Foundations & Frontiers: Hard Truth Behind Voting Decisions | Cloning Ethics, Political Socialization & 2024 Election Update

Welcome to "The Adams Archive," where we delve into the intricate weave of societal influences and global challenges. In our thought-provoking episode "Foundations and Frontiers," we explore the interplay between the development of political beliefs, the ethical quandaries of cloning, and the complexities of environmental activism.

Episode Summary: This episode offers a deep dive into the foundational elements that shape our political ideologies and how these perspectives intersect with contemporary issues like the ethics of cloning and the paradoxes in environmental advocacy. We take you on a journey through these interconnected realms, providing a nuanced understanding of these critical topics.

Segment on Political Socialization: We begin by unraveling the layers of political socialization. Discover how familial interactions, educational systems, and media landscapes contribute to the molding of our political identities from a young age.

Segment on Cloning Ethics: Venturing into the realm of biotechnology, we examine the ethical implications and societal impacts of cloning. This segment explores the moral dilemmas, regulatory challenges, and public perceptions surrounding this controversial scientific frontier.

Segment on Environmental Paradoxes: In our discussion on environmental issues, we confront the ironies and complexities of modern environmental movements. We analyze the actions and rhetoric of global forums and key figures, assessing how their approaches align or conflict with various political ideologies.

Call to Action: Dive deeper into these vital discussions by subscribing to "The Adams Archive" on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and other platforms. Join our social media community for ongoing conversations and updates.

All the Links: Access all our content easily at https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams, your gateway to our episodes, social media, and additional resources.

Full Transcription:

 Adams Archive. 

Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we're going to go through some pretty wild current event topics, including the fact that the World Economic Forum in their meeting in Davos has decided that it is now bad for the environment for you to drink.

Coffee. Could you imagine that? Flying hundreds of miles across the ocean in your private jet, only to talk about how it is now bad for the environment for you to drink coffee. So we'll touch on that. After that, we'll get into a conversation surrounding how scientists in China have now successfully cloned a monkey for the first time that has survived in good health. 

We'll talk about what that means, including the fact that there was 112 failed attempts,  which is only, you know, pretty terrifying to think about. What the other monkeys went through to actually get there. Now, a lot of people are talking about how this is actually going to have something to do with human cloning, obviously, because that's the end result of all of this.

And there's some arguments that that's already happening. So we will talk about that. Then we will dive into a conversation about the current situations between Rhonda Santus dropping out of the presidential election, Nikki Haley getting peppered and just chirped. Constantly at all of the events that she's at, including the fact that, uh, there was a recent article that talked about how she had an affidavit come out from a recent accuser of her being an adulterer, uh, to her then active duty husband.

Uh, we will also touch on another man who starts discussing with her about how she's not going to be Trump and that she should be spending all of her hundreds of millions of dollars simply. Giving it to homeless veterans, which I guess I agree with. Uh, so we'll talk about Nikki Haley. We'll even talk about the fact that Nikki Haley said that she wasn't allowed in a beauty pageant because she was Indian because they didn't know where to place her, which is pretty comical.

All right. So that will be our current events. Then we will dive into the deep dive conversation this week, which is going to be the dark psychology behind voting. Now, that will include a conversation surrounding, uh, political socialization, which is basically the idea of how you got to vote the way that you vote.

Now, we all tend to think that we think for ourselves, but a lot of people don't understand the fact that there's a lot of circumstances that actually go into  why you vote the way that you do.  So, we'll talk about all that. And there's some pretty surprising things in that that I found when doing my research.

Anything from the music you listen to, to the social media apps that you use consistently, all the way down to the  income class and the city that you grew up in. There's, there's so many little different things in here. And then we'll talk about some different dark arts techniques that politicians use in order to try to gain your  So all of that and more stick around the longer you stick around, the deeper we get.

So go ahead and subscribe, leave a five star review, whether you're on Apple podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, you can join us on YouTube, by the way. Uh, if you go onto YouTube, type in the Adams archive, you can see all the articles, all the videos that we're discussing here, and I will see you there, but let's.

Jump into it. 

The Adams archive. 

All right, let's jump into it. The very first topic that we're going to be discussing today is going to be that the world economic forum. If you don't know the world economic forum is a meeting of a bunch of. Elites or multibillionaires that think that they can control the general population. They meet once a year in Davos in Switzerland and their fearless leader is the infamous Claus Schwab.

And so they got together this year and decided that the hot topic that they were going to discuss is the fact that it is now bad for our environment for you to drink. Coffee,  like I said earlier, they fly hundreds of thousands, thousands of miles to get there in their private jets, just to tell you that you shouldn't be drinking coffee all the while they're the ones who are, I don't know, profiting from your extra, uh, ability to actually do things in the morning as a result.

So we have a video here, um, this comes from, uh, let's see, the title of this article is coffee is bad for the environment claims world economic. Members,  and it says the consumption of coffee is causing CO2 to populate the earth to pollute the environment and unelected bureaucrats Attending the World Economic Forum claimed speaking last Wednesday at the globalist Confab in Davos, Switzerland Swiss banker Hubert Keller said coffee drinkers should be mindful They're contributing tons of co2 pollution into the atmosphere  Hmm. 

