouns are. But they said, I bet I have sex with more women than you. And he writes, OK, dude, that's all he writes. And he gets suspended from Twitter for any he asked them to review it.


They reviewed it and upheld it. They look, yes, this is a good suspension. You can't just say, OK, due to someone. That kind of stuff is crazy. Right? You know, I'm sure you know that Megan Murphy story where she she says she's in an argument with someone over trans rights versus radical feminist rights. And, you know, she's what you call it, trans exclusionary, radical feminist. And she says a man is never a woman.


This is what she said. She doesn't believe that transgender people should be able to have a say in traditional women's issues. And so she gets banned for life for that. She she basically said an opinion on something. A man is never a woman, though. They ask her to take it down. She took a screenshot of it and then put the screenshot up. She took it down. And she's obviously being rebellious, but she. That keep her from being able to use that platform.


No, no, you should be able to debate that statement. You should be able to refute that. If you want to be angry at her, tell her what you think. Tell her what's wrong with it. Tell you it's hurtful about it. But banning someone for that, it sends a ripple of self-censorship that changes the discourse and makes you feel like you're oppressed, makes you feel like the overlords who watch over the social media platforms. You know, they have the final say in power and it might not align with my ideas and there's nothing I can do about it.


Yeah. Again, my view personally essentially lines up with yours in terms of my tolerance of of speech. I still think that there's a huge issue and hypocrisy here where you have large swaths of people that are only in favor of this type of regulation. Oh, you're right. You're right to leave. And it benefits them based on their biases. And they don't want the regulation when it comes to, like I said, gun control. Is this everything else?


There's another hypocrisy, which I think is important. When you talk about net neutrality, there's this debate. Is the Internet so necessary and ubiquitous now that it should be like the phone and like electricity? You tell just a straight up utility. Yeah. If you believe YouTube, which is a piece of the Internet, should warrant this degree of additional regulation, how can you not say that the infrastructure that carries it obviously should be democratized and treated like a public utility.


And yet you have a ton of people who want to regulate tweets, but they don't think that at this point the Internet is so important that it should be a public utility. How do you square that?


That's a really good question. You know, I think there's a way to balance it out where everyone has access to it. But if you want really hardcore high bandwidth access, it's very expensive. You pay for it differently. Sort of like how in places that have public health care, they have the option for a private specialist. It's really good at certain surgeries or something along those lines that you could you could pay for it as long as everybody has access to it, but you don't have access to it the way that maybe, say, a business would need like a really fat pipe with a lot of bandwidth.


It's a good question, though, but I think what you nailed earlier about discussions for regulation is so important because it does highlight the hypocrisy that people have with ideas that are controversial.


And one of the things that they feel when it comes to whether it's the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, whatever it is, they want it. This is what's written down. It's in we're not changing it. It's that way forever. Whether it's the Fourteenth Amendment, whatever the fuck it is, pick an amendment. They just. Nope, nope, nope. Written down. That's it. That's what it is. And you're right that when it comes to something like social media, where there isn't really a precedence, now they want regulation.


They want the government to come and step because it doesn't favor what their ideas are. I I see that there's some hypocrisy in that, but I also favor regulation. So I favor in that regard or favor regulation. I favor a regulation in a lot of ways. I think this whole I mean, I've had these discussions with many people. They let the market decide. I'm like, that's OK. A lot of people get fucked over when you just let the market decide that eventually things even out and sometimes maybe not cliche.


Yeah, it's almost a cliche at this point because even a lot of times that people say that they don't really want a free market. Right. They want a free market until you could have seen the pandemic coming. Let's give cash to all of these types of businesses all of a sudden. And I'm not saying I'm against that, but I'm saying let's instead of pretending to be for one thing, until you clearly need a different one, let's recognize these systems are more fragile than we believe them to be.


Yes. And let's set that up all along to prevent something so acute from going wrong.


Yes, yes, yes. Very good point. And I think this is what we talked about earlier that we hope happens out of this pandemic is that we have a greater understanding of some things are out of our control. And we we should be prepared as a community, as a large community. We should be prepared to help each other. And I think that can be done. I really do. And I think we could shift in that direction. And and that's what I really enjoyed about some of the concepts that Andrew Yang had about universal basic income, like saying like, look, we need to take into consideration that this change is probably going to hit us and it's going to hit us hard and we've got to be prepared.


