All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

20 of 47 episodes indexed
Back to Search - All Episodes

E4: Politicizing the pandemic, Police reform, Biden's ideal VP, Twitter vs. Facebook on free speech & more with David Sacks & David Friedberg

by Jason Calacanis
June 20th 2020
All right, everybody, welcome back to the all in podcast. We're here with Jamaat Palihapitiya, David Freedberg and David Sacks, our usual usual foursome. As we chop up the business news on what's going on and just as a point of order, the frequency of the show is Ah, well, don't don't ask as we feel like it as we feel like it. Correct. Eso do not ask me to advertise on the podcast cause trauma banned advertising. And do not ask me when the next one is. The next one is when Chammah decides he wants to go on a rant. Um, but well, how are you holding up Best E. C. Best disease. Doing pretty well. Yeah, uh, the family. Everything have you come out of quarantine in anyways, with the first question I have for people is has your behavior change? Now, as we go into, I think what most people are calling phase two. Any change in what you're doing in the risk you're willing to take

Come off? Um, it's a really good question. Um, you know, I I've kind of ventured out a little bit, Um, but I just kind of put on a mask. The only place I don't wear a mask is when I walk around my house. Um, just because it z you know, I live in the suburbs, and so there's just so much space between people that you don't really run into anybody. Um, but if I have to go toe Walgreens or CVS or whatever, I always bring a mask and gloves. Um, eso I've got I ventured out a little bit, but you know nothing. Nothing meaningful, to be quite honest. Um, And Sacks, you're still out of the country in an undisclosed location. How are you feeling about what risks you're willing to take? You know, small groups of people. Are you going out to a restaurant? Are you seeing other people? How do you look at the risk you are willing to take? Personally, I've I've adjusted my risk profile, I think quite a bit. Um, so I mean, the learning over the past

few months was just that relatively that the fatality rate for, say, relatively healthy people under 50 without risk factors is, you know, 50 times lower than, um, say you know, someone under over 60 or someone who has risk factors and so I'm not being reckless. But I'm willing, toe kind of re engage in social behavior among groups of friends and on the theory that, you know, all my friends have been locked down. Um, I was I was in total lock down for two months. Um, sort of my friends. And so, you know, I have several questions. The first is, uh I mean, how old do you look like? 90 roughly. How old are you? Exactly? So how did how did the risk factors apply to you? Second, you have friends way. No, there's three on this call, Sacks. IPU. I love you. I miss Yeah. No, I mean, you raise a good point. I mean, my physical age might be 90 but my lungs are only 48

years old. Uh, so my my hopefully my my lungs air, Uh, you know, qualifying that under 50 category. Um, so, you know, I've been playing golf with friends. Um, you know, I've I've kind of widen the circle of people I'm willing to let into my quarantine. Basically. So by a dozen by 100 by about, I've actually let in at not all at once, but a different times. Probably about 20 people. Got it. So you feel comfortable. And those people you do ask them. Have you quarantined? Have you been wearing masks? Have you been tested or you're just like you? Kinda. I mean, I I generally know that people have. I mean, now, this may change over the next few months, but but everyone's been kind of under shelter in place. And so if you were gonna start to socializing with your friends, this would be the safest time to do it. Because everybody has been sort of locked down to some degree. And, um, you know, most places have been

closed, and so, you know, if your friends haven't gotten it, they're probably pretty safe. All right, swing over to you, Dave Friedberg. Uh, tell me what you think of Saxes position. Obviously Jamaat still in quarantine, you know, venturing off to the store once in a while, Sacks opening up to, you know, 20 people or whatever in small groups playing golf outdoors. But I'm assuming he's not having like, an indoor party for 50 obviously. How would you look at the risk he is taking? And what risk are you taking Friedberg personally in your life. I'm not too dissimilar. I've got about eight buddies coming over to the pool this afternoon. We're going to do kind of, uh, like a father's Day hang session. Um, but we're gonna be outside, and, uh, I've done a lot of hiking without masks and going outside without masks. I'm not really too concerned about outdoor behavior. There was a good analysis done that showed in tracing cases where they actually found the origin of where transmission occurred, 97%

occurred indoors. So generally speaking, like outdoor activity, to me is, like, pretty reasonable to do. So I'm pretty free with, like, doing stuff outside, meeting friends outside, hanging out by the pool. And I've got a bunch of people come by and hang out, Um, and then indoor stuff I try and avoid. So if I'm gonna go into a supermarket, I'll wear a grocery store, all wear a mask, and I'll be in their short time period as I need to be. And I'm certainly not going into restaurants and stuff like that. Um, but you would sit outdoor. Is that a restaurant? I would assume if the tables were 6 ft apart. Would you go to a restaurant and sit in a restaurant? Yeah, I'm not rushing to do that just yet. There's just something a little bit weird about the way some of those air configured, but generally yes, like outdoor seems fine, you know, but like the way they set it up, it's almost like you're exposing yourself to a bunch of people around you because there pretty confined spaces that they're setting up these tables. That and that. But yeah, sunlight and wind effectively will, you know, break apart the protein that that is the virus. And you will not have, um, this kind of infectious viral particle

. And so that's a pretty you know, well understood thing at this point on, do you know? But it's not spoken about as much by public health officials because they don't want to kind of mitigate the concern. And they don't want people to start taking off masks and, you know, taking on very risky behavior. But yeah, generally speaking, I think kind of like outdoor behavior is pretty, pretty safe and non non transmissible. The risky stuff I'm doing is you know, we had a you know, just having, like folks come back to the house on DATs, where I kind of still try and draw the line, which is having people in the house and you don't know where they've been. And so that's a little bit concerning inside the house. The, um, spittle particles with cove in 19 and of them, if they did, would be lingering. That is what I'm sorry to be graphic, but that is the concern, correct. Freeburg is that when you're outdoors, the spittle would blow away e. I mean, it really doesn't

happen. So the liquid that holds the protein because the protein needs to be in a liquid toe to kind of maintain its integrity. When that evaporates and it will evaporate from wind or from son aan dat protein will degrade. It becomes kind of a non infectious particle at that point. And so when you're inside and you don't have those mechanisms, that particle could just float around in the air. That's how it gets spread. And that's why, in the tracing work that was done, it shows like 97% of cases happened in an indoor environment just like this, and I don't believe in the 6 ft thing. I think it's bullshit. Like if you're 6 ft away from someone in a room, people are coughing and that room gets filled with those particles over a one hour period. It doesn't matter if you're fucking 6 ft away or 20 ft away that stuffs in the air. So this whole notion about like, hey, distance yourself in a restaurant and indoor space, it's like, No, that's actually not gonna necessarily solve the problem. Maybe if someone immediately sneeze, you'll avoid it. But, I mean, certainly facts of advocacy for masks. Hay fever, are you? Is that a or a ring you're wearing? Yeah. Have you tried it? Yeah, I actually just bought it a few

weeks ago, and I've been using it to monitor my sleep. But the, uh, there was an article that said that, You know, I think that the all the MBA players are going to be given these or a rings as well, because it can apparently detect coronavirus three days ahead of other other other ways because it can see a change in your basil sort of body temperature. Yes. So UCSF ran this data with them and they developed this algorithm that they think it's pretty predictive, so we'll see if it works in production. But yeah, that's the theory. Well, there's also this connected the monitor that if you use it, I've got the name of it. Um, it sends all the data to a central repository, and they've been able to predict it is well And this just when we look at how the government, I think it's called wrecked, attempt, wrecked attempt. It has to go in your rectum. Just whatever is going on. A directive. It goes, right, thio the government now there. And But this is an interesting then when you think about low cost ways to deal with this theme

out of money we poured into the system mammoth eyes so great that if we just sent every single person in America and or a ring or one of these thermometers and said, Just take your temperature all the day we would know where the outbreaks were and that would be a lot less expensive than a lot of the stimulus were doing to try to cure what's going on. Do you agree that we should maybe include that in some sort of approach. Look, I think that I think the basic issue is that something really odd has happened in the United States. And we were talking about this in our group chat, which is that we have managed to find a way to politicize absolutely everything. And you know, some things. For example, like universal basic income. Or, you know, what is our national policy towards China? Those air political issues, But things of public health when they get sort of distorted and viewed through a political lens or just idiotic. Um, you know, we view masks a za political statement