Basically, the coffee that we all drink emits between 15 and 20 tons of CO2 per ton of coffee, Cowher said. So, we should all know that. This is, every time we drink coffee, we are basically putting CO2 into the environment. Could you imagine? And one of the reasons is because most of the coffee plantations and most of the coffee is produced through monoculture, and monoculture is also affected by climate change. 

Now at this meeting, they are the very biggest topic this year. So you can actually go to the world economic forums website and you can look at, they do a analysis of what are the biggest threats to the world each and every year,  and lo and behold, this year's was. Climate change.  Hmm.  Now, that's obviously the next big money grab after the end of COVID 19.

Now, that's to be determined, I guess, when you have the variant X that's coming up and all that stuff. Um, but climate change is obviously the biggest money grab. And so when we look at conversations surrounding them trying to, I don't know, condemn you for drinking coffee.  Just is unbelievable to me. Um, so this is, uh, this is the video.

It comes from that Swiss banker and his name is  who cares? Here we go.  For the session and you raised the coffee example. I'd love just to give you the chance to

Basically, the coffee that we all drink, um, emits between 15 and 20 ton of CO2 per ton of coffee. So, we should all know that. This is every time we drink coffee, we are basically putting CO2 into the atmosphere.  Um, the other, and one of the reasons is because most of the coffee plantation, or most of the coffee is produced through monoculture. 

And, um, and, and monoculture is also affected by climate change. Um, the quality of these nature assets is, uh, deteriorating quite rapidly.

 Now that's a conversation for another day is like, what is monoculture, uh, monoculture agriculture is, it is absolutely, uh, a completely ineffective way to, to do things and it actually poisons your food there. There's a whole bunch of our stuff that you can read up on monoculture, um, agriculture, but. Just the idea that all of these pompous assholes go meet up in some mountain somewhere to tell you that you shouldn't drink coffee is absolutely comical.

Alright, that brings us to our next article, which says that, uh, this comes from, uh, the Telegraph. And this was something that came across, I had actually like a, a, a notice on my phone about this. And I, I've talked about some of these things before, whether it be the, uh, chimeras that were coming out of China.

Whether it was the sheep that was cloned, whether it was like the baby pods that they were talking about, uh, you know, basically taking, uh, the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother and putting it in this like pod that they were going to grow a human out of. Um, and then more recently even creating children from stem cells, which is the most probably dystopian of all of this, but this is just along those lines.

And so.  In China, they cloned a monkey for the first time that survived in good health after 112 failed attempts. Now it says that Chinese scientists used the same method that made Dolly the sheep in 1996, uh, but it has lived longer than any other cloned primate. Now they, they, I think that they gave this thing a name, this one, not Dolly.

I think it's called Retro.  Yeah, that's the monkey's name. The cloned monkey's name is Retro. A monkey has been successfully cloned by Chinese scientists and in the world's first has so far lived for two years. Researchers have cloned primates before using the same method that created Dowie the sheep in 1996, but none have.

Ever lived for long, either dying before birth or shortly afterwards. Now that was a conversation that I brought up last time, when we're talking about the human baby pods and you know, the, the human cloning is like, how many times are you going to go through this, whether it's the stem cell research, whatever it is.

How many research subjects, the chimeras  fill in the blank. How many research subjects do you have to go through until you successfully create a clone? Right. And they say 112. I'm sure they would rather not have, have people. You know, beating down their door to shut them down. So I'm, I'm sure that number is multiples higher than what they're reporting there.

Just like I'm sure it would be if they started to clone humans, if they started these little weird baby pods, if they made these stem cell babies, chimeras, whatever it is, there's going to be a massive amount of casualties and gross scientific experimentation that goes into it. So to me. Anything and everything that revolves creating life that doesn't have to do with, you know, any scientist that's sitting there with a, you know, two beakers pouring them together or whatever the hell type of stuff they're doing here, um, is just sick.

It's, it's, it's sickening to me because the, the, the torture that they put these, you know, even the two days of the trying to clone, uh, these monkeys or the, the chimeras or whatever it is, is just the, the amount of agony and the, the torture that they must go through, uh, as a result of getting this one cloned monkey.

And, and, and for what reason, like what, what is the goal of this? Why, why, what is the problem that we have to start cloning things? What is wrong with reproduction current state?  Well, I'll tell you what's wrong with that. You want to get deeper and deeper into that is, is you'll understand the idea that they don't want you and then this was something that I talked about with the baby pods.

What's the most concerning to that to me is that that's no longer your property, you, you, you know, you remove the mother and the father from, from the reproductive process. Then you remove the, the hormones that are released when that baby is born. And as a result, you, you remove the protective shelter, the, the, the hormones, the, the, uh, um, You know, the motherly instincts that come as a result of birthing a child, that come as a result of having a child that is half your DNA and half the DNA of your spouse.

Now you, I don't know, go to a government center and pay five grand or whatever, and now they get to create a baby on your behalf. Only by the way, it's not your baby. It's their property. They created it. You did not create it. And, and so that is one of the most Dystopian ideas let alone the idea that they can start to interject whatever types of CRISPR technology that they want to to make the the child the the Monkey, whatever it is more agreeable more likely to be and this will actually even lead us into our next conversation To be more agreeable to be less aggressive to have different in more  More  Uh, personality traits that are going to lead them to vote a certain way, that are going to lead them to act a certain way, that are going to lead them to be less or more docile and less likely to revolt, whatever it is, when you, when you take reproduction, and you give that to the government,  right, you have China now cloning monkeys, for what end?