And, you know, the way he called it, I believe he referred to as a freedom dividend. So he gave it a different spin. You know, this is this is something you earned by being a part of this country. Like we're going to have to adjust some of these hard line values that we have in terms of what people are responsible for and what people aren't. My argument has always been, you can't. I hate that. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.


Shit, I hate it. It drives me crazy because not everybody is in the same situation from the start. You don't come out. You don't you don't. You're not born into the same family. You're not born in the same. Unity, you're not born the same stresses and troubles and crime and gangs and this and that and abuse and sexual abuse and physical abuse, and it's not an even playing field. It's just not. So this all this, you know, you need to get your shit together like, no, we need to help people get their shit together.


And we need to figure out how do we if we looked at the number one problem and this is again, going back to Bernie Sanders, the number one problem with people that are young, that are coming up is is having opportunity, having health care, having safety, having having a place where you could actually have a fighting chance to thrive. And my perspective is, if you're a person that thinks America as a team, that we are America and I'm proud to be an American.


Well, what's the best way to strengthen an America? Less losers, less people that have a shitty hand of cards from the jump. That's what we should be concentrating on more than anything. You know, there's a number that a corresponding number as unemployment rises, there's more people dying because of heart attacks, suicide, depression, all these different factors that you can apply that to poverty. You could apply that to despair. You could apply that to growing up in an environment where it seems like there's no hope.


You know, you can only ask someone to hold their breath and swim for so long before they just want to give up. And that's what you see with a lot of people in our culture today, in our society, in these inner cities, that's not addressed. People, one after the other, people run for office and they don't address those things, especially run for the top office. Bernie was the only one who was he was the only one who was addressing it.


So that was why I was for Bernie Sanders. He he, to me, represented some revolutionary change in our our perception of what our society is and what our obligations are as good citizens.


Yeah, depths of despair. I think it's a category that encompasses all all of that stuff. So I was just reminded of that because we went back to Bernie. So are are you voting Biden or are you voting Trump or do you know what you're doing?


I don't know what I'm doing, man. I think I'm probably going to vote independent. I think California is going to go it's going to go Democrat no matter what, you know.


Yeah, who knows if he if Biden has some lady whose bad ass who tells them, sit down, shut the fuck up, I got this. Maybe maybe I'll be more inclined to vote for him based on his vice president choice.


I don't know, you know, know that like from my perspective, 70 percent of of what you seem to be highlighting with Bernie, maybe 60 or 60, 70 percent you would get with Biden. I'm very cynical.


Very cynical. Yeah, I'm very cynical about that. I think so many of these choices, like even just having a female president, they're done for perception's and are done to he's he's appealing to the people that want him in power in the first place. Those old guard Democrats, you know, and the the business of the Democratic Party, it's a it's a giant business. The whole thing is getting control. And, you know, there's some social carrots that are dangling out there at the end of the stick that we would like to think that, you know, having someone in there that's going to vote left in terms of Supreme Court justices and things along those lines would help us all tremendously.


But I don't know. I'm cynical the way the way this whole Bernie Sanders thing went down. I'm cynical about that. How they all dropped out right before Super Tuesday and it was Bernie versus Biden. And, you know, there's there's so much of it that I felt like there's so much coordinated shit that he had to endure from the DNC in 2016 that is enduring. He was enduring similar shit running into the twenty twenty election. I don't I don't have a lot of faith in the same standard institutions changing things for the better.


I just I just don't have a lot of faith.


I think that I mean, I guess I don't know. I'm thinking like I don't have kids. But if thinking if I did. All frustrations with the DNC, the coordinated drop outs, all of that stuff, it's just for me so simple where like if Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court justice, that could affect your kids kids in horrible ways. Whereas if Biden gets to pick the next Supreme Court like that alone and you know, these other two hundred and fifty judges that Trump selected that we don't really hear about, but that make way more decisions like climate aside, I think Biden, you would agree with more on tax policy.