. We we we would view these or a rings, as you know, people being afraid that the government was going to track them eso we'll find every good we'll find a lot of excuses in order to blow up any good idea at this point because we can politicize anything, and we do it better than any other country in the world. You know, it's an interesting point you make there, and I'm gonna I'm gonna go to you in a second Sacks. If you pull up my computer for a second, Nick, um, one thing I cannot understand when I watched the media or I watch this discussion and we haven't seen Dr Fauci in about 60 days. I don't know where they buried him, but he's been put in a bunker somewhere. But the number of deaths in the United States continues to go down massively. Now I know New York was a big outbreak, and that contributes to it. But at the same time, if you look and you compare deaths, two new cases, uh, you know, the new cases has increased in some regions, and testing has gone way up. So in trying to interpret this data, I don't understand why there's

not somebody saying Listen, here's the good news. Debts air going way down. Testing is going way up. And here's what we should take from that, um, Sacks E think, uh, you and I might be slightly different sides of the aisle when it comes to politics. How do you look at this in terms of leadership at a federal level and then the media and how you know, to Jamaat's point, we've politicized this. Yeah, well, I I agree that that things get overly politicize and mass is ah is a really good example. Um, it's just a really common sense. Easy solution. You know, I wrote a blogged that we covered on this pod 2.5 months ago, saying that I thought mass should be public mass wearing should be policy. It should be the law. Little did I know that I was taking a left wing position. Yeah. Oops. Did you lose any friends over that? Right, Right. I know. Still talking, Thio. I know you guys have me on the show is the token

right winger, But actually, I just appeared. CNN just asked me to be on the show today to explain why mass should be policy. Um, so I I just thought that was a common sense thing. Um, you know, I'm normally very receptive to libertarian arguments, but, um, you know, like like we talked about the boundaries of libertarianism are you know, you only have the freedom to wave your arms until your fist hits my nose, you know, and something similar is true about when you're infectious particles hit my nose. Um, you know, there there are reasonable boundaries toe freedom there in the interest of other people's health and, um you know that that blawg, a lot of public pronouncements about covert, of not age very well over the last couple of months. I think that blawg actually is age pretty well by comparison. And because you just look at all the countries have been successful at Fighting Cove. It I mean, Japan has 100 35 million people. It's an old population and they've had under 1000 deaths

. South Korea, 51 million people under 300 deaths. You take a Western European nation like Czech Republic. They had a huge covert outbreak spike, just like the rest of Europe that went all in on mass wearing. And they've completely controlled the virus. It's knocked out. And so it's really crazy to me that we just can't get on the same page as a country about something as obvious and easy as mass wearing. Um, and it's because we we the left, wants to get Trump out of office so badly, and they're so triggered by him and they hate him so much whether that's valid or not, believe aside, that they want to, and then he wants to say no mask. I don't understand his motivation What do you think Trump is thinking? And who's advising him that he should be anti mask? I think somehow it's for the right has become an act of defiance. Um, and

I understand that to some degree because I do think that the lockdowns went on too long. Um, they with, I think with 2020 hindsight, we would say the lockdowns weren't necessary if we had just gone all in on a mass policy. That's what they did in Japan, right? And so you you know the problem. The problem with kind of the politicians in charge is that, you know, well, backing up a second, I think the right policies to end lockdowns. But we're mass, and the problem with the politicians is half of them didn't wanna end lockdowns, and the other half didn't wanna wear masks. And that's kind of the weird way in which has become this political football. Trump was trying to do this as an act of defiance. What was the left trying to accomplish? Do you think what would be your cynical or charitable approach to what? Their reaction to this and locking down so severely? Well, I just, um I I think that what was the purpose of lockdowns? I think it was the e think the initial reaction was it was based on what happened in Italy, right? And so in Italy, you kind

of have this worst case scenario where the hospital system got overwhelmed. Um, you know, tremendous fatality rate from the virus. And then we started to see the same thing happening in New York. And, um and I think, you know, locking down briefly in New York to get a handle on the situation I think was justified. I don't think again with 2020 hindsight that we needed to do it anywhere else in the country. Uh, if we had instead, you know, just worn mass. Do you think the left, though, perpetrated a perpetual lock down? This is this the most cynical view that I've heard. And I don't think you hear this often. And that's part of why we do. This podcast is to sort of explore these, you know, kind of takes that you hear on the inside. But not maybe on CNN. The cynical interpretation was they wanted to keep locked down to crash the economy, to make Trump Look bad to get him out of the office. Do you think there's anything valid to that argument? Um, I you know, I I don't know it. Yeah, I mean, I don't It's certainly possible. I think that it's

possible, though, that the left just, um, kind of under weights. Um, you know, the economic damage of lockdowns. You know, I heard a lot of arguments about from from the left that if you wanted to end lockdowns, then you care more about money than lives. And you can't put a price on a life, which is literally what we do all the time. Like insurance healthcare. We put a price on life free bird, but but but I But I was never in favor of doing nothing. I mean, I you know, I was tweeting weeks ago that we should end lockdowns, but we're mass. And so my argument would be Look at Japan, you doom or for lives and the economy by having a mass policy instead of lockdowns. Freeburg, what's your take on Saxes? Take No, I don't disagree. I mean, I you know, I'm not I'm not a great expert on kind of the politics. And you know, I can kind of comment on policy. I think, uh, in terms of what I think is reasonable or not, I certainly you know, I thought that the lockdowns were

unreasonable in the extent, but then the problem was they weren't followed. So they were all for waste. Eso the worst of all, the worst of all outcomes. Yeah, but there wasn't a huge like until they actually went into effect. There wasn't a huge amount of debate about this. It was just like, Oh, shit, we better all going to lock down what happens? This is almost like the human conscious and unconscious mind. Like, you know, the conscious mind rationalizes what the unconscious already decided to dio. So everyone freaked out. Everyone had a great deal of fear. We shut everything down. And then the left and the right had their own rationalization After the fact about you know what that meant? Was it good? Was it bad? Did we overreacted? We under react. Should we have Dunmore? And so I feel like the narrative is told a little bit too late here where we all kind of like have these commentaries about left and right politics politics after the fact. And, you know, I don't think it's really meaningful. To be honest, it's just almost like let's let's fill in the what happened story with our own point of view based on our tribe or whatever. We sit in social meth. Where How do we get out of this now? Because the deaths

are going down. Don't know. We're out. We're out. We're out. The genie is out of the bottle. Look, the reality is there is not a single country government. Um, that can tolerate future lockdowns because I think the populations will revolt. Um and so we're going to have to deal with cases as they crop up and we're gonna have to deal with infection rates pumping up. And you know we'll have to deal with these burst e economic landscape today. Apple just announced they're closing a bunch of stores in a few in a few states that I'm sure they'll reopen them in a few weeks. But we're gonna be in this sort of start and stop mode now for the foreseeable future. Um, but it's just not possible to ask people now to go back into any form of quarantine or shelter in place. I just don't think they'll do it right. And people, people only do lockdowns until there's some activity that they they want to engage in, that they think is essential. Right? And so you saw with the protest, If you believe that the civil rights protests