I don't think they just want to clone monkeys. That's obviously not the goal. The goal is to clone humans. But why?  Why?  So let's, let's finish this article. It says, however, a modified technique designed to create a stronger placenta has seen a rhesus monkey be cloned,  be born and live healthily for more than two years, making it the longest lived primate clone yet.

The animal was labeled retro. Only one birth was successful from a total of 113 attempts.  So, they tortured a hundred and twelve monkeys to create one.  The process, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves extracting the genetic information from a standard cell and implanting it into an egg from another monkey that has had its own genetic material removed. 

Now they have this cute little diagram  of  how they cloned this monkey, um, but who cares? To me, that's the whole conversation, right?  I think that, you know, even brings up an interesting conversation about surrogacy and, uh, you know, IVF and like, there's, there's definitely more to be talked about there, but I do think to me, this is highly concerning because you see exactly where this is going.

We know what the end goal is,  but why is that the end goal? Because we can, and I think that's probably the fair answer to all of these scientists, right? It's like the people who are commissioning these scientists to do these types of experiments. They have the goal in mind, right? They, they have an idea of what, what they want to do this for.

And it's going to be profitable,  right? It's going to be a reason that they can make money off of it. Right? And that, that was the baby pods, right? Like imagine Epstein Island having a whole lower layer, uh, underneath his island of baby pods. Like just, just all of the horrific things. And if you haven't heard of like the. 

Um, offshore, like, child trafficking stuff is just horrific, and, and they don't have social security numbers, they don't have moms, they don't have dads, nobody's looking after them, and, and, and, just,  there's no reason to open up this box, there's nothing good behind it, absolutely nothing, what, what possibly could come from this that would be good, and then you get into the, the, um,  Philosophical conversations.

Does, does this monkey have, or human down the road, does it have a soul? Is it, is it, uh, you know, is it from a religious perspective? Is it, is it a child of God? Is it, is it something that is going to, uh, have similar traits even? Is it going to be sociable? Like, there, there's so much that will go into this.

And, and just Why? Why do you want to do this? Right? But scientists want to do it because A, they're getting paid lots of money to do it, but also B, because they just want to see if they can do it, right? Scientists have a certain type of personality where they, they just want to see if they can make something happen, right?

You have a hypothesis, you put it to the test, and all of a sudden you're creating an army of Lifeless, soulless, monkey human hybrids.  To me, there's just, there's nothing good behind that wall. And this is just another step towards that. Another step towards whatever it is the reason, right? There's so many different ways that you could go with that, that is completely dystopian.

And I can't think of a single good scenario that would come from Human cloning. I just can't. I, I, there's, there's zero, zero scenarios where that's a good thing for humanity. Especially in a world where they're telling us that we're overpopulating, when we're obviously not. The population's on a decline. 

If, if we're overpopulating on our own and reproducing  way too much, according to them,  why are you trying to clone humans? What's, what's the point of that  anyways. So let's segue into our next conversation. This one is more recent and about politics and what that drives us from the last conversation into, and what I mentioned earlier is they can change with CRISPR technology, how.

You might vote by changing certain personality traits. They make you a little bit less aggressive. They make you a little bit more agreeable. They make you a little bit more creative. And a little bit less, I don't know, uh, productive, whatever it is. There's so many little traits within your genes that are encoded inside of your body.

And one thing that I was wondering is what is nature and what is nurture, right? Why do we vote the way that we vote? And do we Um, and I say we just like  Americans do, are we born likely to vote one way or the other? The answer is yes. Um, and we'll look at that in just a minute as to why, but before we do that, let's get a little bit of election updates because Ron DeSantis has officially dropped out  of the presidential race and decided to endorse.

Donald Trump,  and this comes from W. M. U. R. nine A. B. C. And it says, uh, it is clear to me that majority of Republican primary voters want to give Donald Trump another chance. You think  I, uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure he just obliterated every single person, uh, within the primary, um, in the caucus in Iowa. And so, you know, he saw the vague drop out almost almost immediately.

We saw it. Ron DeSantis drop out almost immediately. And I think the Ron DeSantis hype train was like pretty good at the beginning. I would, it would be really interesting to look at the political marketing failure that was Ron DeSantis campaign, because he had so much political steam. He had, he had so many people behind him that were so pro Ron DeSantis that loved his ideas coming out of COVID.

He was like the COVID king. You know, all the while, while Donald Trump being, you know, was getting flack, was, was being talked down upon for the way that he, you know, gave a medal to, to Fauci, the way that he, you know, boasted about lockdowns and certain things like that is, is, and so simultaneously, Ron DeSantis should have come out of this, like with a ton of steam, with a ton of, uh, you know, traction going into the election, and, and now what we see is that it, as soon as Ron DeSantis opened his mouth on a debate uh, stage, he just got obliterated.

Even when we saw Gavin Newsom against Ron DeSantis and I'm not against Ron DeSantis. I think that again, his policies, that his track record during COVID was absolutely phenomenal. He was one of the only people speaking out one of the only people trying not to close down businesses. There's a lot of reasons that a lot of people should have been very pro DeSantis. 

