Trump's Crucial State of the Union, the Key Difference Between 2016 and 2026, and AI and China Challenges

Hi there, Mark Calpronetter and Chief of two-way live-and-directed video platform.

“And thank you for joining this show next up, glad to have you here as a nexter.”

Great program for you today on the state of the Union Day. We start out with a panel of two smarty pances, two great thinkers, Hyma Moore, he's a principal at Cornerstone Government Affairs, former director at the office of the DNC chair for the Democratic Party. Really hopper, a Republican strategist president, district media group, and also a fellow

at the independent women's forum. We'll talk to them about my new obsession, which is what is we doing as a country, a society, a people, a AI, and the threats and opportunities that are there. And then Alex Roy will be here. He's an extraordinary guy with an extraordinary career who understands two things, again,

that I'm super focused on. One is electric vehicles, and the other is self-driving cars.

“There's an overlap there, Alex understands it all, and these are these are two huge topics”

that just don't get enough conversation and up discussion. They have to do with our future, our economy, our competitiveness in the world, including with China. So we'll talk all about that. But before we get to our guests in just a moment, my reported monologue on just the way

Donald Trump inspires so many and depresses so many who has been a divisive figure for his entire political career. And I've been thinking a lot this week about on the state of the Union, where we stand in the face of Donald Trump as the president of the United States for beloved by some and to say the least, not beloved by others.

So I'm going to walk you through how I'm thinking about that this critical week when there's

so much going on at home and abroad. All of that coming up, all of that next up after this break. Let me ask you something, do you own physical gold, most people don't, and given the current state of the world that is worth thinking about? Acre gold makes it simple.

You pick a plan that fits your budget, make monthly payments, and when you've accumulated enough, they ship you a beautifully designed 24 karat Swiss gold bar. Gold is up 70% year over year and central banks are still buying it at record levels. Smart money has been moving into hard assets for a good reason. This legitimate, they've had subscribers stacking consistently for six years, because once

you hold it in your hand, you understand the difference between owning something real versus a number on a screen. Right now they're giving away two five gram ancient collection, gold bars, enter for free, and subscribe to gold at getacreGold.com/mark that's getacreGold.com/mark. All right, next up my reported monologue, usually when I give you my reported monologue,

it's based on some intense reporting over a day, a two, two days a week. This is more than 10 years in the making, and it's a topic I've been thinking about since

2015 when I first started understanding that Donald Trump, not just to might be the Republican

nominee and might be present, but had a pretty good chance. And he's been such a divisive figure. People on the left don't understand how Trump won, not once but twice. People on the right understand full well how Donald Trump won and supported him, but they don't really understand the left perspective on this.

And so a lot of my reporting now is part reporting part therapy session, as it's been for the last decade, as I talked to people who love Donald Trump and love what he's doing for America and to America, and those who do not, to say the least. And I'm so frustrated by the inability to bring people together, it's not really my job to do it, but I know I know in my bones would be good for the country.

Two television appearances of mine, or video appearances I should say, one was on TV, and one was on YouTube, that I want to share. They kind of book and this period, at least through the last presidential election, and then bridge into today, one was with Steven Kobair on election night in 2016, and one was with Tucker Carlson shortly before the 2024 election. And in both cases, I said things that when I said them, we're treated

with shock, we're treated with in some quarters criticism, accusations of being hyperbolic

“or off-base. But I think they both stand up. I think they both stand up and survive”

the test of time, because Donald Trump's presence in our lives is something that I think we haven't really understood fully. Even people who think about a lot, who's who are paid to analyze it like me, is a very difficult thing to get our arms around to have tens

tens of millions couldn't be more excited. Thank you's the greatest president. Or even

“if they see the flaws and Donald Trump think he was an absolute essential corrective to”

decades of liberal governance, both in government, but also in places like universities and corporations, and in Hollywood. This is so tough for me personally. I've alluded to this before the divisions in my own life, in my family, in my friends, in my profession. But I see it all around the country. People I talk to every day. I talk them on two way. I talk to you all, nexters who write in and who I see out in public, just the level

of division, which existed in America before Donald Trump, it's part of how he got elected. But I want to talk about where we are now. A state of the Union with three years left in this presidency with a very raucous midterm coming up with lots of conversation here in elsewhere, about who will be next in the White House after Donald Trump. I want to start with 2016 on election night. When I had, I had been a subject for several weeks of criticism

by people in the media, and elsewhere, for saying Donald Trump might win. We went into election night. The poll suggested he would not, but that it would be close. And on election night, I did a bunch of stuff. It really was a kind of a whirlwind. I started the Hillary Clinton's headquarters here in New York City at the Javit Center. I then left and went and eventually ended up at Hillary Clinton's hotel where she was staying two blocks from

Trump Tower, which some considered to be a bit of a troll and hung out in the lobby there to try to do some reporting about what was going on inside her camp. Then went, if you blocks away to six avenue to stay Hilton, hotel where Donald Trump was having his election night event. And in between those stops, I went to the Ed Sullivan Theater and appeared on Stephen Cobb air show. And bus by coincidence, he was doing like a live show throughout

the evening. And just by coincidence, I was there when enough states were projected for

“Donald Trump that he'd win. I think Wisconsin was the one that was projected while I was”

literally on set with him. And it was clear Trump was probably going to win at that point.

Not a shirt thing, but it seemed like he was going to win. And Stephen Cobb air basically

was asking me to put in context what a Trump victory would mean for the country, how people would react to a Trump victory. This is what I said on election night, 2016 shortly after became clear that Donald Trump was going to be the 45th president as to the Civil War, World War II and including 9/11, this may be the most cataclysmic event the country has ever seen. Well. So cataclysmic doesn't necessarily mean negative. It just means a big change.

It means a shock to the system. And I stand by what I said. I took a ton of criticism as I suggested earlier for saying that this would be cataclysmic. Some because people thought it, sorry, I was saying it was something negative. I just knew from having traveled the country and seen the reaction to Donald Trump, both positive and negative, that this would

be cataclysmic. That is, first term, didn't know at that point it would only be one consecutive

term, would discombobulate so much of the country, would shake things up so fundamentally.