I think you'd be more with all these different issues, like just the judges part would impact society for 20, 30 years. And that just seems so huge. It would be huge.


Yeah. I mean, and we should probably consider whether or not that makes sense, whether or not Supreme Court justices should be lifetime appointees. Does that make sense? And should it be so significant that you're willing to ignore everything else just because you want someone in the Supreme Court that aligns with your politics? Because they're not going to be there for a couple of years. They're going to be there until essentially either retire or die. That's that's a weird thing to have.


It's a weird amount of it's almost like there's something that happens to professors when they get tenure or they they can kind of get away with wacky shit and do whatever they want. It gets real weird. And I think that whenever you get people in a position where they don't ever have to worry about getting fired, I mean, obviously a scandal to murder somebody or something, but they're they're appointed for life, you know, I think and they have immense power.


It's just it I don't know.


I'm not obviously I'm not a law student or lawyer, but is that really the best way to do it?


Yeah. I mean, I tend to favor term limits for Supreme Court justices. The counterpoint, which is not a crazy counterpoint, is if they know that eventually on the tail end of this thing, they've got to go and get a job. It could influence their rulings in cases. Right, if you will, very often see cases where it could be dealing with an industry, that would be the likely industry you would work at after you leave the Supreme Court.


Yeah, that would be something you would want to eliminate. But but I see both sides of it.


I see both sides of it, too. It seems to me like also to have a president that gets to choose. The Supreme Court judges, it's like all the other shit he has to do to that, that should be the only job he does. If he was just going to pick Supreme Court judges, he should mull over that for years. He should have stacks of paperwork in his office going over. He should first of all, he should be a lawyer like Obama would be uniquely qualified for that gig.


You know, Hillary would be uniquely you should be a fucking lawyer that understands what you're actually going to vote on and what you're actually what the implications of giving this person this gig is going to be. And also, wouldn't it be logical if we're just assuming that there's a this is probably a terrible idea because it would result in, like, big stalemates, but wouldn't it be great if we're we're admitting that there's only two parties? We kind of are.


There's a third. There's independent and green and all that. But really, there's really there's two parties, right? This conservative and liberal. Wouldn't it be great if there's half and half, five of each or four of each or, you know, pick a number if you're going to have a Supreme Court? Wouldn't it be great? It was equally representative of.


Well, by definition, that cannot happen because in order to avoid stalemates, you've got to have an odd number, right?


Yeah, maybe just one. That one is what happens. The president gets to pick that one. So if you're a Republican, you get one. You have like one that tips it towards your side. One. But I mean, it's a terrible idea. I'm a moron and don't listen to me, but wouldn't it make more sense to have equal representation of both sides when it comes to complex issues that's going to affect the entire country? I mean, it shouldn't just be a simple matter of this.


One guy is the president. He gets to just appoint all these right wing Jesus bangers and they come in and burn all abortion clinics like that. It shouldn't be that simple.


Now, that's interesting because. So you're pro-choice. Do you really want it to be mandated that half the court is against abortion? Like, why would that be good?


Well, again, whenever it comes to abortion, it's the what there's one thing that you keep bringing up and that you keep bringing up pro-choice. You keep bringing it up. It's I brought it up because you mentioned abortion. Right. Right. Right. But you brought it up earlier, too. Yes. Yes. It's it's one of those when it comes to picking a Supreme Court, that's like the number one thing. Should you. I mean, I hate to say this.


What should you be able to abort a baby? That's what it is. Right. Or a fetus or, you know, the bundle of tissue before it's ever really anything. Should you be able to do that? And it's so crazy that that is like one of our number one considerations. Should someone be able to infringe on your rights as a human being to tell you have to carry this baby and then you have to either put it up for adoption or raise it like like Woody uniquely human conundrum, that is.


And that conversation. That is because, as we discussed earlier, it does get everybody gets very disturbed when it gets older. When you're dealing with five and six months, everybody has a problem with it, almost everybody. But when it's early on, it's less and less. It's what are those uniquely human things where we're all just like, whoa, that's a messy discussion. It's a messy problem.