I think he shook the hornet's nest with Donald Trump. Right? And I think, you know, the  desanctimonious, uh, tagline stuck a little bit. Um, but, to me, it's like, he should have, had he came out on the debate stage the way that Vivek did, had he come out with the track record that he did and a great marketing campaign, there's no reason that he shouldn't be the only one left. 

But out of all four people that were on the stage and on the ballot for the caucus, the only one that's left now besides the obvious of Donald Trump is Nikki Haley, which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. She is. 100 percent the Republican Hillary Clinton.  She, everything that comes out of her mouth is just a talking point from a war lobby.

And  I haven't heard a single thing from her.  I think she had like one good. Exchange on the debate stage. But all I see from Nikki Haley is a a reoccurring talking point that is everything and anything that the lobbyists want. And you saw the one the one area that Donald Trump I think they said that he lost by one vote and I think that it was even changed that the fact that Um, he he actually ended up winning that area I'm not sure but there was out of a 90 or 100 99 of them were for Donald Trump and one of them was for Nikki Haley and by one vote So what you saw is the democrats in the areas that they were in where they could they actually went and voted in the GOP  caucus and voted for Nikki Haley,  so if  The Democrats want Nikki Haley,  then why would the Republicans, right?

And if the war lobby wants Nikki Haley, then why would the Republicans?  And if every big money machine from, you know, I I'm, I'm just surprised she doesn't have a Pfizer tattoo on her arm, uh, that she's showing off to everybody, but you already see her pandering to the left.  So to me, it's, it's a little sad that the only two that we have left, because I do think that both Ron DeSantis and as much shit that I've talked about Vivek and, and all of the questions that I have about his history, whether it be about the Soros Foundation funding his, uh, his, his time at Yale, whether it be about his two years that he was on the world economic forums, young global leaders list only to, uh, tell them that, Hey, I didn't want that.

Take that down. The only one that was inconvenient from him and he wasn't using it to, uh, get, it. seed round funding for his pharmaceutical startups. Um, so as much as, as much as I've talked bad about Vivek, Vivek or DeSantis are just absolutely a million times better up  potential candidates than Nikki Haley.

So what that tells me, especially if you understand that her husband. Is, isn't some  tech mogul, right? He doesn't have billions of dollars. I'm not sure what her previous employment was, but I just doubt she has hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on one. I think it's New Hampshire, whatever.

We're going to see a video where some guy goes and calls her out and says, Hey, you're going to spend a hundred million dollars campaigning against Donald Trump. And we already know you're going to lose. Why are you doing that? Why wouldn't you just go spend that money to help homeless veterans?  Well, the answer is that the political lobby is the one that's propping her up.

That's where she's getting all of her money. The only reason that Nikki Haley is even relevant, the only reason she's standing on any of the stages she's standing on, is because she's literally has the, the war machine's hand and the pharmaceutical industry's hand up her ass telling her exactly what to say in every one of these exchanges. 

And so it's, it's, It'll be interesting to see how long she sticks around. How long will they prop her up? Because I, there's absolutely zero chance. Like I bet you, if you go look at the, uh, betting books and you look at the odds of Nikki Haley winning the 2024 election is just.  Zero, you know, and if, and if there was any sort of reason, and I think this is something that Vivek said at one time or another that I talked about when he dropped out is the fact that, oh, well, they would never let Donald Trump actually, you know, get on the ballot.

Something's going to happen. And, and.  I'm not saying something's not going to happen, this always could be that fact, and especially when you understand that Donald Trump is like one of the most, uh, contentious and hated people in the world to the most powerful people in the world, it's an absolute possibility that something not, not good happens, you know, he's been indicted for like the 115th time, um,  but the idea that Nikki Haley would be the one left in the running, and maybe that's their hope, I don't know, why would you spend a billion dollars to If there's a  1 percent chance, I don't know, maybe if you have hundreds of trillions of dollars like Raytheon, and uh, you know, Pfizer does, so, I don't know, it's very interesting.

So there was a few conversations that came up about Nikki Haley. One of the ones that came up as a result was Nikki Haley made a comment. about her history growing up in the deep south, being brown.  Now,  I don't know about you, and maybe my eyes are deceiving me,  but to me, Nikki Haley  does not look brown.

She looks like a white Suburban mother.  That's what she looks like. Now, she did grow up in a Indian family. I saw a picture of her family the other day, and her dad was in some traditional type Indian garb. And, um,  you know, but she, you know, if white privilege was a real thing, Nikki Haley would have it. 

Not saying that it's a real thing.  But.  Here, here it is. Here comes Nikki Haley saying that she was, she was teased every day for being brown while in the deep south and that she has black friends.  Here we go. 

We were the only Indian family in our small southern town.  I was teased every day for being brown.  So anyone that wants to question it can go back and look at what I've said on how hard it was to grow up in the deep south. As a brown girl, anybody can look at my record and see when Walter Scott was shot down by a dirty cop, how I made sure that the Walter Scott family didn't suffer because we put the first body camera bill in the country in place.

Anybody can look at the fact that when we had nine amazing souls die in Mother Emanuel Church, I did something that no Republican or Democrat ever wanted to touch, which was call for the Confederate flag to come down because it would take two thirds of the House and Senate and was an impossible feat. 