are essential, you believe that you're out of lock down and you know, and if you want to go to a trump rally, you believe that's essential and you're out of lock down. And so, um, you know, so everybody and you know, you have the case in Texas of the woman who wanted to open her haircut salon. And, uh so you know, you were never going to get good compliance with a lock down plan. In addition to the damage and destruction it caused. It was never very effective because people weren't willing to do it. And I think the big public policy mistake here was the politicians squandering their credibility on lock down. So we're never very feasible instead of just going all in on Mass, and it would have been a lot cheaper, by the way, the other thing is way. We need to push mask wearing back into a public health debate. And you know Newsome. Yesterday, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, basically said masks are now mandatory in California. The thing is, you have to add fines if you don't wear them

where you know, people can be cited and fined. And then the other thing. And David, you said this earlier is you have to be criminally culpable at some level. If you go out of your way to not wear a mask and infect somebody on did there is a a bunch of, you know, case law on how this could be true. And so I think that, you know, we need to We need to solve these things because you need to have good hygiene around, uh, mask wearing and what the consequences are if you choose to not wear one. Well, you know what? That's interesting. You bring that up. There was there have been cases of people purposely infecting people with the HIV virus and going to jail for it on being liable for it. So there is, I think, a difference. What's different? Coughing in somebody's face versus having sex with them when you know you're infected What is the difference? Well, that I don't know if you saw this viral video of the Karen, Uh, which is, like so many. Karen s so many Karen's, um and and Karen just

, like, got upset that somebody was calling around for not wearing a mask in a cafe, and she literally coughed on the person. And did you see that video? How is this person not in jail? I mean, I think that was in New York. I think it was New York, and the woman didn't know she was being filmed, but oh, my lord. I mean, the great thing about the Internet right now is like if anybody basically transgresses, they are identified in about a nanosecond. And I mean, I saw that because on on a Saturday morning, she coughed on this person who was complaining about her not wearing a mask. And within 15 minutes, they had her Lincoln. They had contacted Wild Medical Center, where she worked, and then while put out a press release, basically saying we had fired her, uh, you know, for being a dummy well before the mask thing. And so the whole thing now just gets so adjudicated and resolved so quickly. Uh, it's it's it's incredible. We basically moved to Judge Dredd. Now it's like the the social media is the judge, the jury and the cops in this entire

equation, the one that I loved, actually that that really actually, frankly, I looked forward to was the the cyclist in Maryland. I mean, you know, you cannot go after kids touching another person's child and and women and like attacking them for putting up, you know, black lives matter posters like, uh and then to attack these. But then again, uh, it was the sub community on Reddit and it was amazing. It was the actual, like, Maryland, uh, Subreddit. Who knows what's going on in the Maryland subreddit on Reddit? What could they be talking about? But they identified this guy and he was fired. He was arrested and it all happened within, you know, probably 36 hours. But you got you guys know in that story there was another guy who was identified first and he was a police officer, and people went after him and he basically had his life ruined within those 1st 24 hours. And he was the guy Yeah, he wasn't the guy

. The way they got him was extra via data, right? Like he had. They found a guy on straw via who had a whatever. Yeah, the step that guy was using stevia the app that for the bike people. And they monetize that app through subscriptions. Correct. Don't make fun of my dyslexia and your mob. You're bullying me on my own podcast. You say monetized on CNBC in front of millions of people. It's unbelievable. Tried to teach you how to pronounce that word for 15 years. I know, but I say it on purpose now and I lean into it now. Mony slightly pornographic. You I'm gonna go home and most most debate later. Okay, Go back to your stevia story. What is it? Wait. Eso So what happened is this guy got in trouble? And this is my point about the problem with the groupthink hive mind approach to these issues is you could end up not when you don't follow a pre defined due process. And you let the mob kind of rule over these moments. Bad

shit can happen to. And so what happened? What happened to the cop? The copy like everyone started chasing him down and, like, you know, his whole life got ruined. Everyone's like death threats and fucking with him and all this sort of stuff calling his employer, calling people who know. But they found his phone number. They found his address that got turned upside down. Yeah, but basically, like the fact that they found out that it was someone else doesn't resolve the fact that there are now hundreds of people after this guy, and they don't pay attention that it wasn't him. And, you know, due process has a role in a civilized society where you can actually create structure and resolve these things in a proper way, as opposed to letting mob mentality kind of rule. I mean, otherwise, you know, this stuff could get pretty ugly pretty fast as we saw this being just a really, you know, pretty lightweight example. But I'm not sure I'm a huge advocate of this leg. Chase the guy down and then punish him at once and cancel. Cancel Culture is a little bit ugly right now. If you don't have all the facts, I mean this stuff in a lot of these cases, Yeah, there's definitely It's great that you confined criminals so quickly

, and I'm curious what people think. Uh, obviously you just don't wanna miss targets somebody. So there's if you do find somebody targeted, like, give the information to the authorities. But you may not want to Doc's them immediately and and try to ruin their lives before you actually know what's going on. Ah, lot of companies now, Microsoft, IBM and others Amazon, I think are saying we don't want to We're gonna take a pause on facial recognition. I'm curious what your each of your thoughts are on law enforcement, and we'll get into the law enforcement discussion and race relations here in this country on what we went through. We look, we we have been we have been We've been arming our police force mistakenly like our military, and we've been doing it for, you know, decades now, and it makes no sense. Um, there was this crazy tweet. I saw it today. Maybe we confined. Aoc tweeted out where she she found this announcement from some like long tail police department

somewhere who basically got ah free armored truck carrier. And you know they're driving it around town or whatever. Pulling it out of the garage. It looks like downtown Baghdad, and you're like, I mean, they're in, like, Fargo, North Dakota, wherever they are. I mean, like, it's just so it makes no sense. I don't think I don't think any of us thought that we wanted to a portion or tax dollars, um, to build a second shadow army. I think we all want an army and a Navy and Marines and an Air Force. We want, you know, aircraft carriers and F sixteens and tanks and machine guns and all that stuff. But we want them with our military. And then we want cops, I think, to be extremely well trained. I mean, half the time, you know, cops are, you know, you ask them to be mental health counselors. Other times you're asking them to be, you know, CPR givers. Other times you're asking them to be criminal. Apprehend er's. The job is too complicated. They clearly can't do it. They're poorly trained

. And then you arm them on top of all of that. And you have the shit show that we have today. Yeah, it's not like there's an I E. D, waiting somewhere for them to drive over where they need metal plating on the bottom of the vehicle. That's not what they're dealing with every day at at a minimum, let's like, Look, I'm a huge fan of ending qualified immunity. I think that doesn't make any sense. I think we have to stop arming our police like their military. Don't train them like the military, train them like a different kind of service. And we may need to go back to first principles to figure out how to actually train them properly to spot abuse, to deal with mental health on dust, to be, you know, a little bit more patient and understanding and empathetic versus trigger happy. Can I ask? You can ask you a question on that. So a lot of the actions that police take when it comes to lethal action, um, is defended by the notion that my life was under threat as a cop and that sources from the fact that we have a second Amendment in this country where a lot of people are, you know, you

know, gun carriers and are allowed toe have arms. So our police force has had to respond with the fact that there are a lot of guns in this country with defensive principles and defensive mechanisms to defend themselves against the loss of life due to a gun. Um, and that makes the United States really unique in terms of the circumstance versus if you look at the United Kingdom, where they don't have a Second Amendment right toe bear arms, the police aren't armed and the police behavior is significantly different. You could look at this in any country where there isn't a right to bear arms. Do we not have a fundamental problem in this country that stems from the fact that the police feel or could justify, that they're always under threat of loss of life due to arms being out in the Contra? I think it's a fabulous question. The contra example, I would say, is if you look at Switzerland where the per capita gun ownership is really high, Canada, where per capita gun ownership is really high. What I would tell you is there is a different kind of psychological training that police people go through before they're put on the streets and that is fundamentally different here. The job, as is defined to them here