“And I stand by what I said that night. I think as horrible as 9/11 was, as much as it”

impacted the city where I live, as much as it impacted, so much of the country. I really don't think it had as profound effect in society and how people think about America as the election adopted in 2016. So he serves as term and then loses. People can debate all they want about the 2020 election circumstances, the role of COVID, the role of changes in election laws because of COVID, the roles of the social media platform, the roles of how

the country saw Trump's first term. There's all sorts of debates about that stuff. But what I do know is that after he lost and the assumption was he would not be back that he was done politically. That there was kind of a sigh of relief in Blue America that said, okay, Hillary Clinton screwed that up. He barely won the first time. He didn't

win the popular vote. But everybody's seen who he is and what he's like and he'll never

be back again. The Republicans won't nominate him. And if they do, we'll be so lucky as a Democratic party to have Trump to run against. And of course, they then spent the intervening period trying to send him to prison, trying to keep him off the ballot, trying to repudiate everything he'd done as president, not giving him credit for things he'd done positive. And and the Democratic Party went crazy woke. The reaction to Trump being president was not to

say, well, let's let's do some soul searching and see where the party was off track in 2016

to the left and Joe Biden and the Democratic Party during the four years Donald Trump were out,

moved to the left, obviously on immigration, moved to the left a lot of cultural things, a lot of things having to do with DEI, with corporations, with title, title set effective universities and various ways. All of this, all of this open the door for Donald Trump to come back. And as I watched the 2024 election, I had a feeling even more intense than I did in 2016 because 2016 was, even for me, someone who thought Trump could win a surprise.

I didn't think for sure he would by any means. 2024, and not just looking at the polling data, but in thinking about the arc of the two parties and of Trump's leadership and Joe Biden and the the con that he and his team tried to put on America, that is mental decline and then Kamala Harris and her weaknesses as a candidate. I went into election a season of final days, more confident about Trump's chances than I had been in 2016. And I was concerned because again,

this was not the fluke of 2016 where Trump gets elected almost in a lark almost accidentally and because of so many mistakes made by Hillary Clinton and so many actions by people like Assange and Komi and her own husband that that produced a confluence that allowed Trump to win. This was different. You've seen what he's like as president. He was president for four years. Now you have a chance to have a president again up or down do you want it. And my concern,

my concern going into election day was that Trump would win and that the country would be ill prepared to deal with a particularly blue America who's who's connection to the country. I felt could be severely damaged. It should be almost severed if Trump won.

So here's what I said in October of 2024 when Tucker Carlson asked me on his show,

“what would happen in blue America if Donald Trump won? I think it will be the cause of the”

greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country. I don't I think tens of millions of people will question their connection to the nation, their connection to other human beings, their connection to their vision of what their future for them and their children could be like. And I think that it will be work choir and enormous amount of access to mental health professionals. I think it'll lead to trauma in the workplace. I think they'll be

some degree of -- there are even 100 percent serious. 100 percent serious. I don't be alcoholism,

they'll be broken marriages. What? Yeah. They think he's the worst person possible to be present and having one by the hand of Jim Komi and Fluke in 2016 and then performed an office for four years and denied who won the election last time and January 6, the fact that under a fair election,

“America chose by the rules pre-agree to. Donald Trump again, I think it will cause the biggest”

mental health crisis in the history of America. And I don't think it will be kind of a passing thing that by the inauguration will be fine. I think it will be sustained and unprecedented and hideous. And I don't think the country's ready for it. So mental health crises often manifest in violence. Yeah. I think there'll be some violence. I think there'll be workplace fights. There'll be fights at birthday -- kids birthday parties. I think there'll be protests that will turn violent.

I hope they're not, but I think there will be some. But I think it will be more -- it'll be less anger and more a failure to understand how it could happen. You know, like the death of a child, or you're spouse announcing that your wife announcing she's a lesbian and she's leaving you for your best friend. Like a -- like something that's so traumatic that it is impossible for even the most mentally healthy person to truly process and incorporate into their daily life. I hope

“I'm wrong. But I think that -- I think that's what's going to happen for tens of millions of people.”

Because they think that their fellow citizens supporting Trump is a sign of fundamental evil at the heart of their fellow citizens and of the nation. So how right was I? How right was I in October of 24? And some quarters I'm giving credit for being very right. I don't think I was totally right, but I was a lot right. And the reason I -- I was a lot right was because just like in 2016,

of Donald Trump winning a year. And I talked to people who were going to vote for Donald Trump,

“who saw this as a huge corrective, not just of the Biden policies on immigration and the economy.”

But of the failure of to have a fair election in their view. In some cases in 2020. But also because Donald Trump had been in their view, shackled as president by various things, including the people he hired. And they wanted to Trump unshackled. And they got -- have gotten Donald Trump unshackled in one short year. We've seen an extraordinary amount of change. Foreign and domestic, but particularly domestic front what he's done with Congress, what he's done

with business, what he's done with universities, the media, the use of his office, tearing down the East Wing, changing the name of the Kennedy Center, all these things that he didn't do like this

in the first term. Have reinforced in the minds of so many people I talked to just how upsetting

“this is. And how inexplicable they find the fact that he's supported. Okay. And why am I talking”

about this today? You know, I've been on my mind now for over a decade. Stay the union. So many Democrats choosing not to go. So many Democrats bringing guests to the state of the union purposely to troll the president and know where the president. So much on social media with Gavin Newsman other Democrats using profanities, striking back at Donald Trump with the same level of vitriol and profanity that he uses so frequently in his pronouncements on social media and elsewhere.

This is a -- this is a house seriously divided. It's a house seriously divided. And it's divided in asymmetrical ways. So many Democrats bristle when I talk about Trump's range from syndrome. And I get why they do. And not everyone who opposes Donald Trump has derangedment. They have their reasons, valid reasons, and so many cases for -- for vociferously posing him on policy, on style, on what they believe is the most corrupted administration of all time. But under girding all of that

is a -- something that is -- it's rational from their point of view to be emotionally upset about this. And -- and the disconnect that it causes even for all but a handful of Democrats whether they have so-called Trump-drangement syndrome or not, they can't understand why he's supported. That is approval rating is down, but he's still supported by more than 45% of the country probably around 45, maybe. That's not nothing. And it's a lot for -- because from their point

of view, Donald Trump's the worst possible person to be president. And what I have found and asking people this week about the rest of the year, not about the midterms we've talked plenty about that, we'll talk more about it. But how do you see the rest of the year for America? Where we face tough choices as a country on Iran, on Russia, Ukraine, on China, on Greenland, on the fentanyl crisis, then here at home about AI and about taxes and spending and all the issues housing, all the things

that we face. I ask people in politics who are interested in the government and the country how do we go forward like this together? And then sometimes people want to say, well, let's talk about post-Trump. Post-Trump's far away, number one, number two. I don't think there's much to say about post-Trump. I'm going to show what that's going to look like. But in the year and now in 2026, when I've asked people this week in both parties, and again, we're talking about

“pros and civilians. What are your hopes for the country? What do you think we can get done?”