I don't know what you're implying with that, but what I will tell you is, saying that I had black friends is a source of pride. Saying that I had white friends is a source of pride. If you want to know what it was like growing up, I was disqualified from a beauty pageant because I wasn't white or black.

Because they didn't know where to put me. So look, I know. 

So let me get this straight. Nikki Haley  was disqualified from a beauty pageant because they didn't know whether she was white  or she was black.  Now,  I don't know If my math's off, just like my eyes are off, apparently, because I don't see a  brown woman in the deep south, I see a  white privilege card holding, uh, you know, suburban mom, but Nikki Haley was born in like 1972, I think.

And Nikki Haley would have been in a beauty pageant, let's say 16 years later, almost in 1990.  Right, let's say she was 15, would have been 90,  72, 87, right? Like,  was there segregated beauty pageants in 1987?  Cuz I think I'm missing something here and and even if there was  You think they're gonna have a white and a black category and then you're gonna be like, hey guys I would like to participate and then they would say, uh White black are you white?

Are you?  Uh, you're disqualified, like, do you think how that that's really how that conversation went? Or do you think that Nikki Haley is a liar?  Because I think Nikki Haley is just a liar. And we see that further shown by her actions, which we will see here in just a second, against her husband, which allegedly. 

And I say allegedly because it's just a signed affidavit, just a signed affidavit, which, you know, means that if the person was lying, they would potentially go to jail, but just a signed affidavit stating that she cheated on her husband while  he was, I believe, while he was active duty. If not mistaken, potentially even like deployed.

I don't know if that's correct, but I know he was active duty at the time. Um, so we'll go ahead and read that article. And that to me, like if, if you are cheating on your spouse, right? Like your spouse is you're like, if you have everybody in your whole world, and there's one person that you are going to give.

All of your trust to one person that you are going to be the most loyal to one person that you're going to Absolutely not do anything to hurt. It is your spouse, right? Like when you get into a Marriage you're doing it because  well for a lot of reasons But you're doing it because you want to be with that person for the rest of your life Now if I'm your best friend and we've been best friends for 10 years 15 years and you cheat on your wife  I know that if you're not loyal to her, you're not gonna be loyal to me  If I'm your business partner and I find out that you cheated on your wife,  I know that the first opportunity that you get to make a little bit of money that screws me and my business over, you're going to do it.

So I'm not going to be your business partner and I'm not going to be your best friend.  I know  that if you find yourself in this situation and  you are also running for office, how can I trust you as a candidate?  Right? So to me, that like, that goes back to the idea  that if If somebody, Nikki Haley is absolutely bought and paid for, she's going to do the thing that is aligned with what is in her, her, not even her family's, not even her, her, her  immediate family, but her best interest, Nikki Haley's best interest. 

So let's go ahead and read this. This comes from the Postmillennial, and it says Nikki Haley allegedly cheated on her husband with lobbyist and communications consultant prior to  South Carolina governorship.  Yikes.  Uh,  court documents have revealed that Nikki Haley did in fact cheat on her husband before becoming governor, and that one of her lovers was a married South Carolina lobbyist. 

She was  Having an affair with a lobbyist.  So not only are you taking their money,  but you're also,  you know,  Haley repeatedly denied that she'd been unfaithful to her husband, Michael. When allegations first broke in 2010, they've been married for 28 years.  And have two children together. According to the Daily Mail, the aforementioned lobbyist, Larry Marchant, Jr.

And Haley's communications consultant, Will Foulkes admitted in signed affidavits that they both, they had both on separate occasions had affairs with the then future government. So not one. But two people, both signed affidavits. In his affidavit, Marchant said that he and Haley had sexual intercourse during a conference in Salt Lake City in June of 20, or 2008.

I came forward publicly on this matter only after being contacted by the press and after hearing Rep Haley claim that she had been 100 percent faithful to her husband in response to the folks allegations, when I knew her statements were absolutely false. 

Yikes. Um, so that to me says a lot, right? And that's not to say that somebody can't change and somebody can't, you know, go through a, a, a transformation and become loyal again. And, you know, I get it. Like,  but that sounds pretty shady. stuff to me, right? And like I said, if you are going into that situation and you have your one person in life that is like, that's my guy, that's, that is my girl.

That is, that is going to be the, the mother of my children, the father of my children, uh, whatever that is, if you can't find it within yourself. To  conduct yourself in a manner that would align yourself with that trust that would align yourself It's just how are you gonna run for office and and let alone just even talk about the optics of this That how easy is this for them to bring this up?

Now that's not to say that every single person that's been on one of these debate stages Doesn't have a ton of skeletons in their closet, which they do  But  this is one of them  Right? And especially with like a lobbyist. It wasn't even like her personal trainer or something. I don't know.  All right. Um, now I did have one last thing that I wanted to touch on and this is about Donald Trump.

Donald Trump sent out a statement on truth and it said a president of the United States must have full immunity.  Without which it would be impossible for him or her to properly function. Now I found this to be an interesting statement. The reason that I think this is an interesting statement is I kind of wanted to talk this through with you guys and see if I agree.