It's not unique to abortion, though. I mean, if you think about think about a speed limit, right? I mean, you got engineers and they say the speed limit here is going to be thirty five. Is that mean when it's drive 40 is unsafe? No. Does that mean if it's icy, thirty five is safe. You've probably got the fact that there is an arbitrary nature to it often gets you into a philosophical black hole where people end up saying you just can't have it because it's not clear in the way we would like it to be clear.


And I think we don't want to fall into that kind of philosophical black hole because it's not unique to abortion that that exists.


Yeah, you could make a good argument about being something that you could apply to a lot of different things. But abortion is so emotional because the when you talk to the pro-life people and they're, you know, screaming that you're killing a baby, like there's nothing else like that that sort of has the consequences of, you know, on one side, people looking at a woman's right to choose and then the other side looks at it. You're killing a baby like, whoa, that is a really polarizing and complex issue.


But I agree with you about the speed limit thing. And the other problem with the speed limit thing is you turning cops in a glorified revenue collectors because they're out running around, giving people tickets and collecting money for going too fast. Like that's not what they're supposed to be there for. I mean, for sure, if someone's driving unsafe, they should do that. But they shouldn't be waiting to catch people going three miles an hour over the forty five limit.


And also, like, what kind of a car do you have? Because if you have, you know, a nineteen sixty five Buick and it doesn't stop at all, like you hit the brakes and it skids for like 15 feet before it even starts to, to break. Your car's dangerous, your car's dangerous, probably even going 35 miles an hour. If you had an old tank of a car with shitty brakes and you know those cars, they're not designed to go fast, like in comparison to today's cars at all.


Like maybe you shouldn't even be allowed to drive those when you see someone with like one of them classic cars like Jay Leno drives all around Burbank, like, hey, man, you can't have those brakes. Barely work on that fucking piece of shit. But if you have a Tesla like, my God, man, those things are super fast. They're super comfortable and safe. The brakes are amazing. Like there's modern cars today that you can make the argument that fifty five miles an hour is preposterous.


I know all around Massachusetts, I used to live there. The speed limit was crazy. Fifty five miles an hour is maddening. You just want to eat your steering wheel. You're like, this is going to take so long.


When was that? I don't even remember when the speed limit was fifty miles.


Hagar, bro, I can't drive fifty five. Don't you remember. Do you remember the Abia Abedian before.


You're sixty five. I remember sixty. How old are you David. Thirty six. Yeah I'm ancient. I'm fifty two.


And when I was a kid Sammy Hagar before he was even in Van Halen. Hear the song. I can't drive 55. Oh yeah yeah yeah.


No I know. So I, I just thought I don't know when it was that slow in Massachusetts. Oh man.


Well when I lived in there I moved out of Massachusetts and probably ninety to ninety one ninety two and it was still fifty five. Then when I had to drive to Connecticut for gigs, you'd get busted all the time, these fucking guys be hiding behind Bush's radar. We'd have radar detectors you hang from your steering wheel in your rearview mirror.


Remember those things? Yeah, I used to have one. Didn't work at all, but had one. But, yeah, there's there's I mean, you know, Montana had no speed limits. Montana was like, fuck you. Until the federal government said, listen, you know, you got to if you want money from us, you got to do something. You've got to speed limits. So they came up with some wacky, like 85 mile an hour speed limit up there.


But that's also, you know, it's it's a place where there's just not that many folks is big, wide open stretches of land. It's not like driving 85 miles an hour through downtown Boston.


No. Are you are you like out and about a lot right now with what's going on with the virus?


I mean, not really. I went to Florida for the UFC. That was really weird. That was last weekend or the weekend before last. That was very strange. You know, wearing a mask everywhere and everyone else has a mask on. But once we got to the actual event, it was just strange because there's no audience with the fight, had no crowd. And then I came back home and most of it mostly I just come in here to the studio and going home.


I have I've actually, you know, aside from being freaked out and all the anxiety and being sad that people are suffering and. I myself have enjoyed the time off and enjoyed the the the ability to reflect and to just think about like. What is important in life and what what is important in terms of how I spend my time and how critical health is that it's not just a luxury or a vanity that health and exercise, it's imperative. And I may not beat people over the head with that, maybe too much, but I think it's so goddamn important.