How can we come together to grapple with AI, which continues to be such a both a huge possibility for America and a peril in the minds of the many and in a reality? How do we deal with the unified position on China? Should we go to war with the run? It's all freighted. It's all colored by this deep, deep concern on the left. The Donald Trump is a menace, which for many of them is discombobulating to say the least.

And then on the right, a belief that all the dynamics, all the factors that got Donald Trump

elected the first time, and then reelected the second time that all those things are still out there,

that there's still too much work, that there's still too much government control, still too much government regulation. I look at the things I said in 2016 and 2024, and I think I was so right, I was so aware of the division, and yet almost nothing in our society is

doing what I do to have Trump's arrangement syndrome, or to have the reality of Donald Trump as

“President give me a mental health problem. I can't, I can't, they'd be irresponsible to do,”

to do, to do either this. But I also must be vigilant, must be vigilant, and explaining to people who are maga, just to upset people are. They see that, and I see this every down on Twitter, in particular, they see what they call Trump's arrangements syndrome, what they see, the emotion of governors and members of Congress are just folks on X. They see their anger at the president, their upset, and they mock it. They look at it as weakness, and they delighted it,

you know, the phrase "own the lips." They delighted that. What they don't try to do and what I'm asking all of you to do if you support the president, your listening to this show is try to have some understanding for why they're so upset. Don't just mock it. Maybe stop mocking it. Maybe think about why are they so upset? Why has, unfortunately, I was at least partially correct, why has the president's reelection caused some mental health crisis in America?

Every mental health professional I talk to no matter their political orientation says, "Yeah, business is booming." Lots of people need mental health help and now. And as a nation,

“I don't care where your politics are, you should have sympathy for your fellow countrymen and”

country women who are right now are still struggling a year in here to Trump's second term.

They're struggling to understand how the country could have done this. And then again, I'd ask people who are struggling with it. Look for things you can like. Look for things that better going on both with the Trump administration and have side that maybe you can be positive about, or think about why are so many other people in the country positive about what's going on? That capacity to have empathy for the people who are suffering and for the people who are celebrating.

Both directions. That is what we need to foster. That is what is missing. And when I, when I continue to watch to see how upset people are, breaks my heart, I don't mock them. But I do think they need to do a better job. Both sides say to me, "Well, they don't understand. They're not spending the time understanding me. Both sides need to do a better job." So I'm asking all of you. If you're listening to my voice watching the program,

try to understand the other side. Try to think about why there's triumphance in right America and discombobulation in blue America over this. It's going to be present for three more years, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to try to make some peace over this. So I'm to try to reach a moment of intellectual understanding of emotional sympathy and the mental health crisis and the cataclysm. Donald Trump won't be president forever, but he's going to be president for a good

long while. And we still lack any understanding. And we see it today on the day when the country should have a moment of unity around the U.S. hockey team. Both teams end around the 250th anniversary of the country. There's lots to come together around. We got to do it. Thank you for listening. That wraps up today's reported model. I'd grateful to you for listening. I curious what you think. Send me an email. Next up, [email protected]. Tell me what you think about this

conundrum of America divided against each other. And please share the program. Go to youtube.com/natnextopalpern. Subscribe it. Like it. Send it to your friends. Let them know that you like the show. Has them to listen to the same thing on the podcast format. Podcast platforms. Apple or Spotify. Would love to get your you subscribing and set the automatic downloads. But also tell your friends about it. Tell them to become nexters. The automatic downloads aren't set for you. Please do that.

Everyone who does is pleased that they do because they never miss an episode. They never have to

“remember every Tuesday and Thursday. Another episode drops on youtube. The bonus content is there as”

well. All right. Quick break. And then next up when we come back. I'm a more and Beverly Halberd will be here. They're next up. Are you being lied to? They tell you to max out to your 401k in your IRA and then they make you big. Big for permission to use your own money. It's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan alternative. Banks and Wall Street desperately hope that you never hear about.

It gives you guaranteed predictable growth and retirement income even when the market's tumble. Your principal is protected. Your growth is locked in and under current tax law at your retirement income can be tax-free. Your income control with access to your money for emergencies or opportunities to come along with no questions as to no government penalties or restrictions.

Even when you use your money, it keeps growing like you never touched it with built-in inflation

retirement and have real peace of mind. You can get a free report that reveals how you can

bank on yourself and enjoy tax-free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control of your money. Just go to bank on yourself.com/mark and get your free report. That's bank on yourself.com/mark one more time. Bank on yourself.com/mark. All right. Next up, joining me now to try to make sense of all the things I'm confused about. Two people, capable of doing just that Beverly Albert, President of District Media Group.

She's also a fellow with the Independent Women's Formant Forum and I'm a more principal. I cornerstone government affairs, a former director of the Office of the DNC Chair, grateful to you both for making time. Happy State of the Union Day. Happy State of the Union Day. Good to see you Mark. Hi, Ma. I'm so concerned about AI. I wanted to be wonderful for America, for every family, every individual. And then on Monday,

some outfit writes a paper about how AI is going to destroy the economy and the stock market takes a crash. And I don't think anybody thinks Trump administration is going to lead us through this. So if you were, if you were a White House chief of staff to President Bartlett or whoever, what would you think the proper role of a president is to lead us through the elites and people at

“large in America to lead us through this? Yeah. Look, I think one thing that President Trump's”

really good at is galvanizing the support of industry. And so I think the first thing is bringing these guys, you have all of these tech sort of execs who have come to DC come to the White House on various occasions. And so I think the president has an opportunity to bring this group together and have a serious conversation. A lot of the AI conversation right now is because people just don't

know what the future holds for AI. They're not sure what these billion elements will entail.