, is different than it is in Canada or Switzerland, where, you know, gun ownership levels were quite robust. And I think it all comes down to incentives. And the reality is, is that there is a to your point David Theis amplification of this idea that everybody is armed, um, which I think is fundamentally mostly not true in the day to day course of like living one's life. Um, but I think police people tend to be very amplified around that threat, and as a result, the unions have basically written contracts that protect their use of force. Um, the law is written in a way that protects their use of force. And so all of it comes from, to your point, a defensive posture of fear. But if you actually try to train these people differently, I think you'd have a different outcome. Because what I can tell you is the police in Canada do behave differently. They don't reach for their gun every second. It's an interest. E think there's a very interesting example, and I know we don't

wanna, like, just take one anecdotal incident and then, you know, make a big, sweeping generalization with it. But if you look at the gentleman in Atlanta who was shot in the back twice Rashid Brooks, Rashard break race hard. Brooks, um, this example to me, it's so illustrative of the problem. They spent 40 minutes talking with this individual who was absolutely not a threat. They had frisked him. They knew he was not armed. He was intoxicated. He's in a drive through of all the ways you could have dealt with the situation. Uh, and I come from a family of police officers, and I could tell you a lot of stories about cops letting people go, obviously white people with warnings in this situation, letting him sleep it off, taking his keys, letting him run away. You know who it is. You have his driver's license. You have his car, his kids let him run away. Under what circumstances would you feel justified shooting

a person when there were so many other options? And I It comes exactly. I believe Chamakh from two things you pointed out one. They're in a very defensive position into the training. They're trained to use lethal force. And if you're in a situation where you feel threatened, You just shoot, that's it. And if you shoot, you shoot to the center of the body to kill the person. And in their training, they're not trained to think how doe I disarm the situation, defused the situation. And what are the other options? This person is obviously not a threat. And you knew the Taser was fired twice. I'm not saying the person should have resisted arrest, not saying the person shouldn't have aimed the Taser at the person. But they should be trained to protect life and defuse situations at all costs. Jason, like, think about the incentives. They should have been trained, maybe to just walk into the Wendy's by this guy coffee on, drive him to the motel that he said that he was staying at yes or they should. Or they should have been trained to just write a ticket and say, Listen, here's a

you know, here's a citation for being drunk because you did technically kind of drive, and now I'm gonna leave it alone. They could have done many things that they chose not to do because the incentive was to, um, you know, project power. in that situation versus project any kind of empathy and compassion, right? And and the selection of people who go into the police department. And I come from a family of police officers and firefighters. Brother, uncle, cousin, grandfather up and down the line, Irish cops and firefighters, big tradition in my family. And I can tell you that there is a contingent of people who go into the police who are power tripping or maybe didn't get wherever else they wanted to be in life and the job off seeing people in dealing with the bad stuff that you pointed out. You know, people in domestic domestic violence, situations, people who are mentally ill, homeless addict, addiction problems, all of that, then trains these people's to see the worst

in humanity. And then they just look at their job as just this dystopian, horrible experience. And, uh, they are in that defensive posture, whereas we need to train people. And I made this tweet where we should have a new class of police officer that is more like a Jedi knight. You know, they get paid twice as much. They have master's degree in social work or psychology and when that call comes in for an emotionally disturbed person. Ah, person who's intoxicate er on drugs, a domestic violence situation. You don't want to send the average beat cop to that. You want to send the Jedi now. But Jason make it even easier like when you go in and get a 911 call and it's, you know, there could be its's somebody who's in sort of like mental distress or you're gonna do a mental health check. Um, why don't you send a really well trained social worker? Absolutely. Um, and the reason is, why don't we have a whole you know, the whole force of social workers that we pay $100,000 a year? Absolutely. And And

this this That's what these police officers make, and there is an argument to not have them armed. There's an argument for them to be armed, but maybe they're so enlightened and trained so well. I think the training in the United States is in the low hundreds of hours. In other countries, it's thousands of hours. I mean, if a person has a gun, I think police should not get their gun until they've completed maybe two or 3000 hours on the job. In other words, they get to the second or third year. So the first year when you're a probie, why even have a gun? Why not just have them doing things without a gun? And then when you get that gun, maybe you need to have the equivalent of a master's degree. You know, maybe you need to have, ah, level of trade and we need to go to first principles like you're saying your mouth and rethink this whole thing in any startup or any problem solving you would look at the show me the 1000 calls. How did they break down? What were the outcomes? And if you look at the outcomes of dealing with mentally ill people or people who are addiction or domestic disputes, the outcomes are things that police are not trained for. That's got to be a very high percentage

of these situations, let alone the no knock warrant, which makes absolutely no sense e mean. I think I think there's there's just a lot of, um, look, there's a lot of change coming. I think that there's a lot of legislation of foot at every sort of level of government. And I think the good news is that it's going to be hard for people to sit on their hands on this. I don't think it's gonna be universally across the country. Um, but I do think that, you know, people will. Then again, um, self select and wanna live in places where, you know, sort of like the laws match their ideals, and this is gonna be an area of tremendous reform and change. Um, you know, what's interesting about all of this is like if you actually go back to the Republican ideology, it's interesting to me why Republicans aren't the first ones to try to embrace rewriting, you know, the union contracts and actually decreasing unionized power because that's sort of like has generally been a tent whole theme of Republican ideology. But then, as it gets applied to cops, I think

they kind of just abdicate responsibility. So there's a lot of reasons where you could have bipartisan agreement on a bunch of these things. But again, I think we're we kind of like get caught up, and we refused to see the forest from the trees and want to fix these things. But, um, I suspect that a lot of these changes will happen just because they're so bloody obvious. And depending on your ideology, you can frame the same reason for completely different motives and get to the same answer. Nobody. Nobody wants this. Sacks. What do you think about the the union issue? Um, as our token right winger, I think, Yeah, I think I think the police unions have too much power. All the public employee unions dio, um I think, you know, just like the teachers unions have thwarted school choice and education reform. I think we're seeing the police unions toward a lot of sensible reforms around the use of force. Um, you know, I our our friend Bill Girl, has been tweeting a lot of great research, um, that around police departments

that are unionized, there's a lot more complaints against them. There's a lot mawr examples of, uh, the use of force and unwarranted use of force. And so clearly there is a connection here between, um police unions and the thwarting of common sense reforms. And I saw someone someone tweeted this idea that you know the reason why no is taking on the police unions is because Republicans see the word police and Democrats see the word union, and they're both fans of those things. And so who's gonna take him on? E mean, teachers unions is the same thing. And the political system, the political power of the unions is so entrenched that in order to get in office for in most cases, you're going to need to have the support of those unions. And if you don't, they're going to tell people explicitly not to vote for you. Yeah. I mean, well, look, I mean, you look at the cities that have had the biggest problems here. I mean, starting with Minneapolis and these Air Democrat controlled cities. Um, these were not, you know, Republican controlled cities

. And the politicians are very much, you know, in cahoots with the big union, uh, the unions there, including the police and the teacher unions and all that. And so, you know, both parties need toe to be open to reform. To your point, David, there's a There's a story that came out last or last couple of days about, um, the d A. In Atlanta who pressed charges against the two officers. But the narrative was about how the D A is being investigated for getting 140 k and kickbacks from a nonprofit tied to something. And then he was claiming that his main opponent, who's right because these, you know, district attorneys are politically elected officials. Right? Um, where she had basically done a side deal with the police to not to not go after, you know, use of force in return for their endorsement. And you know what A what? Ah, horribly messy, like, complicated gross situation, irrespective

of whoever turns out to be right there. So to your point, they become so entrenched, and it's just so low level, Um, that then you know what should be obvious. Justice basically just gets thrown away for what's expedient and convenient. Yeah, well, you know, this is another example. Where, like, like with the mass? I felt like there were, uh, you know, I wasn't violating conservative principles. I thought there really was a conservative principle, I think with, you know, with with this example of the over use of force by police, you go back to what Lord Acton said, which is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there's no one standing up to the police unions politically, they have absolute power, and that's gonna lead to corruption. Um, so I do think like Republicans should be looking into this. Now I think part of the reason why Republicans want to defend the police because you also had these examples of looting and writing and lawlessness. Um, you know, after the civil rights protests, and I think that again

