The video addresses a variety of political and socio-economic issues, focusing on controversial government practices and the influence of migration on political trends. The speaker expresses concern over the government's approach to immigration, alleging that it's manipulating demographics in key swing states to secure future electoral victories for the Democratic Party. Additional accusations are directed towards California policies, especially those regarding voter ID laws and the perception of biased judicial appointments, which are believed to threaten democracy by enabling potential voter fraud and partisanship.

The conversation highlights how political dynamics impact business, particularly government contracts and regulatory challenges faced by companies like SpaceX. The speaker discusses perceived bias against certain companies due to political allegiances, citing examples of support denial and lawsuits. A strong emphasis is placed on the need for maintaining democratic values and preventing the country from becoming a one-party state. The speaker argues that true democracy requires multiple political parties, fair competition, and adherence to legal frameworks that enable businesses to operate without undue interference.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. subsidized [ˈsʌbsɪˌdaɪzd] - (verb) - Supported with financial aid from the government to help reduce the cost of services or goods. - Synonyms: (funded, supported, underwritten)

There's this total misunderstanding that my companies have been subsidized and supported by the government and get all these.

2. vengeance [ˈvɛnʤəns] - (noun) - Punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense. - Synonyms: (revenge, retaliation, retribution)

In the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance on me.

3. beholden [bɪˈhoʊldən] - (adjective) - Owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or service. - Synonyms: (indebted, obliged, obligated)

And the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party.

4. concede [kənˈsid] - (verb) - Admit that something is correct after initially denying it. - Synonyms: (admit, acknowledge, accept)

And I should say, I think you voted for Biden. I'd like to see a matchup of those, the top hundred puppet masters on the FDN client list.

5. rebuttal [rɪˈbʌt(ə)l] - (noun) - A refutation or contradiction; a counterargument. - Synonyms: (counterargument, refutation, contradiction)

And sometimes they get this rebuttal of like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with sort of the far left sort of woke ideology.

6. asylum [əˈsaɪləm] - (noun) - Protection granted by a nation to someone who has fled their native country as a political refugee. - Synonyms: (refuge, sanctuary, protection)

The DOJ did a massive lawsuit against Space act for failing to hire asylum seekers.

7. perception [pərˈsɛpʃən] - (noun) - The way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted. - Synonyms: (awareness, comprehension, insight)

This affects both the perception of american justice and the reality of it.

8. supermajority [ˌsuːpərməˈdʒɒrɪti] - (noun) - A majority that is larger than a simple majority; specifically, a majority that allows for the passing of certain decisions. - Synonyms: (overwhelming majority, large majority, substantial majority)

That's a supermajority Dem state in California.

9. incarcerate [ɪnˈkɑːrsəˌreɪt] - (verb) - To confine or imprison someone. - Synonyms: (imprison, detain, lock up)

And if you do not incarcerate them, they will do that.

10. preconception [ˌpriːkənˈsɛpʃən] - (noun) - An opinion or conception formed beforehand without adequate evidence; a bias. - Synonyms: (bias, assumption, prejudice)

But the challenge that they have is that they've often grown up in a very sheltered existence where everyone around them is nice and civilized, and they just really don't encounter people who have uncontrolled violent tendencies or, like, hurting people.

"All In" - Elon Musk's BRUTALLY Honest Interview With Tucker Carlson (2024)

They knifed him in the back immediately and just tossed him out and put a new puppet on. Can you believe it? I can talk without a dalaprompta. That's crazy. But if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him. All in the deep end. Yeah. No, you are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom. It's all in, baby. Is it fun? Yes. For fun. How? I mean. I mean, there may be some. In the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance on me. Were you kidding? I don't mean it's possible. You've got to be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes. Yeah. It's not like, you know, we do useful essential work. Right. That we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better and costs less. That's why we get government contracts.

And, I mean, if you take, for example, the NASA contract to transport astronauts to and from the space station. Boeing got. NASA awarded two contracts at the start, one to Boeing and one to SpaceX. Boeing was awarded twice as much as SpaceX. SpaceX has done all the astronaut transport from the space station. And. And Boeing has only done one transport of two astronauts to the space station, and we had to bring them back. Boeing got twice as much as space station. There's this total misunderstanding that my companies have been subsidized and supported by the government and get all these. And it's like, do you really think that a Biden administration is gonna subsidize me? Probably not. Are you kidding? No. In fact, they take away every contract they possibly can.

So, for example, there was the FCC contract to $42 billion for providing rural broadband. Yes. Okay. We actually first said, look, we think there shouldn't be any subsidies, so we recommend that this program just not exist. But since you're insisting that it exists, we will compete and we have better products. So we won, I don't know, about a quarter of it, which would have included the devastated areas like North Carolina and stuff. And the FCC took it away illegally. They just voted, three out of five commissioners voted away and said, even though you want it, we're sending it. On what grounds? And do you know how many people they've connected? How many? Zero.