They're not sure what jobs are going to be displaced or replaced by AI. And so if I were the president, I would bring these people to the White House and have a friend conversation about it and say, look, if we're going to displace 250,000 workers in the next two years or the next five years, where do they go? Can we use AI to help do some uptooling, upscaling, retooling, getting people different industry jobs? And so I think it starts with a conversation one,

“and then secondly with a plan. Ben, really? Well, I completely agree you have to bring business”

in because I do not expect our elected officials on Capitol Hill to be AI experts. I know, I'm not myself. So you have to work with the private sector on this. But here is my concern is, we're seeing these doomsday reports where even people who are very skilled and have built these AI models where we're going from they're talking to us to doing things for us. It seems to be that these these systems are able to manipulate and work on their own, obviously, but do things that

was never expected. And so I think part of the problem is, is we don't know where this goes,

even the smartest people seem to be a little bit worried. And so I'm not sure exactly how you deal with that other than completely agree you need to bring in the private sector to work on this, because this is leading to a big concern that this isn't about what we've seen before with technology where blue color workers, where the ones thrown off the assembly line. We were talking about white color workers, not having a job. We don't know exactly what that looks like, but we're looking

in one or two years potentially. And these are the warnings that the white color workforce is going to be upended. All right. I love the way you both framed it. And you lead to this gap between like this paper that got written that caused the market to go down. Like we're where the people we need to take control of this. We can't just be uh, uh, repeaters of doomsday scenarios. And if the people who people are worried about the combination of the scale of change, this is going to bring,

not just for terms of jobs lost, although that's huge, but the scale that's going to bring to all corners of our society, along with, as you Beverly said, doomsday scenarios coming from some of the smartest people around. If government is not going to deal with that in a decisive way, and it's going to be a challenge to do, we can't expect the private sector to do it. So are we all just sitting around, uh, I don't say powerless, but passively, not meeting the moment to explain this to people

“and to make sure that this, this channels in a positive direction. Hi, Emma. Yeah. I think you're”

right. Marking some ways. Yes. That's the simple answer. But I think we, we have to be a little bit more broad in the way we think about AI. There are some wonderful benefits to AI, particularly in health care, particularly, uh, in some of these to, to Beverly's point, some of these white-collar jobs that were, there were, uh, entry-level jobs have now become, uh, a little bit more automated. And so

I think the thing you're talking about, Mark, is the cultural shift. This is going to have

on our, uh, global economy. Yeah. One, and then two, just a cultural shift on how we interact with each other, how we interact with our own jobs. And so there's so much uncertainty. While the government cannot be the, uh, the one driving the bus, they can't be the facilitator in the convener. And so President Trump, who has said that he has a grand vision for this economy, I think he's got to use that vision and parse it out a bit around AI, particularly,

because of the workforce implications. Beverly, is there anybody in public life you hear talking about this that gives you comfort that they've sort of got to handle on how to deal with it?

“Well, the only thing I really hear, the Capitol Hill is picking up on is a safety issue for kids”

and talking about how we deal with it from that standpoint. Of course, that's social media as well.

But terrible when chat bots are encouraging a child to kill themselves and tragically, some have because of it. So the privacy angle I'm seeing, but here's the needle you have to thread. We also want innovation. And I agree that AI can make good things better, but it can make bad things worse. And so there's a lot we still don't know. We don't want to stifle that innovation. I think as we're looking at this, it is the government making a concerted effort to try

to understand as best as possible what this means because we're going to even need, think about Gen Z, to be able to meet the challenge for where the workforce is going. So I think a lot of this is about education and helping people prepare for what's coming. Right. Okay. Again, you both are framing it so well and so thoughtfully. Here's another concern I have. I'm not against money in politics.

“I'm a big first amendment person. And I think if you try to have a lot of money in politics,”

the money just finds some other way in. That's just my general view. I don't think I don't think that point of view favors or one party over the other. But in this case, you've got the AI community corporate world giving a lot of money in this campaign cycle. And I don't know what it's going to top out at, but they're going to give tens of millions. And unlike, you know, labor union giving money and business is giving money or people who want more access to guns and people want

less access to guns. There's no one going to spend money on the other side. There's no tens of millions of dollars to candidates who want regulation of AI. The Biden administration was on trying to over regulate AI and put America to disadvantage. This administration is extremely lays a fair. And now you have the AI industry spending tens of millions and contributions to super PACs in candidates supporting an extreme. I'm not saying they're wrong necessarily,

but it's an extreme point of view, which is no state regulation of AI limited federal regulation. What's to check on that, Beverly? What's to check on, they're using their money the way that

first amendment allows them to do to change the contours of the public regulation and public debate

about how much the, there should be controls on what AI can do. Well, even talking about the money side, you mentioned elections, but also Super Bowl ads so much was AI driven and technology driven. So it's obviously the future. It's where the economy is. It is where even our national defenses and thinking about race against China. And I am a free market person. So I do think that the market addresses a lot of the concerns. However, I know that there are security and safety

concerns with this as well. What I am hopeful for is the fact that we have multiple corporations trying to find the best technology, and the more actors you have battling it out, usually have better outcomes, competition drives better quality, better results. But I don't pretend to know that I know all the answers to this, but I do think innovation shouldn't be stifled. We need to watch over it, but I also think competition and more companies

being involved will help us get to better, better systems. I agree with everything you said, but I'm, there is no competition for supporting candidates on both sides of the AI debate. There's no one going to give a dollar to a candidate to say regulate AI, or in my wrong,

“is there such a group or such a group of rich people who want to support candidates who are for regulation?”

Well, I am for, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I was just saying, and I completely agree with everything you said. I think there are some burgeoning groups that are starting to take this opposition approach. I think some of it is more around data centers and energy that happen to be sort of couch in the AI conversation. So there are individuals who are spending money. But look, you're talking about the biggest companies in the entire world who have more money than

God in the history of the world. And the history of the world. And so you can't expect that these guys are going to play a little bit more fairly when they have so much money to give. And they're very clear about where they want to go with this. They want the least amount of regulation as

money right now, particularly in the midterms, is to prepare for, if the Democrats take the house back, there's going to be a lot of conversations about regulation and then it's going to go back to the states. And so they're spending money in the state legislatures. If you look mark and look at the election cycle this particular year, they're spending more money in state elections than they are in the congressional elections because they're preparing for what's going to

happen next year. That's one. But the thing that I've always said in full disclosure, I work with a lot

of these companies in my professional life. What I've always said and think in one of the things that they are really trying to hone in on is American innovation. And if in the race against China, and if they can crouch that in real American innovation while keeping the workforce moving forward,

“helping to upskill and retool. And there's, honestly, there's been some strange bedfathers with”

bed partners with AI and unions. And so the unions in the labor movement are starting to get smart about AI as well. And so they're using AI to automate things before it takes their jobs away. And so, look, it's going to be an interesting year. It's very clear about what these companies want to accomplish. And we're going to see it more and more and more, particularly as we get to

2028 and beyond. I always harken back of the failure of members of Congress in particular,

the executive branch as well, that focus on members of Congress for a moment and governors to deal with social media. We've had decades where people have said, as you were a friend earlier, harm to kids, right? There needs to be some ability of parents to have help from the government to deal with this because the companies don't want to do it. They'll pretend they do, but they don't. Here's the problem that I see. And I'm asking you, you both, if you see a solution for this.