And I don't think that I do. I don't think a president should have full immunity. I think that  what, what is the, like,  I believe that there are certain things that a president has to do. I think that the presidential role is inherently a criminal job. You have to.  Murder people  you have to you know engage with shady foreign entities You have to run the CIA and the FBI which just in and of itself is going to come with illegal illicit activities as they've shown a track record for for  you know, however long since the you know, 47 when the FBI was or the CIA was created  But to me, it's like how could I absolutely disagree with this?

I don't think a president should have immunity I think that yes, the job would be hard If you didn't have immunity,  that's the job. You have to do it within the guidelines of legality, because if there's no, if a president can get into office and immediately become unhinged and have absolute full immunity for every action that they've ever taken,  then, then, then what's, what.

What are we doing here? Like, you just get to murder people, you get with no repercussions, you have no barriers and guidelines to the way that you have to dictate your actions, you don't have to follow the Geneva Convention, like, what would make you think that the president should have full immunity? So, I'll continue his statement, give you the full context, but it says, Without much, it would be impossible for him or her to properly function.

Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term's end.  I, I think in today's political landscape, that is true. That's what we're seeing here  is that Donald Trump has absolutely been a political witch hunt. Uh, you know, how, how many indictments does he have now?

Like 30 or something. Um, how many states has he been indicted under? How many, how much of it is stuck? And really it's more about, to me, the precedence that this is going to set moving forward because then whoever gets out of office next time, same thing. Right. And so I understand the point. I understand the premise, but I just don't see how inaction that's an effective way to run a country.

Is there any country that operates that way? Maybe Russia. Maybe Putin has like absolute immunity in North Korea and  China. But like, is that really what we're shooting for? Is North Korea, China, and China. Right.  You know, Russia's  type of, uh, you know, totalitarian regimes.  I don't think so. Um, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party.

Even events that cross the line, quote unquote, must fall under total immunity, or it would be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad. There must be certainty. Example, you can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime, Trump said, prevention because you want to guard against the occasional rogue cop or bad apple. 

You can't stop police from doing the job of strong and effective crime prevention. Uh, sometimes you just have to live with the great, but slightly imperfect. All presidents must have complete and total presidential immunity or the authority and decisiveness of a president of the United States will be stripped and gone forever.

Hopefully this will be an easy decision. God bless the Supreme Court. 

And this says, if anything, presidents and politicians should be held to a higher legal standard, not a lower legal standard. And I think that his, his example of police, uh, just kind of defeats his entire argument there. I just don't see how that holds true because if you give police absolute immunity. 

Then they're just gonna, like, I think that cops, people who sign up to be police are inherently good people. I do. I wholeheartedly believe that. I believe they generally have good intentions. But I also believe if you take a big enough sample size of people that there's going to be, as he quotes in here, bad apples.

And that doesn't allow you to Just randomly walk down the street and, you know, not follow the, the force escalation protocols that are called for being in the police force. You still have guidelines and those guidelines that police have are far more stringent. And, and they get indicted or they, they get perceived or prosecuted probably at a far higher rate than, than any political person ever  as a result.

They literally have body cameras in the middle of their body that, that follows the every move. Right? Like, so, to me, the argument falls apart, and I think it's a little self serving. Um, again, I don't think Trump is going to be found guilty of anything, and I don't believe that he should be. But I also just don't think that the precedent of setting the example that the president just can absolutely do no wrong is a good one.

I just think it's a false premise, and that it will cause something horrific to happen, just like if you gave police absolute immunity. Um, the people who hold the positions of power, You know, with great power comes great responsibility, right?  Spider Man.  It's like you, you have to inherently have a microscope on you.

And the law has to be in place because without it, you could just turn it into a complete totalitarian regime. You could do whatever you wanted when you get, you could, and especially when you're determining, you know, the, you're the, the head of the entire largest, strongest military in all of history. So  to me.

I just don't agree. Um, so now that we've properly set the stage of what is going on in our current political landscape, this is going to bring us to our deep dive of the week and the deep dive of the week is going to be on the dark psychology of voting and political socialization. So political socialization is the idea  that essentially all of the things that happen in your life, all of the people that you've come in contact with, all of the key moments of your childhood, a lot of it has an impact.

on your voting and who you vote for and what political party you end up being a part of. Um, so we even have a video that I'll show you by Jordan Peterson, um, but let me walk you through this.  So again, this is the go ahead and pull this up here for you  says, um, so we're going to walk through this and there's a complex intersection of psychology and politics, and we're going to aim to unravel the intricate web of factors that influence our political decisions and voter behavior.

Our focus is the profound and often understated role of political socialization in shaping party affiliation and political identity.  Now. Let's begin by understanding what is political socialization, right? Sounds pretty, uh, you know, political science y, like, college, uh, terms that you were supposed to memorize, and it probably was.

Um, but it's an important thing to understand. Because you have to see the other, at some point, the divisiveness has to clear. And you have to see that just across the aisle way could have been you. Could have been your, your dad, could have been your mom, could have been your, you know, otherwise things devolve into, uh, you know,  what we saw in the revol or the, you know, things devolve into chaos and violence, right?

So, so, I think this is an important conversation. I think it's just an interesting one anyways because there's so many small, minute points, whether it be  the music you listen to, all of those things that, that influence your voting behavior. Um, so, this process, which is political socialization. is which individuals form their political attitudes and beliefs.