So you think that was political? Well, the three Democrats voted against it, and the two Republicans voted for it. So you tried to get Starlink. You tried to get Starlink into North Carolina, into western North Carolina. The area is devastated by the hurricane. We have got. It is in there. And it is the primary means of communication in the devastated areas. But back to the original question about the potential consequences if having gone all in, this doesn't work. You had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking?

Yeah. So, I mean, my view is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're gonna have that. The Democrats, the Dem machine has been importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals flying in with this, like, CVP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like, secret program that's illegal. Basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually stop it from happening. They're transporting large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So, like, from the Democrat administered government websites.

Like, where do you get this data? From the government website that is run by Democrats. And there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states. And in some cases it's like 700% over the last three years. Now, these swing state margins are sometimes 1020 thousand votes. So what happens if you put hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? When somebody is granted asylum, they are fast tracked, they can get a green card, and then five years after the green card, they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

And sometimes they get this rebuttal of like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with sort of the far left sort of woke ideology. I said that's true, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States. And the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote down. That's what happens. So my prediction is if there's another four years of a Dem administration, they will legalize so many illegals that are there that the next election there won't be any swing states and will be a single party country, just like California is a single party state. That's a supermajority Dem state in California.

Because of immigration? Yes. Has it improved the state? No, it's not. And California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even real, but California just passed a law making it illegal to require voter id in any election at all in California. Have they extended the same. This is actually what's going on right now. No, they're proud of it, they're not hiding it. But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor, buying a pack of cigarettes or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. Only voting that it's illegal to do. Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're going to id you six ways to Sunday.

Yeah, California's trying to make it basically illegal to own a gun. And the same people that demanded vaccine ids, if you want to travel or do anything, are the same ones who say no voter id is required. Is there any reason obviously hypocritical to pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud? It's so that fraud cannot be proven. So it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No id. You're not even allowed to show your id. It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So yeah, the purpose of no voter id is obviously to conduct fraud in elections. Obviously. There can be no other explanation.

I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing. People don't have ids. Could you live in this country without an id? Yeah, I mean, their common rebuttal is like, it's racist to require id and. Which is insane. I think it's actually racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get id, obviously. But how could you live here without an id? I don't think it's even possible. You can't. Yeah, you can't do anything. Yeah. You need an id for everything. Like the list of the things you need id for is basically everything except voting.

So, so you see the rest of the country, that's total bullshit. Obviously. Obviously, yes. But that doesn't in any way minimize the aggression or self righteousness they bring to this conversation. Yes. You're a racist if you want that. Right. Whereas in fact, obviously someone is racist if they say that people of particular race cannot get id. That's patronizing and racist. That's absurd. Yes. Yeah. You know, it's like when the governor of New York said, people in the ghetto don't know how to use computers or something like that. I mean, like, you know, super out of touch, for sure.

Yeah. So it's like, so there's a really clear template. She doesn't know how to use computers, but they do. Obviously. I don't think Hochul could use a computer. She's not qualified intellectually. Yeah, no, but not everyone in New York is as dumb as Kathy Hochul. I think that's true. Yeah. So you see the other 49 states becoming California if the machine wins? Well, you don't need all 49 to go that way. You just need enough to have the election. Have there not be swing states. I mean, there are only six swing states. Yep.

So there are only six states out of 50 right now that are in contention. So if those six states that are in contention by narrow margins are no longer in contention, then the only contest will be who wins the democratic primary. That's how it is in California. That's how it is in New York. There's no party. Party versus party situation. The only contest is who wins the democratic primary. And as we've seen with the appointment of Kamala, who no one voted for even in the democratic primary. Yes. Where's the democracy here?

But why not join the easier side? I mean, you're just. You're creating problems for yourself by getting on stage with Trump. And, I mean, you must have had friends who said that to you. Sure. Yes. Yeah. People care about you. Like, why even get involved in this? Well, because I think we want to remain a democracy, and we don't want to become a one party state. Yes. That's the reason. And the. It's the exact opposite. The people call Trump a threat to democracy, that the people who are saying Trump's a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Yes.

One party rule is not democracy. One party, where essentially the party elite pick a candidate, as happened with Kamala, is not democracy. Where did the people vote? Show me where the people voted. No, there were no people voting. It was all just dim party elite that just appointed someone. And when the Biden puppet, when the pro Biden puppet's ratings sagged, they knocked him in the back, immediately tossed him out and put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong.