This is such a complicated topic. I'm spending a ton of my time on it. I'm reading about it. I'm talking to smart people. Even the smartest people I know with few exceptions, constantly ask me questions or say, I don't know the answer to that or people don't really know the answer to that

question. If you're a member of Congress or governor, you're busy. You're doing a million

things. You're not an expert in this. But there's nothing more important. You know, I keep saying to people, let's say there's going to be a Martian invasion. You drop everything else and you read, read, read, read up on the Martians. You'd read up on how to deal with the Martian invasion. So what's the solution? If a member of Congress, barely or governor came to you and said,

“I need, I need to know more. I can't possibly address this. What should they be doing?”

Should they be setting aside time for meeting with the experts? Should they be asking the leadership in Congress to do something? How can we get them better informed as busy as they are and as complicated as this is? As we learn that social media is an issue, especially for children, whether that's the addiction of scrolling, whether that is chat bots used within it. There's a wide variety of factors isolation, loneliness. You have a lot of groups that have popped up that have

studied this. Think part of this is we just didn't have the long-term research. We're starting to get that now. So become educated, hold more hearings, figure out what it is. And on your note that you said they're about parents, parents wanted to do the right thing. I don't think they know what that is because they're not experts in this. And I don't blame them for that. The parental controls are not good enough on these devices or on these systems. And so I think that's something

“that can be addressed as well. But so much about this is education. But I think it's one of those”

issues that just gets put on the back burner. It is becoming more talked about in the news. But economy is the economy is usually what drives the conversation in so many regards. And we have a lot of issues going on in our country and our world. So I'm hoping it's going to be a focus. I think it's an educational push right now. All right. I like everything you said. The hearings are not going to educate anybody on fortune. Fair. That's fair. Yeah. How am I if a governor

called your member Congress and said, I need to get better educated. I want to understand this 360. What can they do? Well, look, that's such a tough question to that. And I wonder this all the time in my professional life, just another full disclosure. But you know, if let's say, let's just take JB Pritzker for for instance. If I were if I were JB Pritzker and and I and I have the ability to call up, you know, Mark Zuckerberg or one of these sort of

tech CEOs or tech founders, I would I would call those individuals as much as I can and I would get them on the phone as often as possible and ask them real questions. Because at the end of the day, I'm trying to figure out what we're what the end result is. And I'm not I don't have children. So I don't have to deal with that thankfully, but I'm trying I want to know what what do what do parent need most. The social media is not going away. We know that for a fact. AI is that these

companies have invested more in AI in this last year than I think has been invested in American industry in the last 50 years. And so these things are not going anywhere. And I tend to be someone

free market as least as possible. And so to very least point, the the economy and the social well being are are starting conflict right now. And at some point we have to we have to ask ourselves what's more important for us to continue sort of this innovation push or push to be straight up with each other and say we want to save more kids. We want to make sure that we're being honest about the impacts of social media addiction, the impacts of social fabric and social life isolation.

And I don't think they were there yet. And so if I were a governor or a vise in the governor, I will get these people on the phone as often as possible and ask in these questions as much as

“possible. Because the only way you can really get educated on this if you're asking the experts”

and right now they're the only experts. All right, close by asking about the same questions, optimist and pessimist. I'm a you first. What's happening with AI right now that makes you most optimistic about its possibilities for the future? Something specific. The healthcare aspect of it. And you go to and I spend a lot of time with hospitals and you go these hospitals and they're using AI in such wonderful ways to target cancer and heart disease and and and surgeries and all of that.

And so I'm really really encouraged by that. They're using it for research of these to treat

individual patients or both both. Yeah, it's amazing. Beverly, what's something that's making

you optimistic about it? Well, it's going to be both my optimistic and pessimistic. So there's some things that's going to make better. And so in my field of media, really the ability to have

“a personal editor has helped me tremendously. I think it helps other people too with collecting”

information, making sure Grammar is correct. They use the M-2 much in certain certain sites. But I do think that it makes simple tasks easier. And so we can accomplish more. Yeah, hi, what's something that's scary in the bejesus idea with AI? It just where does it end? What are we what are we trying to do? What are we are we trying to make life a little easier and a little bit more efficient? Are we just trying to do these big technology pushes because it's cool when it's innovative?

I don't know where it ends. I'm not sure what the the real goal behind it is. Have either of you designed an app yet? No. You both need to do that as your weekend homework assignment. Alright, I'm a very, really grateful to you both love having you on and and of course have you back soon. Thank you so much. Good job everybody. Thanks. Alright, next up, Alex Roy. He's the general partner at new industry venture capital, the co-founder of AutoNacast and pioneering genius and rebel.

You'll understand when you meet him. Alex Roy is next up. Small businesses, they're the backbone of the American economy, but getting funding from

traditional banks is still an uphill battle of the 36 million small businesses in the U.S.

over 70 percent reporting eating additional capital every year. While revenue is at an all-time high for the big banks, their tightening standards and approving fewer loans than ever leaving

“owners stuck with mountains of paperwork. But if you want to bank rates without the bank delays,”

check out cardif.co/mark for up to $500,000 in same day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the U.S. having funded over $12 billion since 2004. Their application takes less than five minutes, no impact on personal credit and approvals happen in minutes with same day funding. Thanks. They try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year

and you're pulling in 20 grand a month in revenue, applying out for up to $500,000 in same day, business funding at cardiff.co/mark again, cardiff.co/mark real growth, fast funding, cardiff. All right, next up to other problems I'm having understanding is the America's relationship to electric vehicles, and what I like to call self-driving cars. These are massive pieces of technology that I don't know where the United States stands and where we stand as consumers,

we're industry stands, and are competition with China. All important topics that I cannot solve except with the help of one, patriotic American, Alex Roy, the general partner at new industry venture capital, co-founder of Alex Haiti, pronounced that Autonic asked, if you google Alex or feed them into the AI machine, you'll probably see that he's got lots of different things that he's done. Best known, perhaps, is the godfather of the modern cannonball run. We'll talk about that. He said,

has set numerous transcontinental driving records. Most recently, the first ever fully autonomous

zero intervention across country record. I went in AI and I had a big fight with it about Alex,

novellas, telenevellas, I've been a tech entrepreneur, underground endurance racer, best selling author, EV record setter, autonomy, and mobility commentator. Alex, are all those accurate? Those are accurate, and thanks so much for the rentest songs and traditions.

“Yeah, you're like a modern day, Thomas Jefferson meets Bert Reynolds, that's what I think.”