, we're kind of dividing up into sides. And, uh, there's too much justification of bad behavior on both sides because of what the other side is doing, you know? And I heard people on the left justifying the looting and riding on the grounds that, you know, it was a legitimate expression of, you know, of opposition. It was a legitimate protesters, legitimate expression of opposition, toe to the police, violence on guy. I think that that is wrong, and I think it's wrong for people on the right to defend this police. The success of use of force by police on the grounds that somehow it's justified because we need to control the lawlessness and writing. And, you know, I think both are wrong. And we lack a federal leadership, uh, to not make this overly political. But when Trump, then tear gas, is with the military protesters to go to a photo opportunity, you know, it's sending the message that he and he wants to be the law and order president

. Now you're just charging things up Instead of just going on TV and just saying something to bring people back to the concept that we're all Americans, we're all in this together and we rise and fall together. It's such an easy statement. Listen, the protesters have valid concerns. We need to work on this issue. And yes, if you see people doing any vandalism, we have to stop them. Please make sure that doesn't happen, because it, um it works against the very valid criticism and protests that are going on that need to go on and and the fact that the president can't say that is crazy. Well, what do you guys think about what he has been saying? And how Twitter and Facebook have basically taken different sides of Freebird? Go ahead. What Trump's been saying? Yeah, should should twitter be censoring him, slash putting warnings on his posts when he's saying crazy stuff. So, yeah, look, I mean, it's such a slippery slope and there's too much room for interpretation. I'm just saying the obvious. But, you know, if you're a platform, your platform, you

know, you let the things get built on top of you. Sure, you can have some some rules around what could be built. But as soon as you start, you know, saying what is true and what is not true and you become the arbiter of truth, you're no longer an agnostic platform. And I think that, you know that that is a big, dangerous risk to take because as you guys know something, maybe. And I think we saw this with the What's that Twitter account? Zero hedge. Is that the name? They got bad, and then they came back because it turns out what they said wasn't necessarily as untrue with Twitter at first thought that they were saying was untrue. So, you know, it was a great example of how you know a point of interpretation can very quickly kind of reverse course, and you can look extremely biased in making that decision. At that time, YouTube took I think, Susan, when Jackie took the what Jackie took the position at YouTube that we're going to allow people to talk about coronavirus if what they're saying is in sync with the World

Health Organization. Yeah, and and, by the way, the World Health Organization. I've had an issue with since well before co vid uh, just from another life, they I won't get into it, But they've said some stuff publicly that that was just flat out fucking wrong, scientifically and invalid. And it was politicized, and we kind of got to the root of the political driver behind it. So I've long held kind of disbelief in the World Health Organization as a trusted source of of scientific fact and two Saxes previous point. You want to be able to check power. And if the World Health Organization is this incredibly powerful organization who got it wrong with masks and didn't even, you know, like David Sacks is getting it right? Some venture capitalists in the Bay area gets it right about mask in the World Health Organization gets it wrong. Well, he's in Mexico, but yeah, e undisclosed location, a location, But But OK, sacks. Should they should they be putting labels and warnings on politicians when they say things

that are consensus wrong? Yeah. I mean, call me old fashioned, but I'm very much in favor of free speech, and I'm against censorship. And, um, you know, fact checking your politicians you don't like is is a is basically bias. It's soft censorship. I mean, they're being very selective in who they decide to fact check. And, you know, there's no good way to do it, right? I mean, there is no truth a p I that they could just plug in tow. Fact check, people. Um, the way that you deal with with bad speech is more speech. I think it's a line from Justice BRANDEIS. Um, that is the way, historically that we have in this country, that we have dealt with speech by people we don't like, which is you have more speech, and, um and I don't think censorship or warnings is the right way to go. Jamaat. What do you think? Having worked at Facebook. Look, I think it exposes a couple things. One is that the Twitter product is still relatively brittle. I mean, like, at least Facebook

has a whole suite of emoticons. To say something is a crock of shit. You know, it makes you feel bad or, you know, it makes you feel angry or thumbs down or whatever on DSO, Twitter's reactionary feedback mechanism to its algorithms is very brittle. And so if you were going to try to algorithmic Lee tuned down the distribution of, you know, Trump to eat, Um, you know, you could see where you could balance thumbs up or hearts, in this case with other ways of signaling that this is either wrong or hate filled or, you know, instigating. And and I think like a little bit more self policing is probably the only scalable solution. All of that said, Here's what I will say. I think basically that Facebook is becoming Middle America and Twitter is becoming sort of the coasts. And, you know, Facebook is basically a product of middle America, plus kind of like countries outside the United States. And, you know, Twitter is about, you know, rich coastal kind of people

. And you can see that the way that the content ebbs and flows. And, you know, the kind of content problems like just for is an example. You know what is what is Twitter's latest content problem? It was that Donald Trump tweeted ah, video from CNN that was doctored, you know, and it And it only showed a clip of, ah, you know, a black toddler running away from a white toddler. And the caption was, you know, the Chiron said something about raises, and it turned out to not be wrong. Blah, blah, blah. What is Facebook's issue? Two days ago, it was that you know, the boogaloo movement, which is, you know, a bunch of people who believe in the militia and an impending civil war principally used Facebook and Facebook groups to organize. And they found out that they were distributing and, you know, driving. You know, viewers and usage and content. So it just kind of tells you like. And if you break down the issues and you know there's a there's a couple of people who tweet out the most popular tweets on Twitter versus the most popular content on Facebook. What you see is the left and right distribution, um

, and so I think that the audiences are segregating themselves into into into using products that basically feed them what they wanna hear well about. Let me ask you a question about the leadership. We You work directly with Zuckerberg for many years, and we all know Jack from Twitter from various projects. Mhm. What is Zuckerberg's politics? Is he a secret Trump supporter? Is Does Peter Thiel, who's on the board and you're good friends with Peter Taylor, worked with Peter Thiel Sax? I'm curious what you think goes on inside the brain of Mark Zuckerberg in terms of making these decisions. Is he scared that Facebook has become dependent on the right? And is that true meth? That it is a right thing? And is he right or left? What is his politics? I don't think that's the right framing. I think that if you're running a big network like this, you have to remember the you know, you're one of the five or six by most valuable companies

in the world. You yourself have, you know, 50 60 $70 billion. Basically, the world is your oyster, and what you've seen over the last five or six years is that there is an increasing regulatory headwind. Andi, if you basically play the game theory out um, you know, these companies, they're going to get regulated and they're going to get over tax, and they're gonna get kind of slowed down at a minimum and broken up at the maximum. And so if you're running one of these companies, I think the only thing you could do is hold on. And so if you're gonna hold on, there's no point in making any of these changes because it minimizes the amount of cash you could make in the amount of, you know, support you'll have. So you might as well pick a side effectively by doing nothing and waiting on God. And I think that's that's largely what all these guys have decided to do. They essentially said, We're not gonna sort of take a side here. Well know Twitter has taken aside because they're small enough. They can survive. They're not going to get broken up. But if you're one of the top four or five, look at the position