Well, not only are you right, I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris. No, no. Exactly. What does she have to do with it? There's no point in criticizing. She's simply the face of a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say, whatever is. Whatever. The teleprompter. Whatever's on the teleprompter, she's going to say it. Yes. Now she gets stuck. If the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently. I think the teleprompter stalled, and she was just, like, looping for a while for about a minute. I think that happened yesterday or something.

It was pretty funny to watch, but she'll just say, whatever words are on the teleprompter, you know, it's really whoever controls teleprompters, the actual. So that's who's actually in charge. And who is that, do you think? Well, I've tried to put it down. It's. It's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it seems to be. It's like Kamala, sort of a marionette with, you know, that a thousand puffin masters type of thing. Like, not. It's. It's. It's. Or maybe it's in. It's. It's somewhere north of 100, is what it seems like. Yes.

I bet you know 80 of them. I probably know most of them. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean. Yeah. And I should say, I think you voted for Biden. I'd like to see a matchup of those, the top hundred puppet masters on the FDN client list. Do you think there's some overlap? Strong overlap. Strong overlap. When are we gonna see that list, do you think? I don't know. It's mind blowing that they've not tried to prosecute even one, not even the worst offender on the Epstein client list. They have not even tried to prosecute even one. That's insane.

Well. Cause they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the Capitol on January 6. They're kinda occupied. Yeah. I mean, they've put, like, whatever, 500 or 600 January 6 protesters in prison. I. And not one person on the FTN client list. Will that ever come out, do you think? You know, I think part of why Kamala's getting so much support is that if Trump wins, that FCN client list is gonna become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah. Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes. And Gates. And Gates.

It feels like we're getting to a place where the rest of us know too much. Is this. Do you know what I mean? I mean, it's easier to live in a society where you don't really know what the people in charge are doing or why they're doing it. But now. Thanks. I would say largely to x. I think that's fair to say that we do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder, where does that, like, what happens next now that we know all this, the kidnapper has shown us his face. Like, what happens?

Well, I think if Trump wins, we can do some house cleaning and shed light on things. All the X platform does is adhere to freedom of speech within the bounds of the law. Yes. And if people want to change the laws, they can change the laws. And so, like X in different countries, X does censor it in countries where censorship is low, we don't try to push american laws in other countries, but we do try to stick to the law in any given country. That's all we're doing. We open source our algorithm. We try to be as transparent as possible. But those who want to push lies obviously hate truth and transparency. Yes, because it shows them to be liars.

If she wins, I mean, how can they let x continue in its current form, in its current role in american society? They won't. They will try to shut it down by any means possible. What do you mean by any means possible? I mean, either by. I mean, they'll try to pass laws. They'll try to prosecute the company, prosecute me. I mean, the amount of lawfare that we're seeing taking place is outrageous. I mean, the. I mean, there are many examples, but like the Department of Justice, for example, launched a huge lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Come on, asylum seekers.

asylum seekers, not asylum. Those who have been granted asylum seekers. Now, there's also a law called international traffic and arms regulations that because SpaceX develops advanced missile technology that can be used in nuclear ICBM's, that we have to be very careful with who we hire. We can only hire someone if they were a permanent resident or citizen. That's what the ITAr law says. Then there's another law that says that you cannot discriminate against asylum seekers. So we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The DOJ did a massive lawsuit against Space act for failing to hire asylum seekers. Even though we are. It is illegal for us to hire soundness seekers under Itar law.

This is an actual thing that's going on. And they can only do a fairly small number of lawsuits every year. So why did they pick this one? Because you an x lawfare. It's like that famous quote from Beria. You know, Stalin's like chief torturer and head of the secret police. Beria said, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. Exactly. I mean, we have so many laws that it is actually impossible to, you know, impossible to do business, impossible to operate without being violating some law. Because you have laws like the ones I just gave you, where both things are illegal. Yes. They contradict one another.

They contradict one another. So, you know, it's illegal to discriminate against, like, discriminate against asylum seekers in jobs, but it's also illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. But it's just. So they just. They just chose one. They chose the one law and ignored the other one. And the Department of Justice, at federal level, prosecutors, base acts for that. What do you think? It's mad. Well, it also discredits the idea of law, which some of us want to take seriously. Absolutely.

This affects both the perception of american justice and the reality of it. Yes. So now I'm actually a big fan of the american justice system. And I think, on balance, you know, we've got. Still have an excellent judicial system. We still have judges that care about the letter and intent of the law. I mean, not just the letter, but also the intent of the law. But something that people should be concerned about is that there's an increasing movement to place activists as judges. This is, if you look at who did the Biden administration confirm as federal judges and who've been confirmed at the state level in sort of far left states, increasingly, it is not judges who care about justice, or it doesn't care about following the law.