That's too cunning. Just talk about these races that you've done, record-breaking competitions. What is it involved and why are you so into it? Well, it involves getting a car in New York City and driving as fast as you can to Los Angeles, by any means necessary without any sanctioning body or cooperation from the government. This has become an underground thing in recent years, but what's fascinating and totally

relevant to EVs and EVs is in a hundred years ago, car companies would pay a motorcycle racer named Erwin Baker to drive across countries fastest possible to demonstrate that personally owned internal combustion vehicles were easier to own than a horse and more liberating and trains. And he did this hundreds of times with massive meat coverage. In the modern era, this has gone underground. But back then, this was how you marketed new transportation technologies,

“and that's what fascinates me about the can't walk. How many times have you driven from New York”

to LA in this kind of competitive way? At least 20 times. At least 20. And who monitors it? There's no sanctioning body, so who's in charge of

sake keeping track of how you do? Well, when I did it over the first time 17 years ago,

I had an early hard time getting anyone to even cooperate and validating it. So I got wired magazine to send a journalist. I had a plant overhead that followed the car with camera's video, and this is both in and GPS trackers. I mean, today, even in the underground raises hundreds of people will follow the progress of the car in real time. But 17 years ago, that type of tracking did not exist. Yeah. And, um, do you drive just on highways? Do you drive

it on back roads? How do you do it? So the shortest route from, uh, Matt Midtown Manhattan to Los Angeles is really the central route, so of which there's really only seven or eight traffic lights. And it's 99.99, 99, 99% on the inner state. A few streets in New York City, a little bit no hio, and then getting off to kick ass. Yeah. And what's the maximum speeds you do? You've done when you've done this. Well, I'm max was, it was 160 mile an hour. Others have

gone faster than I have in the, in the ensuit, here's as fast 175 mile an hour. Amazing. All right,

I could do the whole hour on this. But instead, I want to, I want to talk about electric vehicles. So there's electric vehicles in the United States. And the United States, do we export a lot of electric vehicles to other countries? Unfortunately, United States is not export many electric vehicles because we can't build at scale at price points that are make sense in foreign markets. Exception of that, it be Tesla. But Tesla also manufactures in foreign countries

than it sports from those countries to other markets. So that market is dominated by China, the export EV market. Right. China is killing us in this. And if you go almost anywhere in the world, people are driving electric vehicles made in China. How has China gotten so far ahead of us? What have they done to be the world's dominant producer of electric cars? Well, there's a wonderful book called

Apple and China, which basically, it shows the story of how the Chinese learn everything about

manufacturing, you know, modern software based technologies, even, you know, capex heavy, like deep technologies at scale. And so they've verticalized multiple industries, automotive, most notably. And basically, copy the Tesla, ground up from scratch, model of software defined vehicles. And we've got exporting cars from multiple Chinese, you know, company, B-Y-D, Xiaomi, all these companies are eating like that. There's like half a dozen, right? Yeah.

And fundamentally, Tesla is the only American car maker that's positioned today to compete with

“the Chinese in automotive markets anywhere on Earth. So how big's the worldwide market today?”

How many cars are electric vehicles are on in the planet currently? And what's it projected to be? Any idea? I'm afraid I can't ask that question. I don't have to talk about it. All right, that's all. But it's a hugely, it's a hugely growing market, right? It is. And, you know, it is growing everywhere except in the United States, where it's kind of flat land, obviously, because the subsidies have gone away.

Right. So without the subsidies, we don't, Tesla, as you pointed out, there are only horse in this game. They don't manufacture very much in the United States. What are the implications of the Chinese dominating electric car manufacturing in export? It's a catastrophe for the American automotive industry.

But they're not architected to manufacture EVs at scale today at cost points and retail price

points that can compete with the Chinese anywhere. I, I, I, I'm praying that the Chinese vehicles are not allowed in the United States until the big three American automakers can't compete. And we have the Chinese arriving in Canada sometime quite soon, which is extraordinarily dangerous, because people are going to see these cars on the road of the Canadian. It's going to enter the United States. He driving these cars, and it's going to be very clear how good they are,

“and they're very good. Scaryly good. Tell me how good they're like, are they as good as a Tesla?”

So there are, you know, several BYD models, and a Xiaomi, Xiaomi sedan, called the SU7, which are very competitive with the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y. The, what remains to be seen, we don't know, with a long-term reliability of these cars, because we just haven't seen them, they haven't been in market long enough. Tesla has been in the US market long enough. They, we do have some history there, and it's mostly good. Yeah. The Chinese cars, again,

as you point out, if they're going into Canada, are they desperate to get in the United States, if we let them in, they come here, right? The Chinese are desperate to come in, because they know that if they arrive and subsidize the price points, these cars for a couple of years, it's going to create American-eady sales, what, what remains of them beyond Tesla, and then it's going to be our eating into internal combustion sales. It's really dangerous.

The United States, you know, was exporting cars on this for half a century, and this is evaporating

before our eyes. There was a critical point that 10, when GM was bankrupt, where GM could have been

forced to switch to becoming an EV company and exchange for, you know, being allowed to go into bankruptcy, and that was not imposed on them, and that may have been the fork in the road, which set the future in motion. To the Chinese cars charge on the same standard that other countries use, in other words, it could, could, is that an advantage that they have that they manufacture one, one style of charging, or did they custom the cars for each country that has

different charging method? Your, you know, Europe has, their multiple standards, you know, connection standards in Europe. The United States is really defaulted to the next standard, which is the Tesla standard, pretty much every car maker that wants to sell an EV in the US, is going to default to Nax, and is already announced it, because, only if they don't, it'll be very difficult to connect to this common charging points on public roads.

Chinese are, the Chinese are doing this, they'll adapt to any market easily, probably giving away the adapters for free. Are we number two, are we the second best manufacturer, a second biggest manufacturer of the electric vehicles after China, or are there other players? That's it, it's Tesla, and it's BYAD. Yeah, so what do we do? Because most people

listening to us have never considered this topic, but cars are, obviously, a huge part of the American

economy is for both the sales point of view, and a consumer point of view, we're in an existential economic struggle with China, and they're killing us in an area that it doesn't seem we're doing much to counteract. So what could the government do? What could industry do to try to make this a little bit more of a fair fight? Well, it's unfair out of the gate, because the Chinese government has subsidized, you know, the Chinese automakers, create a conditions, which make it really

advantageous to them, and devastating for anyone else. So unless the United States was to come up with a an incentive program, or a structural program, you know, call it the, like, Marshall plan for American car makers, that would put them on an even playing field in that way. There isn't very much

“that we can do other than come up with incredibly great products. That's what Tesla's dealing.”