And it's not a fleeting phase, but a cornerstone in our political makeup. It begins early in life, influenced by various factors. Our families, our education, our peer groups, the media, and significant life events.  These elements do more than just mold our views. They embed deep seated political ideologies and preferences.

Consider the family. Often the first and most influential agent in the process. The political discussions at the dinner table. The voting behavior of our parents. The political climate that we grew up in. These experiences lay the foundation for our political leadings. And as we grow, we get educated, and we have peer interactions.

Those all come into play, introducing us to diverse perspectives and fostering critical thinking about political ideologies. Now you see with some children, right, some children just are going to do what their parents Raise them to do right. You're, you're in those, those political discussions. You have similar personality traits.

You probably are similar in the idea of like aggressivity and passivity and creativity and all of these personality traits that align with your voting behavior.  So let's go ahead and jump into this. I'm going to pull up this video from Jordan Peterson and we can watch it together because I think it properly frames the entire conversation around this and I find it to be pretty interesting.

So let me go ahead and pull this up for you and we will watch it  Political belief is determined in large part by temperament and personality, and that's very strongly biologically influenced. And so conservatives tend to be lower in openness, which is a trait associated with creativity, and higher in conscientiousness, which is a trait associated with industriousness and orderliness.

They tend to make good managers and administrators and lawyers. They tend to make good conservative business types. That's, that's their forte, that's their niche, and that's a valid Place to be and a valid thing to be and you know Conservatives aren't so good at being entrepreneurial, and they're not so good at being artistic and creative.

That's not their niche That's more the niche of the liberal end of the spectrum and as far as I'm concerned for the political system to function properly You need proper representation for all the temperamental types, and they need to be engaged in dialogue So but the thing is is that when the conservatives are saying well, you know especially when they're perhaps Thinking about leading the damn party, let's say, that they're worried about speaking their mind in a conservative manner.

That's just not a good thing. That means that something's gone wrong with our political system, and seriously wrong. You know, and the other thing that, another thing that I've noticed it, thing, you know, when, when this all,  Some of you may know, and some of you may not know, that I made a couple of videos back September 27th.

I woke up one night, because I couldn't sleep, and I thought, I usually go and write if I can't sleep, because I've got something to figure out. But I've been playing with YouTube videos. I've been putting my lectures online since 2013. And by last April, they had about a million views. And so, I thought, wow, that's, that's really something, man.

You know, like, you write a book, and you sell a million copies, you're one happy character. And I thought, I'd A million views is a very large number of views. It really tuned me in to the fact that YouTube was something completely other than what I thought it was. But anyways, that night I thought, Oh,  I'll get up, I'll make a video instead of writing it down.

So, okay, what else? Here's some things you might think about if you're a conservative.  These  I'll get up, I'll make a video instead of 

These things have become  What would you say?  People are afraid to say them. Here's the first one. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid. How about that? You know, it's not 

You think it's an accident? Oh, here's how you find out, okay? Which countries do people want to move away from? Hey, not ours. Which countries do people want to move to? Ours. Guess what? They work better. And it's not because we went around the world stealing everything we could get our hands on. It's because we got certain fundamental assumptions right.

Thank God for that after thousands and thousands of years of trying and because of that we've managed to establish a set of Civilizations that are shining lights in the world, you know now  so we said two interesting things which he talked about is  tray openness Right, which leads to creativity. And, uh, you know, and so when you think of all the main personality types, and Jordan Peterson has a really tremendous, um,  personality test that you can actually go take online, I think it's like 6, it'll ask you like 300 questions, and it'll give you a score  on your agreeableness on your openness on your, uh, all of these different, you know, traits, it's like the The, I forget the number of them, but there's, there's essential traits that build your personality profile.

And so if you understand that what splits the party divide is essentially to me at a certain stage of the conversation is  personality traits. Right. If you're more creative and you're more quote unquote open, you tend to align on the left side. He even mentioned entrepreneurial being more liberal traits.

And you see that when it comes to like Silicon Valley and startups and, you know.  The reason for that, and he talks about the people who are conservative being better managers, they're more structured, they're less creative. But the best and most creative ideas that do well in a startup environment are wild ideas that everybody will tell you are generally terrible.

Alright, take Airbnb, for example. Hey, let everybody crash at your house for a night and, you know, you charge them money and then you come back and your house will still be there. It's like, eh. That's kind of a weird idea. I don't, I don't think I'm going to, I don't think I'm going to do that. Or Uber, right?

I, I think you should press a button on your phone and then some random guy will show up and you should jump in his car and it'll take you somewhere. It's like, I don't think that's a good idea either, but they worked and they were crazy ideas. They were creative ideas and they were at the right time.

And it just so happens that much of the startup space trends. liberal and, and, uh, Democrat as a result.  And much of the higher levels, the C suite of organizations and the, uh, high level managers and the people who actually run the operations of the business tend to be more conservative. And the reason for that is because they're much more structured in their thinking.

They, they tend to abide by, you know, uh, rule sets that tend to make things move along. If you're, if you're hyper creative, you can get.  And you get too far out there and now you can't create a successful business. So the, the, the ideal world is you have a large amount of creativity and you can borrow  some structural foundations to, to properly execute and build a idea into something that's great.