And that to me, that's really been hammered home to me about this pandemic, love, friendship, how important my friendships are, how I value them so much, my obligation in doing this thing, you know, in this thing, it's like I want I want to express a beneficial idea. I want to express ideas in a way that maybe people could get something out of it. I want I want to I want I want it to be entertaining, but I want people to get something out of it, you know?


And I think that that's all been highlighted and what a unique position I'm in and how fortunate I am and what what obligation comes with that fortune. You know, that's all been really highlighted by this this pandemic.


Yeah. I just feel so lucky that my job doesn't depend on me driving somewhere on some boss, whatever the community that, you know, people are home watching stuff. And for that reason, you know, stuff shows like these are particularly important right now. But also that responsibility thing about I really need to make sure I'm informing people about what's actually going on. I don't want to be spreading disinformation, the feeling of that responsibility as I've always had it.


But it is particularly acute right now because of what's going on.


Yeah, and it should. And you know, David, it's interesting, we were talking about this earlier, but your show couldn't exist in any other time and nor could mine. And we're very, very, very similar in that way. If you had someone standing over you telling you what to do or hey, David, here's the data we've got from the polls. They don't like it when you talk about this or they say not to talk about that.


And the sponsor wants you to change the way you're dressed and that kind of shit, you would never become you. And I think one of the reasons why shows like yours resonate with people is because it's very obvious that no one is telling you what to do. You're just a guy who has your perspectives and you're a brilliant guy. You have very interesting thoughts on things. But these are homebrewed thoughts like you've thought about these. These are these are not things that are being handed to you on a on a printed sheet by the network executives.


And that's what makes what you do. And what I do so interesting is that it resonates as people can clearly see I'm a moron. So this moron is being able to talk to all these people and have these intense conversations like this, not really a barrier of entry that we once thought it was, you know, to be a person who has that kind of an audience. You used to have to be vetted and you go through a long process.


There was a lot of other people in consideration. You had to play games and politicking and, you know, you had to be chosen. You have to be chosen any more. You just have to do it and get better at it.


And I feel so fortunate to be in the situation that I'm in where this is happening, and to to have this ability to just do a show, to not have to talk to anybody, able to just just go and have conversations with whoever I want, whether it's you or whoever anyone.


Yeah, I think it's yeah. My hope is like when we look back at this, whenever it's done, you know, that I can just feel good about the work that happened during this time because I think it's going to be a phase where we'll kind of remember the beginning, middle and end of it. And I don't know when the end of it is going to be, but I don't want to feel like the time was squandered in any way.


No, I don't think it is, man. I think perspective wise, I think we're all going to benefit from this. The the real problem is people with businesses. The real problem is people that didn't do anything wrong and everything's taken away from them. And I feel fucking terrible for them. And if there's any way we could save them and do something, I mean, I just don't know what the answers are. I don't know the answers are medically.


I don't know what the answers are. I mean, in terms of managing our economy from here out, I don't. But, man, it's it's a fucking weird time. It's one of the weirdest times. Like, sometimes I'll just be driving down the street and I'll have forgotten that we're in the middle of a pandemic. And I'll see some person with a mask on like, oh, yeah. Oh yeah. The world's fucking haywire right now.


I forgot. We're all afraid to touch each other and everyone's far apart. And you get hand sanitizer, squirt, and every five minutes on your cell phones. It's just the weirdest time of my life. Yeah.


My my my biggest concern is that all the stuff that we figured out we weren't ready for, we learned nothing from it. And then just the next one of these happens and we're just as unprepared and things go just as haywire. That would be like the biggest waste. And I fear that that is a good possibility. That's a big fear.


And it's also like how? What it meant in terms of money to allocate what's left like after the stimulus packages, after all this stuff that we're doing, what is going to be left? How much money is there going to be to try to restart everything? Do they have enough money to really put together another pandemic response team and do a better job with it, to really fund research on the flu and various viruses and to find out what's going on?


No, there there's there's talk about these things about picking up these programs and really stepping up.


We can only hope there is. Absolutely. I mean, listen, six trillion already. Prevention is so much cheaper than emergences. You know, it's just it's a fraction of the cost. Obviously, pandemic response team never should have been disbanded. It would cost pennies on the dollar to what is being spent right now.