Now, the underneath that is the necessity of, you know, the precious minerals and the refining of these metals. So the good news is there's a lot of money going into American Redocialization and there's the potential in coming years, probably decades, to be able to mine and refine these if not in the United States, then in the Americas. So this is a multi-decade solution to an immediate problem, but there really is no alternative other than subsidizing EV sales right now, and that is

politically not going to happen. Why not? Why shouldn't the government make the case to present make the case to Congress and say, we have to compete with the Chinese, we're going to have to spend money doing what they do in subsidizing the industry. He could, but he's chosen not to. But you think the American people, that, that, that, that, that, that, that's, forget what the public would want. Do you think that's the, a national security and economic imperative to,

“and that's the, that's the, we have to compete with China in EVs, and that's the only way to do it.”

I don't know if that's the only way to do it, but it is the immediate way to do it. And unfortunately, EVs and, like, autonomy itself have become politicized in ways that are not

States. Neither of these should be political issues. They should be American issues, which would lead us to a solution. Do you drive an EV? Yeah, I have several cars. I have a Tesla, which I absolutely love. It's my fifth. I also own several, you know, vintage, in general, internal combustion cars. But even as a driving enthusiast, it is clear to me that long-term EVs make logical sense. Right. Because they're better for the economy. They're better for the environment. Why are they,

why are they better? Well, from an environmental standpoint, they're really quiet from an efficiency standpoint that are more efficient. And it's a more pleasurable driving experience for daily community. If you were to invent the car today and pick a propulsion technology, you would pick electric for every, every reason. Right. And it's purely vestigial, cultural memory of internal combustion that keeps them in the mix. Right. Why is it,

“how easy is it depending on where you live to charge an EV now? How much infrastructure has been built?”

There is more than enough infrastructure to, for EVs to become ubiquitous. But only because Elon Musk figured out 15 years ago that he should build a supercharger network and make the charging points ubiquitous. If you didn't drive a Tesla, an EV was not convenient to drive for the last

10 years. But if you had a Tesla, you could pretty much live seamlessly as if gas has never an issue.

Who's the second biggest provider of electric vehicles on American roads today after Tesla? Nissan, I believe Nissan with the Leaf. GM might be right behind them. But no one can touch Tesla for a quality of ecosystem, convenience, and the Apple type experience of just having a car beat part of your life without an even thinking about it. Right. Okay. What do you think will be like in five years in the United States? What will the market for EVs be like? I mean, I think it's

“going to grow beyond where it is today. It will grow at a pace much slower than it could have or”

should have primarily because of the lack of vision outside of Tesla about building an outcharging infrastructure that set it back 10 years. But the good news is, you know, you are going to see much better EVs come out of Tesla and come out of every American car minute maker that survives this, because they know that they have to or they're going to be out of business intent. Right. The thing I don't get is we know enough as a people, as a government, about what a threat China is

to keep their cars out of here. But not enough to do anything about it. You know, because American consumers would benefit from cheaper, more widely available like electronic the electric vehicles. So, I mean, this is the fundamental nature of the American system versus the CCP, which is, you know, China is a monolithic top-down command economy with elements of capitalism baked into it. And so, when they pick a goal or they pick a strategy and they pick an enemy,

they will spend every day, every year, 14 years getting to that goal. United States is a highly, you know, dynamic capitalist system that is reactive only when pushed against the wall. We're not quite at that wall yet. But we're coming close to people and people see it that we're beginning to react to it. It's just amazing. Tony now, it's for me about electric vehicles. We're about to talk about autonomous vehicles. I went to San Francisco with my family. We took

Wemo everywhere, changed my whole understanding of autonomous vehicles. And, you know, there's an argument because every time one's involved in an accident, people get all freaked out

and they say, "We can never have autonomous vehicles because they're so dangerous." When in fact,

the data is quite clear. Yes, they're accidents with autonomous vehicles, but they're so much safer. And all these, then having drivers like in a Uber. And all these government officials who

“are trying to block it are hurting their constituents and keeping them from safety. Do you agree with that?”

I fully agree with you. I used to be a bit of a skeptic. I mean, I love technology, but after, you know, 10, almost 11 years of riding in the vehicles. And having spent four years as an executive at a self-driving car company, I'm fully convinced that this is both inevitable. And the good news for the United States is that the United States is the technology leader here. And we have two companies that are at the forefront, Wemo and Tesla. Yeah. So according to statistics,

it's just a double back before about 1.5 million new electric vehicles were sold in the US. That's about

almost 10 percent of the market. So it's not nothing, but it's obviously not the way it is in so many other countries. You rode an autonomous vehicle from coast to coast? Yeah, about a month ago, my team was the first to get a vehicle from New York to LA to set the

no hands on wheel. Yeah, and which vehicle was it? Oh, is that Tesla model asked my personal car?

“Yeah. So so it was, you sat in the driver's seat, but you never touched the steering wheel?”

There were three of us. We rotated it, taking turns as we stopped the charge of the vehicle. And one of us would have to sit in the seat. The Tesla requires you, at this point, to have someone in the seat with a camera on your eyes observing that you're paying attention. So it's still require a supervision in-car. Right. How much have you been in a waymo? I've spent, I probably taken hundreds of waymo rides, because you know, where I live in Arizona, the ubiquitous, and they're fantastic.

Yeah, explain why they're safer than human-driven cars. So, you know, from a statistical standpoint, if you compare the driving of a waymo to human drivers in the same domain, which is in the weather, same conditions, same area. There was a lot of it, and it's that they are safer today. Now, it's still going to take time before they're safer than every human driver on every road,

“because some human drivers are great, and some roads are very hard. But this is, you know,”

this is emotional already. And if you look at the progress over 10 years, it's extraordinary. For actually, I'm stunned that anyone even debates this at this point. It's certainly the case of waymo. Other companies remains to be seen. Yeah, so I'm not stunned because I get why people react negatively to it. And when I rode them around in San Francisco, and again, folks, if you haven't been in one, you get in the backseat, you unlock the car with the

the app, you get in the backseat. The driver already knows where you're going. You get to control the music. That's my son's favorite part. And it drives you very carefully and precisely to your destination. People would see me in the back of the car, see us in the back of the car, and they would laugh, and they would be stunned to see a car without a driver. But just think about it logically.