they've taken. The position they've taken is we have no position. That's Facebook's position. We have no position. We're not gonna Police adds no hold on. It's also Google's. It's also Microsoft. It's also apples It's also Amazon's. And in fairness to Facebook, all Big Five tech companies have said Our position is no position, and the reason is because that's the only thing they could do to keep that market cap and to hold on to the economic vibrancy of their businesses for longer sacks. Why did Twitter and Jack actually take a position? Because this cannot happen. If Jack is not 100% supportive of it, he is the driver of it and the person who Okay, is it? And then what do you think? Zuckerberg Chamot didn't want to answer this, but I want you to try to answer it. What is Zuckerberg's relationship with Peter Thiel and his thinking on a political basis, in your mind without, you know, giving up your relationship with Peter? But what is his politics and what is their relationship? Well, I I don't know exactly what sucks politics are and are not even exactly. I have no idea what his politics are not

remotely, um, and I do remember the time when Peter supported Trump during the election and the rest of board wanted to run them off the board so clearly it's not like I highly doubt Facebook is a bastion of right wing thinking. But why would Zuckerberg keep him on the board, then, in defiance of everybody else who hates him? Maybe simply believes that supporting the Republican candidate in the presidential election is not grounds for removal from aboard, Maybe simply is not that intolerant. Um, I think I mean, I'm gonna actually go out on a limb here and defend Zuckerberg a little bit, which is my impression of what Zuckerberg's trying to dio is. Simply maintain Facebook as a speech platform. And, you know, if you're going to be a speech platform, you're gonna be caught in the crosshairs of all these vory controversial debates. And, you know, people are gonna publish things that other people hate. In fact, even that the majority hates, um, but isn't that the type of speech that the A C L U historically defended? Um, you know, it feels to me like

there's been a rise mainly on the left in terms of intolerance for speech. They don't like that they consider to be insufficiently what you saw that with the New York Times newsroom. I think you tweeted a tweet storm from a new opinion writer. There was around the Tom Cotton editorial, which, you know, it's not like I agreed with it, but they kind of had a They basically fired the opinion page editor because they realized they published. And by the way, sorry just to build on your point. The title, which wasn't even written by Tom Cotton, was, I would say, an order of magnitude worse than the article if you read the whole article. But the title was really offensive, wasn't even written by them. It was written, I think, by the editor that got fired. But the article itself was kind of bad, but not nearly as bad Freeburg into this. Because Freeburg 20 years ago, when we were all as Gen Xers coming up, we were taught to defend freedom of speech. This is a court tenant of ah, of a vibrant democracy and that you need

to be able to read unpopular opinions. Uh, in fact, the KKK needs to be able to march down Main Street, and we need to protect that ugly speech in order for everybody else. Toe have it. Um, and here we have a you know, an editorial which obviously none of us agree with it is. Is this an existentially threat to America that we are now going to say Freedom of speech is not a core tenant of the of the American, uh, experiment. I'm just looking for the term that was used by what's the other New York Times opinion writer? I forgot her name. Sex. Maybe it'll help me, but she talks about like a comfort culture, um, or eso. Basically, we usedto pride ourselves on a culture that enabled freedom of speech and and and that was that was cherished and heralded. And what is cherished and heralded now is a culture that protects people from hearing offensive and scary things that they don't want to hear

. Andi, that shift, you know, those of us who are Gen X, which I think I am. I was born in 1980 into the millennial Gen Z on beyond kind of generation has occurred on, but it is fundamentally changing the nature of how we find truth and how we find, um, you know, coalesce around decisions as a society onda. We're excluding the things that are offensive and it's a little bit scary to think about From my point of view that, you know, we can't explore all options. We can't hear all dissenting points of view. Uh, this is certainly a very deep argument about how our society and our how our democracy operates. Um, but it is happening. And so the point was like, We're we're starting to shift towards valuing comfort over over freedom of expression. Um and and that's a That's just kind of the big the big change that's occurring. And look, we do live in a democracy. So the votes are going to be what would ultimately decides what happens here, votes

in terms of who's using Facebook vs Twitter and votes in terms of who's voting for what presidential candidate and what governor and what Mayor? Um and so we'll see. Um, you know it za sea change in how this democracy operates. Yeah, I think it's a sea change going back very far because the whole principle of the Enlightenment going back hundreds of years was stated by Voltaire, which is that I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it who today is willing to do that. I mean, that was the idea that led to political liberalization in the West. It's really a unique feature of Western democracies and liberalism you go to anywhere else in the world. I guarantee you people aren't defending to the death your your right toe to say things they disagree with. I don't think there, you know, I don't think She Jinping or Vladimir Putin is defending. You're right to hear things that they don't want you to. Um, so you

know, this is a very foundational part of of American and, you know, Western political liberalism. And, um, it's being challenged now. And I think, you know, we should have more self confidence in our ideas. Toe worry so much about Donald Trump's tweets, which are ephemeral. Be for gotten very soon that we're willing to throw out freedom of speech. Well, yeah, I mean, this is the thing I don't understand about labeling. His tweets is, you know? I mean, is anybody not think that this guy is hopped up on Adderall or a complete moron like or any of those things, like we all know he's an idiot who just tweets 50 times a day, and he's a scared, You know that he's not gonna win his, you know, re election and that he's a he's a literal reality star. So who do you mean by when you say we we all? Because it's a different way that I think you're saying that I think other people would be saying Way represents, right? I mean, that's I think the generational divide here is I don't know if it's generation. I think there's a lot of dimensions across which

these differences of perspective occur, and I've said this for amongst our group for a long time. But there's a huge difference between a rural population and urban population in the United States in terms of what their priorities are, and I think that difference in priorities is unconscious, and that's where things really resonate that, Trump says, and that really move the needle. For a lot of folks, the priority of civil rights is not a zit. Might be in an urban center is not a priority in a rural center, and in a in a rural population there's a different priority. Trump, no matter what, how he says it, the things he's saying are different than what I'm hearing from the urban population, which is where the media comes from, and so on and so forth. And so Trump resonates with me. I don't care if he sounds a little bit wacky. I need wacky because it needs to be different than than standard. Andi. There's just there's a lot of divides here. A lot of dimensions across e think that we absolutely should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should never attack this very basic principle

of free speech because we will never forgive ourselves if we do. But then this is why I think we come back. Thio, um, we should be a little bit more resilient, uh, to build products and services that allow a little bit mawr texture in the discussion, Um, so that you actually can have free speech flourish mawr, um, in a more transparent way. So, David, to your point, you know, how do you drown out, you know, hate speech. It's with more speech, while these products don't necessarily even enable that. And so I do think that we have this, you know, sort of an issue where the products and services that billions of people used to consume their information and construct a worldview. Today, um, they neither will allow things to be flagged. Nor will they increments the feature surface area so that you can actually have. So then that's why I think people then get into this place

where everybody feels cornered and nobody likes what's happening on DSO. I think that's kind of what we're in. I think that if we had, ah, little bit mawr ingenuity and thinking by the folks that you know Twitter and Facebook, it would go a long, long way. Yeah, I do think there's something. I mean, the conundrum of Twitter is, um, simultaneously. It's the main way I get my news information, but I also see it as a huge source of groupthink and kind of mob mentality. And so, you know, the more time you spend on Twitter I mean, I see a lot people saying the more unhappy they are, and so you do wonder whether it's making you more informed or whether it's just making you buy in tow, some sort of mass psychosis. Well, it could be both. You could becoming more informed, and you could be going into a psychosis. But we have a lot of friends who are high profile, who, like their behavior on Twitter is is a separate thing. Then who they actually are, right? Like they just lose their shit on Twitter. And, you know