No doubt it's crazy when you go back and listen to Bill Gates TED talk in 2015 talking about the possibility of a pandemic and wiping everybody out. And then five years later, you see it happen.


And like nobody listened, nobody knows.


How crazy is it that people are. Now, Bill Gates is the bad guy. I've got people I went to high school. I have people I went to high school with posting insane conspiracies about Bill Gates. Is the problem now?


Well, how did that happen? It helped me there, helped me there with that one because that one's weird. I was watching this video from Newport Beach or Huntington Beach where there all these people are protesting free California. They're running around and this guy's got a megaphone. He's like, Bill Gates is the devil.


Like, how did that happen? It's one of the weirdest memes. It's we're it's one of the weirdest, like cultural memes like this that this thing has happened, that Bill Gates does this philanthropic billionaire who's literally, like, made toilets in Africa and spent millions of dollars to try to get people education and millions of dollars on all sorts of great social good. All of a sudden he's a bad guy.


It's inconceivable. And the number of people I've just muted or unfriended that I personally know, I mean, it's like it's not just random people on Twitter, but it's people I went to high school with say he wants to profit from the vaccine or he wants to use a vaccine to control the population. Or I mean, it's like, you know, the nanotech. Yeah, weaponized disinformation is what I call it.


Well, it's it's very prevalent. It's really interesting, too, because like what? Here's the problem. There is profit in vaccines. That's a problem. So, like, when you look when someone looks for a conspiracy and they say something like Bill Gates, he just wants to profit on the vaccine, you can't say no one ever profits on vaccines. So that's a stupid idea. You go, well, how much is a vaccine worth and how much profit is there in vaccines?


Then you look into it, you go, whoa, there's a lot of profit in vaccines. Shit. I wish there was none. I wish you know, they're making them just for the greater good of mankind. And it's not like people are buying private jets and Ferrari's off that money. But look, every thing where people do it and do it well seems to require incentive, you know, and it's funny to me.


Think of the system, right? That's risk because it's not just vaccines, but it's funny to me that people don't have a problem with that, with capitalism.


But the same people that would vote. Right. And don't have a problem with capitalism, maybe be anti regulation, are angry that people make money off of vaccines. But, yes, they're also angry because we're cynical and we wonder, OK, if they're making money off vaccines, would it be possible for them to incentivize doctors to vaccinate people more? Or if they got more people involved, they would make more money like that is a problem in just human nature when you can make more money.


OK, give me the reality that not vaccinating and having way more people to treat for stuff is way more profitable. That's a good point.


And it's also devastating to civilization, right? I mean, if they never came up with a fucking polio vaccine, how many people would be just a mess because of that and die because of that smallpox? You've seen those images of I mean, I probably never saw them until the Internet. Oh, the images of what people look like when they were devastated by smallpox. It's horrifying. Vaccines are important. My my cynical nature comes up whenever there's anything where people can make a lot of money.


It's not just vaccines. It's like anything, whether it's fracking. When I hear people talk about how safe fracking is and then I remember Gasland, the documentary where they're light water on fire. Well, it's tap water is not supposed to be flammable.


So that's going on here, man. I mean, this place is in Pennsylvania where people can't live. They have to get out of their fucking house. They can't live. They can't wash themselves. The water, they can't drink it. They can't they're they're worried about breathing in the fumes near their houses.


I mean, it's it's devastating. It's a tragedy, the tragedy. And that's that's I mean, that's a clear area where profit and not enough regulation are the recipe for disaster.


And oddly enough, in the area where the right wing tends to pooh pooh it. Oh, come on. Fracking has made this country oil. Stronghold, you know, there's that that argument, which I guess he kind of has, right? I mean, that's, again, a problem with humans. We're so life is so complicated. Human being a human is so fucking complicated. There's so much to us. How long you think this will go?


I don't know, I'm worried about a second wave, the second wave concerns me and I'm worried that that could lead to shut downs, that people are not going be able to make it through that made it through this one where they barely made it through this one with their business. And then the second lock, not lock down, comes and, you know, and they lose everything. I'm also worried that people are going to lose their health and their life.