“The waymo's not tired. It's not distracted. It knows the road perfectly because it's facing it”

on data, not on, you know, eyesight. And it's not, it's not ever, it's consistent. It's not ever flawed in any way. However, there have been some accidents, high profile accidents that have gotten attention. And most of those, as I've read about them, are not accidents that an average or above average human driver would get into. So are you saying that over time, they'll avoid those kinds of accidents that it is having now? Of course. I mean, look, there are a hundred deaths

a day to human drivers human error. And, you know, people focus on these fairly, I'm almost always

insignificant incidents that occur with these autonomous vehicles. And when a waymo, you know, nothing, when a vehicle is emotional, the one vehicle is perfect. But waymo is by far the best actor here, doing extraordinary work and demonstrating this every day. Now, for every incident, there is development in the back end to mitigate and eliminate that incident and happening again. I mean, the logic here against this, of against technology is so absurd, you know, people

forget, you know, commercial aviation is hundreds, less than a hundred years old as we know it. And they were extraordinary disasters. It had absolutely no effect on the growth of commercial aviation. Autonomous vehicles out of the gate and waymo, certainly, are already orders of magnitude better than the majority of human drivers. And so to suggest that, because after 15 years, they have it, they're not 100% perfect. It shows a profound lack of seriousness in how technologies

evolve and get deployed. The rate at which they're improving is so extraordinary. I would urge someone to open a book and read about aviation and the automobile and rail and everything on submit deployed to get a sense of how good they are. Yeah. So, we know it's bad for society because it's going to put a bunch of drivers, cab drivers and Uber drivers at a business, wire autonomous vehicles, good for society. So, I actually disagree with the labor, the job loss

narrative completely. The best analog would be elevators, which were required human operators

for, you know, the first, you know, 80 years. And when actually it only required them probably

at the first 30 years that they were deployed until the 19s, 100 years ago. And in 1946, there was this strike in New York City of the elevator operators, you know, stop going to work for a week. The city shuts down. And within 25 years, we went from 100% human operation elevators to 1%. But the total number of people employed by the elevator industry is higher today than it was at peak elevator operator 100 years ago. So, this is ridiculous. Every

autonomous vehicle deployed is going to require people to support it. And that business is in its infancy. People also forget that Uber, right-hale gigs, you know, as a job, didn't exist 20 years ago. And so, we're going to see a massive job shift, but not in elimination. Not so much all this

but some individuals in the short term will be displaced. But what's good for society? Why is

“it good for society to have autonomous driven vehicles? So, the financial burden on any country”

which has vehicles deployed at scale from crashes, you know, traffic, you know, just general disruption, insurance is enormous. Sin into the billions and billions of dollars. A lot of that's just going to go away, which is fantastic. And beyond that, think about how much time and money is spent, just moving people around who can't drive. Or how much we have to invest, you know, have to invest in getting in building, you know, transit systems at great costs that are often inefficient.

Now, I'm all for mass transit. I'm a New Yorker, you know, I'm born and bred. But there are a lot of places where it's just not feasible. And so, if you eliminate the, even I'm in minority of crashes,

you make traffic more efficient. And you reduce the cost of insurance and disruption and injury.

This is a huge burden for movement societies, fantastic. I'll give you an example, my personal life. My mother was unable to drive many years, because she, you know, she'd dementia. And she wanted

“to shop to go outside. But instead of being able to get around, she had to have a home health aid,”

which then had to bring a car or get in taxis. It was a huge cost and time burden on our family. My mother hated it. But that goes away. If there's an autonomous vehicle that could deliver an aid that does not have to have a car of their own. And there's nothing to think about driving. It doesn't have to worry about, you know, safety and can just help her with the bags. And so, there are startups that are coming into existence now that are purely in the support and

assistance industry. Think Uber for help. Yeah. And they won't need to bring cars. They won't have to park. So, parking will go away. Like there are so many burdens on society caused by personal car ownership that will be eliminated when autonomy is ubiquitous. And of course, once it's available on your personal car, that'll be the mother load. Is, is autonomous, our autonomous vehicles from point A to point B cheaper than human driven cars? They can be. It depends on whether

they have to park or not. It depends on whether they're electric or not. It depends on whether they're congestion charges, whether operating. So, there are other factors. You can't just throw them into the mix and say, "The world will be better." I mean, to me, the perfect car is that a personally owned vehicle capable of autonomy that I can contribute to a fleet or a sentencing my daughter to school. That I don't have to think about. And when I'm tired, I don't have to drive.

Right. And that exists now in Tesla's to some extent. Right. To some extent, Tesla's little requires supervision. I still have to sit in the seat. So, I can't send it to take my daughter to school without me in the car. But that's going to happen. That's inevitable. That's soon what that happened. It's going to depend on where. So, in places like Phoenix and the southern archipelago of American states, where where there's good and there's

not much rain within three years. In other places, snow, complexity in New York City, Boston, probably within five but that's going to depend more on regulatory hurdles than the technology itself.

“Yeah. Last question about the autonomous is, is, are they doing a good enough job of explaining this?”

Seems to me like they're on the short end of the perception of people are just too afraid. Don't they ask it this way? Don't they need to do a better job explaining all this? So, this is long been the Achilles heel and probably the grand failure of all the self-driving car companies. Maybe save Tesla. Tesla has what I call a narrative command. So, they ignored the language everyone else was using and to find their own words. So, autopilot,

full self-driving. Because in these terms, they're sufficiently vague. They allow audiences to project upon them but they believe to be true. As a result, words like self-driving and autonomy can mean a car, that's just driver assistance. You can also mean a car that's driverless. And so, the words are so vague and the industry has done such a terrible job being consistent and clear with its language that it's really up to consumers to figure it out. And as the result,

consumers have brought their biases to the technology and it's become politicized before it's

even fully deployed. Yeah, huge failure in their part. They should spend a couple million

dollars trying to explain all this to people because both electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles are the future. And too many Americans see them as some sort of scary monsters as opposed to the future. Well, the agree? Yeah. All right. So, great for the people who want to see your stuff, read your stuff, watch your stuff, listen to your stuff, work and they go. Um, Alex, we're 144 on almost every platform. Hit me up on X, sub-stack. I'm easy to find. What's the 144? My racing number

from back to the day. Awesome. Um, Alex Roy is is the Thomas Jefferson and Detroit full of our age

our program for today. We're going to be back in a couple of days. Thursday, brand new episode.

“You won't want to miss that. We have a special guest coming. I won't spoil it yet, but stay tuned”

for that announcement. In the meantime, do us all a favor, expand the network of next years.

Spread the word. Tell your friends, your family, all your enemies, even that they want to check out

“the program. We're building something special here. And we need more of you. So, please go to next”

up on YouTube as a podcast on any platform. Make sure you're subscribed on the YouTube channel. Make sure you've set to download the podcast and make sure you tell everybody, you know, so there

will be like you and I'll always know what's coming next up.