, they the is really a very strange place to be sure. Can we talk? By the way, can we just talk about this Bolton book? I mean, what the fuck? I mean, he he did ask Jean Ping to help him win the election, and he bartered by soybeans. Thio, help me win the election. E mean, this is insane. I think I think we need toe. We need toe. First of all, you always gotta look at the source here. Um, so I don't know how somebody commentator who's as far right as you could go well, who was picked by Trump himself. Well, he was a very weird choice for Trump because one of the main reasons why Trump won the Republican nomination is he promised no more bushes meaning an end toe, these crazy neo con wars of intervention. And this guy Bolton, like he's right out of the playbook. Yeah, he's the like Hawk of Hawks. There's not a war he doesn't want to get us into. He wanted to get

us into a war with Iran. It never made any sense for Trump to hire him in the first place. But do you know why he hired him as stated in the book? I've heard I've heard the explanation that he liked. I think he said something like when, when he sends Bolton into a room, he likes he like. He thinks the strength is his negotiating position because the other side thinks that there were about us is about to invade or something. When Bolton it's also Trump was like, I love hearing you talk. It's just like Fox News, like That's the quote is So he literally picks people based, I mean, And he picked uh ah Ludlow right for him, you know, he picks them based on being TV personalities. I just think this Bolton guy is, um, like, you know, is this crazy Warhawk who also is this kind of like a weasel? And I don't know how he creates a 500 page book out of spending 17 months in the White House. I guess he's just writing down every. I'm surprised it's not $5000. That should be a special be like tokens Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'm

gonna put this other if he can produce the note that Pompeo gave him That said Trump is so full of shit. That thing at auction, I'm telling you now, what do you each bid for it? What? We have $500,000 at least 500,000. If that note actually exists and he has it, it's I mean it Z. But I just think to me. First of all, it's a little ludicrous that this guy, he is a bit of a weasel because, like, where were you during the impeachment? A. He made an economic calculation that his book was more important than the future of the country. So first of all, you know, kind of go fuck, go fuck yourself for that. But the the other thing, though, is that you know, beyond his sort of like character flaws, it's just the story after story after story, It's just kind of from the bizarre to the observed, like Finland's a part of Russia, England doesn't have nuclear weapons, please, by soybean you are part of the You are part of the nuclear powers UK. Really? United Kingdom has nukes. Wow

. What if India gets But But every every one of these insider tell all books always makes the, you know, always makes the president look bad. I mean, it's not not a hard task. Was there anything, though? That was surprising to anyone. She Jinping a blockbuster. The region thinking did catch me off guard that he was that brazen and kind of sad. But does it surprise you? I mean, like like the fact that it was said. But like the motivation, the intention, the model of No, no to your point, my, my expectations were so low. Um, it's it's like teaching a kid to poop in the toilet for the first time. You know, as long as it doesn't poop on the floor, even if he does it in his diaper. You know, everything looks like success as long as there is just not raw feces on my hardwood. If he if he sat on the potty, its success, its success, even if the pants weren't pulled down. If he poops his pants, tell me about tell me about? I just want to switch topics. Tell me about vaccines because it seems to me that there's, like, a growing

court of people. And I'm not gonna put moderna in this camp, but, like maybe they did that were very opportunistically out there generating a ton of PR. But what if you had to pick a time in a time frame? Onda manufacturing timeframe. Can you just tell me? Give us the over under So we commit, we could get a line on it. So there's gonna I think there's gonna be a stage release of vaccines that will probably believe it or not Starting q four of this year. Um, and there has been production ramp up going on in parallel to testing. So, you know, to get these vaccines produced whether you're talking about the n r n a vaccine or you're talking about the viral vaccine like they did in China, which they actually do have in production. Um, there's a bunch of different challenges with scaling up in ramping production. And then, you know what's called downstream processing and filtering and packaging and all this stuff. Anyway, it's a it's a big fucking exercise. So what's gone on is there has been a parallel

effort to actually scale of production of these things before. We've actually completed the testing of them to make sure that they're safe and efficacious. And as a result, and some of this came out of that first or second stimulus bill, some of it came from private funding. And then other governments are just straight up paying for it on DSO. There are a number of facilities that are actually ramping production right now. If they don't work, the vaccines ultimately don't pass muster. Just gonna be a write off of a couple billion dollars on DSO. Theoretically, we could have doses that are available for distribution to healthcare workers and frontline people in Q four of this year is what I would kind of set the over under at What do you think these vaccines were like? Flu vaccines, which is like 50 60% effective at best? Um, yeah, I don't really know the answer to that. I would say that these things, they're probably pretty effective. I would say the flu vaccine is just a high rate of mutation and also a low rate of utilization and a high rate of infection. So we're gonna have a lower rate of infection, probably a more moderate rate of mutation. Of the result on

DSO, we should be Maurin control If we get something that works with the current strength and the way that this, um uh, this stars Kobe to the most of the vaccines are built around the seven. I think major targets around the spike protein and different episodes across the spike protein. And so, you know, if you see a great degree of mutation across that protein, it's likely going to be less infected, infective and less effective a za virus, and so it'll go away. And so I think that we've got a really good shot here. What are the odds that somebody politicizes the vaccine and America doesn't get it? America doesn't get it like a 100%. Yeah, Yeah. I mean, look, we politicize fucking measles. 30% of people of kids now aren't getting vaccinated for measles, which is crazy, and others measles outbreaks happening in the US, which is just, you know, mind boggling. That's just happening in Marin, where you are, uh, easy. That's that's just with the place with the highest percentage

of graduate degrees in the country. Yeah, no, but I mean, it's inevitability that gets politicized. But David, like, how does how does the distribution of these vaccines work? Meaning like, let's just let's just say that it's like, say, no fee, for example, because I saw that the French government made a large investment and the Germans did as well to essentially like onshore Ah, bunch of their, you know, companies who had promising vaccine candidates on DSO. If you assume that there's a distribution of these vaccines, let's just say the most efficacious ones in China are they just gonna dole this out to whoever is willing to buy it? Or they're going to decide on a political basis how to basically give these And then when they come to the United States, how do we know that it comes to Texas before it comes to Wyoming vs California versus New York? So I think the ones that are getting federal support, which all of them are pretty much at this point are, you know, gonna be federally mandated in terms of distribution. And it's probably some commercial agreement that none of us have seen in terms of like what that looks like. So Trump will send him to the swing states

. Where he's behind is what you're saying. Well, I think this. I think it will probably be delegated down toe Health and Human Services. What are the chances that there's a trump logo on the side of the Yeah Trump? Here's trump vaccine to save your life. Okay, It is a good point for us toe to kind of wrap around the horn. Um, try meth. And I think a lot of people were convinced that Trump was going to sell into office. Now everything is showing you Fox News polls, CNBC polls. SURVEYMONKEY polls that Trump is very far behind, especially in the swing states. What are the chances Trump wins the election sex? I think he's, um well, I think Covitz really hurt him because the sort of feather in his cap thing he had really had going for him was the economy that's been hurt. But it's coming back. Um, you know, the situation could look very different six months from now. Right now, it looks pretty bleak because I do think that his reaction to the crisis was seen as very inflammatory. But