They care about social justice. Not justice. Justice, what they call social justice activists as judges. Now you got a real problem. Do you think, if that continues, we will not have a real justice system or a real country? Yes.

But again, your purchase of x has been, I think it's fair to say, even if I hated it, I would say this because it's true. It's been pivotal in american politics. Yeah. And in american society. Do you think they could shut you down? If the Democrats continue to hold power, they will unequivocally try. Yeah. Yeah. And if they. If they. If they get a majority in the Senate and House and the presidency, then they can simply pass a law and delete section 230. So simply make us liable for what anyone says on a platform with, you know, like, at this point, almost 600 million monthly active users. Yeah. Which is impossible. You know, that's like trying to regulate speech in city of like, a country.

Yeah. So a big country. Yeah. Just be instantly bankrupt. So just to. Yes, I believe in freedom. Like, yeah, I've noticed America's supposed to be the land of liberty, freedom and opportunity. So that we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty, and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on your talent and hard work. Those are two fundamental values. That's what's made America great. And if we lose those, our decline will be swift. What do you, if you had to get, if you had to bet? I mean, does freedom reassert itself in America or not?

Well, that's why I think part of why this election is so pivotal. I think if we, with the Trump administration, I think we can improve the liberty of Americans. I think we need to have sensible deregulation where we keep the regulations that matter. Like, we don't want to destroy, you know, important habitats or, you know, encourage oil spills or anything like that. But there are so many regulatory agencies that have overlapping responsibility that we are smothering progress, and we can't build a high speed rail in America.

You look at the ridiculous high speed rail project in California, where they've spent $7 billion, and all they've got to show for it is a 1600 foot section of concrete with no rails on it, the picture of it online. I do think this is in the sort of well meaning, sort of liberal mindset. I know I have many good friends who have deep empathy for their fellow human beings. Good. And they care. But the challenge that they have is that they've often grown up in a very sheltered existence where everyone around them is nice and civilized, and they just really don't encounter people who have uncontrolled violent tendencies or, like, hurting people.

You know, they've just always grown up in a sort of kumbaya, everyone is nice, hippie commune situation, Minneapolis pre riots. Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah. But there's a small number of people, it's like a few percent of society that either have anger management issues that are so severe that they lose their temper and hurt or murder others. And there's a small second, I said not a large number that enjoy hurting other people. And if you do not incarcerate them, they will do that. They will hurt other people.

And what I see is what I call shallow empathy. Like, people have empathy for the criminals, but not empathy for the victims of the criminals. Yes. And so if you simply have, and I believe one should have deep empathy to say, like, what is the greater good for society. Is it better to incarcerate violent criminals and prevent them from hurting people or to let them loose and allow those people to be hurt? And I think the latter is much worse. You know, my mom is. My mom lives in New York, and it's. My mom at this point, has gone from being Democrat to Republican. And her friends in New York are having the same experience. You know what will turn you from a Democrat to a Republican pretty fast? Is getting punched in the face while you walk down the street. Yes. For no reason.

Well, you know, this whole movement to decriminalize crime. Oh, I've noticed. Yes. What is that madness? Yeah. Like, to make crime legal. Like, in California, you can just steal things and nobody does anything. It's, like, fully legal to steal anything under $1,000 in California. That's why they've got. They don't have to, like, lock up goods behind these glass and plastic walls. So you go to the supermarket and you can't even get, like, what? Toothpaste? So. And this has actually been particularly difficult on small mom and pop operations because they don't have the resources of a large corporation. So it's put a lot of small businesses out. Just killed them.

So when you're at dinner parties and you make these points, what do people say? Well, actually, I think I've been. I've been able to persuade people that, yeah, we really. We need to reverse course here. I think I have actually been able to persuade a number of people. And I think there actually is now a ballot on a California ballot initiative to recriminalize theft. Theft. All right, guys, guys. There's a reason why we criminalized theft in the first place.

So. And then, amazingly, I think Gavin Newsom came out against that proposition. Yeah. No, honestly, he's the goddamn joker. Gavin Newsom is like. If is like, from the, like, Batman. Dark knight. The joker is in charge of Gotham. You remember, like, when he took over New York, basically, and the criminals roam free and the citizens are arrested. That's how. That's California. But, I mean, at least there's a ballot initiative, which I think will probably pass to say no, actually, it is a crime to steal things.

What's going on in Europe? Would you say Europe suddenly seems like a different place? Well, my biggest concern for Europe is that their birth rate is half replacement rate. Yes. So Europe is rapidly becoming, each passing year, older and older, with fewer and fewer young people. So I think at the most fundamental level, unless Europe has a birth rate at least roughly equal to replacement rate it is in population freefall. Population collapse is what's going on in Europe.

Politics, Economics, Leadership, Migration, Voter Id Laws, Judicial Activism, Visionary