I mean, I'm worried about both things. I'm worried about the second wave coming and people being ignorant to the possibility of it hitting. And then it does hit and it's devastating. Both those things are terrible, you know, but again, my my thinking is if we're going to quarantine people, we really should make more of an effort to quarantine. People were sick and old. That seems to me to be a better way of handling it from here forward than quarantining all of us.


I think I don't think that's tenable. I think maybe we could pull it off for a month or so. But I think after a while, the fucking wheels fall off and I feel like that's where we are right now. So I think, as I said before, much more emphasis on health and your immune system and taking care of your body and being smart. Those things are those things are underappreciated and critical. Yeah, but how long it's gonna last?


I think the best scenario is a widespread vaccine by March, April twenty one. Right. I mean, it seems like.


But would you jump right in with one of those MRN a vaccine vaccines. Well, by the time I unless I go out and buy one, by the time I get it, millions of people will have had it already. Like I mean, you know, it's going to be health care workers first and then the most vulnerable by the time there's one available for me, unless I just figure out who I can buy it from, millions of people will have had it already.


At this point in the movie, the screen would go black and we'd open to David Pakman covered in dirt, carrying a club filled with spikes running down the street with his friend trying to avoid the zombies.


Because, yeah, I mean, by the time it got to you, they had already turned to zombies and you couldn't afford it. And you're lucky you. Now, there's millions of zombies running through the streets of Boston trying to eat people.


We don't have to go into this. But I am like doing some prepping now and I. Oh, no, I've no clue what I'm doing. What are you doing? I just I looked up like, what are the eighty, you know, the 80, 20 idea. Right. So like I just tried to figure out what's that, what's the stuff that will cover 80 percent of the scenarios. So it's like three days of water. I don't need a month of water.


Right. Some additional first aid supplies. But then I got into really weird stuff where I got convinced that I need a flat tire repair kit. And so I bought this thing and then I looked at it and I was like, wait a second, I still need to pump up the wheel at the tire after I use this thing. And then I realized, like, I've got triple A and a flat. Why did I buy a flat or a spare?


Why didn't I buy a flat tire repair kit? So, like, some of the stuff I bought made no sense at all, actually wrong.


And that makes plenty of sense. First of all, you can get one that plugs in your cigarette lighter. That's an air compressor. Very easy, right. I got one of those is awesome. So that that's your covered there. Second of all, triple J. If a lot of shit goes down, they're going to be busy, man, and they might not be answering their phone and you might be stuck in the middle of nowhere. No tire repair kit is good knowing how to feed yourself.


That's good. Like having rice and beans, things that are easy to store that last forever. That's really good. All that stuff is very important. But I got real super peppery at the beginning of this. I was real worried. The first couple of weeks I was scared out of my fucking mind. I was like, this could just be, you know, 10 percent of us are dead people just dropping dead in the street left and right.


I was really worried about it because, you know, you hear the stories, the salacious, crazy, horrible stories of the ones that get the most press, whether it's any whatever subject the subject is. And of course, when it comes to a pandemic, the ones that people want to hear about is there's a 28 year old guy. You know, he was a fitness instructor and now he's in a coma like, holy shit, those ones that really scare the fuck out of you, though, those were what you kept hearing.


So, you know, I'd wake up in the middle of the night thinking as my breath feels short and, you know, if and then also the anxiety kind of is keeping me from sleeping well. So then I look, I have a woop strap that measures my sleep and I check the app and I would look at my recovery. I was like thirteen percent. I was like, what the fuck? Because I'm freaking out. Because I'm up all night worrying about whether or not society is going to fall apart and everyone's going to die.


So it took a while for me to relax, I guess like probably a couple weeks before I was getting like real consistent sleep and feeling much better. But I'm still very, very worried about what what it's going to be like once things restart. Yeah, yeah.


I totally agree with you. I thought all different times I had coronavirus, first of all, so that that whole thing went on. But there's some stuff that is going to take a while to get back to you, just like human interaction type things, right? I mean, I don't think there's not going to be a day where we say we're back to. Hugging and handshaking and and sharing drinks and that type of stuff, like some of this stuff will persevere for a long time, maybe, yeah, maybe.