I think six months from now could be a different story. Five months. So? So you don't think he's gonna win right now? But the election today, if the election were today, he would lose. Um, but, you know, the economy, we're seeing a V shaped recovery, which I think is surprising all of us. And if that holds up and we get past the civil unrest that we've had on bond, you know, um, he sauce being so inflammatory on those issues, I think that, you know, the situation could look very different in five months. You got remember the other thing, which is Biden at some point is gonna have toe enter to some presidential debates. And, um, you know, that's going if he's gonna be there is what you're saying cognitively. Yeah. I mean, that's the popular to talk about. But you actually think there's a cognitive issue, yes or no? Probably Probably. It's uncomfortable to say for some reason, e mean at a minimum. Look, there's a problem with the way he speaks. I don't know if there's a which is indicative of a problem with the way he

thinks But, you know, like when If they're on stage for two hours in the debate, I think we're gonna find out really quick. Um, and I think those debates are pretty unavoidable. I don't think binds. Gonna figure out a way to get out of it. Um, so, you know, I think a lot of people think that he could be propped up by a staff, and they can to some extent. But I think it's, um point we're, you know, we're gonna have to take a look at Joe Biden. She math, Trump wins. Trump loses right now. I think it's sort of 75. 25. He loses. I think that's going to get closer. Toe 55. 45 As the date comes close, Um, I think it actually comes down to two issues. Number one is who does Biden pick as a running mate? Um, and can you lock up the the swing states with that running mate and number two, which I think eyes probably gonna play an enormous role

if if the community organizing that saw the black lives matter movement get to this next level is, uh, avoiding and preventing voter suppression. Um You know, LeBron, I think, is about to start an enormous campaign with a lot of very well heeled, well known celebrities to get out the vote. But if there is a concerted effort to prevent voter suppression and get young people and people of color to the polls, it's a Biden landslide. But now we've gone from a Trump landslide just six months ago in all of our minds toe a Biden landslide. Freeburg. Where you at? I still think Trump's gonna win. I'd say 70% chance Trump wins and I'll tell you why. I think there's still there's not gonna be structural improvement between now and November. For the majority of people that voted for Trump in the last election, there are going to be a large number of people in

blue collar and rural areas that remain challenged with their life and feel like they're missing out and they're missing. And and And this may even be true in inner city, um, district's. But the big kind of flip vote in the rural and blue collar areas, um, is going to say I still need change. I need things fixed, and Trump is the agent of change Biden. He has always been the agent of change, and I'll tell you the other thing. He's also a master off his laying blame. And so Trump is incredible. A pointing a finger at some third party and saying, That's the enemy. I'm the guy who is going to go to feed him for a year, and I think that's what won in the election last time. And I think it could win to make the election again. This time, no matter what shit happens between now and November, he will find a way to make the story about how some third party or some process or some deep state is still responsible for that outcome. That's keeping you down, Mr Blue Collar factory worker Um, and I will be the person to vanquish that problem. Biden is the old state. He's the old guard. He's the guy from before

, and we haven't changed anything in the last four years where people feel happy and secure about their lives. I think two Sack's point. If the economy was even stronger, it may hurt Trump's chances. Sure, it's a lot of folks might say great. Trump's responsible. Let's give them a thumbs up. But the more people are feeling pain them or they're looking for an agent of change. And I think Trump against Biden, it's still gonna be that agent makes me the deciding either tie or swing vote, I believe Biden Winds. I believe Trump is absolutely lost. His ability to win this because he made two critical errors, two sacks is very astute point. He just complete blunder on wearing masks and leadership during co vid and complete blunder in terms of dealing with social unrest, which he could have acted as an reconciliation agent. Um, he's his own worst enemy and couldn't do those two very simple things. I think Biden wins big if he takes the following strategy, which I will call the Avenger strategy, which is It's not just about him. He gets

an incredible running mate to trim its point. But not only that, he pre announces his Cabinet Avenger style, and they start hosting Allah uh, Cuomo in New York daily briefings where they talk about what the country needs to dio with a brain trust in a roundtable with five or six people pre selected. So you're not voting for Biden who might have cognitive issues and sacks is correct. He could fumble under Trump's greatest strength, which is demolishing people in debates which we ourselves all watched. We watched Hillary get absolutely beat up in those debates, and that was our I remember those nights when we were watching at your house. Jamaat and we are eyes opened right up like Holy cow. Hillary is in trouble here. He's just really good at this type of maniac boxing that he does with little Mark Rubio and everybody else here neither. But if he picks the right VP candidate and I want to know

as we close here, who is the VP candidate that you think he should pick Amy Klobuchar just about out and said, Ah, woman is not enough. You need to have a black woman. So Chamakh, who is the ideal running mate, Sacks, who scares you the most. Since you know the GOP is gonna lose this time around, who is the scariest for you on Freeburg? Who do you think he should pick, give it some thought or do not have ah, consensus choice? I'll leave my statement to the end. Okay, Sacks. IPU, you know, sandbag this and pick somebody you want him to pick because it helps them lose. Well, I I don't know the backbencher Democrat politicians well enough to say exactly. I don't have a pick. I would just say I would really like for him to pick a great crisis manager, an operator, somebody who's been there, somebody who's been tested in a crisis because there's a very high chance that this VP pick will become the president. Given Biden's age and everything going on in the world, and we've just seen

crisis after crisis this year, I think there's gonna be more shoes to drop. And this person that we don't even know yet could very easily be the present United States in the next two years. So I just hope you pick someone who is good at handling a crisis. Okay, so that would mean Oprah, perhaps. God, you just pick my father. I Is that really your picture up? Yeah, yeah, Oprah Winfrey. I mean, she would be. She would be incredible. Oh, my God, What a while! Every state. Oh, she's incredible. Oprah Winfrey for the win. I mean, if you're gonna pick somebody Biden Winfrey, it's gotta make a slam dunk Slam dunk Better than Michelle Obama. Am dunk Better than Michelle Obama. Slam dunk! I'm gonna email Blinken and Evan Ryan right now. Oprah Winfrey. Okay, Freeburg, you have a better candidate. Who is your choice? I don't have I don't have a choice. I mean, I'm not gonna make a choice here, but I I think the challenge

he's gonna face is finding a black woman who can appeal to the blue collar and rural vote in these areas where he needs to kind of winsome, uh, winsome folks over. And so he's gonna end up in these urban district, like the Atlanta mayor, Or like Kamala Harris. Um, and they're they're not gonna They're not gonna bring that vote. So he is in a little bit of a pickle here because Amy Klobuchar helped him bridge the rural divide. But, you know, he's gotta he's gotta I think's gonna be a bit of a search here. Uh, find some of the idea of going with Oprah because it just becomes, um, Sheas Such a reconciler. Now it doesn't fit the execution in a crisis. Two sack's desire and I shall build a bigger business than Trump. But that is what is about to get to is. I think she's so successful and she's such a great leader and so charismatic. She would bring in better operators than Trump and Pence ever could. I mean, look at the shit show off people

who came in and out of the Cabinet. It was one goofball and incompetent asshole after another story to get, Ah, little frisky here at the end. But I feel like we're at the poker game. Trump's Cabinet was in an embarrassment, almost universally correct. Sacks. Well, look, I here's the problem with Oprah. Or if you want, you know any other Hollywood celebrity George Clooney or what have you? Um, they're just they're not used to getting beat up the way that politicians in our country get beat up. You know, they're used to having people catering to them. They're used to having the star trailer and the star treatment, and, you know, they tend to have a glass jaw in politics because they've just never been put an environment where there is constantly assaulted. Trump, I mean, was a celebrity, but he was used thio. He kind of grew up in that whole New York tabloid environment and was used to punching and counter from embraced it. In fact, he was his own fake PR person. He was calling the post. Yeah, it's, you know, that old saying about, you know, wrestling with a pig. You know, everyone gets dirty, but the pig

likes it. I mean, Trump is kind of like the pig who likes it. Um, you know, mostly celebrities don't like having to get beat up. You know, they're used to being very popular, and on day, that's why they tend to be, I think tough picks, um politically is they don't they tend to have a glass jaw. Alright. On that finding. Love you. Let's play poker outside. We'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. Bye bye.

E4: Politicizing the pandemic, Police reform, Biden's ideal VP, Twitter vs. Facebook on free speech & more with David Sacks & David Friedberg
E4: Politicizing the pandemic, Police reform, Biden's ideal VP, Twitter vs. Facebook on free speech & more with David Sacks & David Friedberg
replay_10 forward_10