I don't know. When I was at the UFC, I was shaking a lot of people's hands and hugging people, but they were all just there. Everyone was tested. So everyone had to walk around the bracelet on that show that they had been tested and tested that week. And so everyone was cleared right before we got there. So I was pretty sure everyone was fine. It just seemed so normal, all the friends that I've been working with for years.


So I was shaking their hands and hugging them and and some people were critical that they were like, you got to stay away and social distance and all this. And I was like, when everyone's clear, look, if it's if we're all tested and everyone's testing negative, like, why can't we act like normal again? Is it magic to sneak into the building?


But somebody could be incubating it right where, you know, imagine three of those people tested negative because they're they're incubating it. They got it on the flight there or something like that.


I don't know the horror movie. I think they they didn't get on the flight deck because everyone was tested once they arrived. But either way. Yeah, I know.


But I mean, like you could it could be in your system from the flight. You get a test two hours later. But the test is negative. But if you just wait twenty four more hours than that test would be positive. All right, Dr. Pakman, you got I don't know.


I don't know either, man, but I hope we go back to normal. I think people need touch. We need hugs. Yeah. And weirds me out already when I see how scared people are of each other walking down the same sidewalk and people cross the street so they don't go near you, they give you a weird feeling. It's not it's not optimal. Dystopian. Yeah. Listen, David, we just did three hours, if you can believe it or not.




I appreciate you, man. You're a very intelligent guy. I really enjoy your show a lot. I like watching your clips. I love your well thought out perspective. And I think you're very valuable, especially in this crazy time we live in.


And I so appreciate it. Three hours went by in an instant and really just really appreciate talking to you again. Having having me back next time.


Let's do it in person. I'm going to hug you. We know each other. We're going to do we're going to get over our fears. I hope so. I think we will. All right, brother, will you take care yourself, man thank you. Take care. Bye bye. Bye, everybody.


Thank you, friends, for Teuton. For what? Try that again. Thank you. Friends are tuning into the show and thank you to our sponsors, thank you to Blue Moon Beer, a fantastic, delicious and extraordinary beverage. And you can get it delivered next time you need a taste of the extraordinary open up a blue moon jet blue moon delivered by visiting Jet Blue Moon beer dotcom to see your delivery options. And again, in some local areas, delivery is available in one to three hours.


Blumen. Reach for the moon, celebrate responsibly, Blue Moon Brewing Company, Golden, Colorado Ale. We're also brought to you by Liquid Ivy, my favorite all time electrolyte supplement, a fantastic product that hydrates you far quicker than water alone, gives you a bunch of great vitamins and actually tastes good. It's refreshing. And Liquid Ivy is available nationwide at Target Whole Foods for Costco and you can get twenty five percent off if you go to liquid ivy dotcom and use the code Jarry at checkout, that's twenty five percent off.


Anything you order when you use the promo code. Jarry at Liquid Ivy Dotcom get better hydration today at liquid ivy dotcom. Use the promo code Jarry and you could also find them nationwide at Target, Whole Foods or Costco were also brought to you by Blue Apron, sending you delicious food, perfectly portioned with photographic step by step instructions. You can't lose, don't sacrifice flavor, don't settle for boring meals with blue apron. You can enjoy top rated recipes all month long.


Check out this week's menu and get thirty dollars off across your first two deliveries when you visit Blue Apron Dotcom Rogan that's blue apron dotcom slash Rogen Blue Apron Feed your soul. We're also brought to you by shady rays, high quality shades for far less than expensive brands with the best warranty and the sunglasses industry replacements if lost or broken and lifetime craftsmanship warranty plus 10 meals to fight hunger in America with every order. Summer's on the way and there's no better time to try Qadi raise risk free exclusively for our listeners.


They gave us the best deal they have to offer. Use the code Rogen for 50 percent off two or more pairs at shady res dotcom. Buy one, get one free. You can get two pairs for forty eight dollars. Redeem only at shady res dotcom where you can find all their newest and best shade's.


My friends, thank you so much for tuning in. Much love to you all.


Bye bye.