Like all of the great foundational leaders. And you think of Steve jobs, highly creative. You think of, uh, Jeff Bezos, highly creative.  I don't know if Jeff Bezos would be a liberal per se, but, um, but  they were able to borrow from both sides. They weren't hyper one side. They weren't hyper the other. And so what we're basically looking at when we're voting  into a certain level, cause there's critical thinking and people who change their minds, but to a certain level, I would be really interested in maybe this is something that we can find out is what percentage of people  change.

their voting registration from Democrat to Republican. And this is, let's, let's go ahead and find it out. I bet you there's been an answer. So let's go to chat GPT. And I will ask it for us.  Because I yeah, to me, it's like we're almost looking at a spectrum of personality, when you look at the spectrum of political affiliation.

And, you know, there will be creative people who Vote conservative, and there will be highly, uh, structured and, uh, Structured people with, with low trait openness and high trait, uh, or low trait agreeableness. You know, I tend to, I was in the 1th percentile of disagree, of agreeableness. Meaning if there's a hundred people in the room, I'm the most disagreeable person in the room. 

Who would have thought? Um, I, I would, I, but, uh, surprisingly  Not surprisingly, if you know me, but I'm generally a very creative person. I have a lot of ideas. I'm very entrepreneurial So my openness and creativity was was fairly high So I'm kind of a unique hybrid human  But  I think that that it's interesting to think that through and determine, you know How much of it is personality and genetics, right?

So, let's see what percentage  of people  change from liberal to democrat  and vice versa  in their lifetime.  And what  age  does this generally Right? And there's the, there's the old quote is I'll show you a, a, a young Republican and I'll show you a man without a heart and I'll show you an old Democrat and I'll show you a man without a brain.

That's the old school. Uh, that's the, because a lot of people trend more liberal when they're young and a lot of people trend more conservative as they get older.  Some would say wiser, uh, but  let's see what it says here. It says determining the exact percentage of people who changed their political affiliations.

Um,  It's challenging. Several factors contribute to this complexity. Don't care. Don't care. Don't care. Um,  let's see,  give a percentage cause it doesn't want to. 

But that's why you see the hyper, uh, successful small startups into Facebooks and Twitters and all this stuff trend, very liberal because in going to these ecosystems very liberal because well one, um, that the person starting that company is generally very creative. And two, the people Operating that company are generally in the tech space and and you're going to see people who are Um more introverted who have certain personality traits that are more creative that are going to find themselves in those coding type environments Um, so again another interesting one Uh, so  I don't think it's going to give us a number here, but it says the terms live.

Okay. Don't care Let's see  overall  give a percentage  Geez. All right. So let's, let's finish out a little bit of this video here and then we'll continue our discussion. 

You can be pretty damn filthy and still be a shining light in this world, right? Because if you look around the world at the state of governance in most places, it's like the most Pathological corrupt and vicious thugs rule and to stand out as an illuminated light against that background isn't so difficult But nonetheless, you know, we're as good as it's got and unless we can come up with something better We should be very careful about messing around with that So why don't we start with the assumption that we're doing something, right?

One of the things we're doing right, for example, is that we actually value the individual, right? The individual has intrinsic value in Western societies. Do you know how long it took people to formulate that as an idea? And how unlikely that idea is that poor you, you know, useless, powerless you, with all your damn faults, you're actually worth something.

You're worth something to the point that the law has to respect you. Assumption number two, peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war.  In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.  Because it's not and being more than normal and being and being unique and creative and contributing in that way is extraordinarily important But the fundamental point is is that social being requires the sacrifice of a certain amount of individual idiosyncrasy And that's a fundamentally conservative claim It's like you should be you should do what everyone else does unless you have a really good reason  It's a good rule.

It's like, you do what people have done throughout time. You grow up, you find a partner, you establish a stable relationship, you get a job, you make yourself useful, you have some children, you do something productive and interesting with your spare time, and you try to act like a respectable human being.

That's what you do. That's a conservative ethos.  If you have something spectacular about you that needs to be revealed to the world, then break some rules, man. Go right ahead. I'm dead serious about that. But most of the time, you don't. And even if you happen to be a special person, and you might be, 90 percent of you still isn't special.

So most of the time, you're still going to be following the rules. And the rules aren't there to oppress. They're there to keep us at They're there to keep us away from each other's throats. Because human beings are very warlike. And we're very We're very competitive and we're very aggressive. And if we are  fortunate enough to have woven together a social fabric that basically renders us peaceful and cooperative, we should try disrupting that at our great peril. 

Next. 

No, I think that's an interesting one. What he just talked about is, is essentially like there's a, there's a familiar template for life of, of what is a, a, a fulfilling life template. And we're seeing people stray further and further and further from that. And he said that's a conservative leading ethos, right?

The fact that you should, uh, have a family. You should get a good job. You should have a productive hobby. All of those things, you know, you should be a productive member of society unless you're like super, super gifted in one area and you just have to dedicate every moment to it. You should probably have children, right?

And the reason that we do that is because, you know, one part of that to me is having children makes you see everybody else from a new lens. It even makes you see you from a new lens. Um,  And this is in a lot of different ways, but the way that I have changed as a result of being a father is, is unbelievable, right?

You, you see, uh, uh, even somebody who's your own age, even somebody who's older than you, and you see within that person,  the thing that you realize as a parent is everybody in this world is just A child acting as if they're an adult at any given stage of their life, like, at least that's what it feels like, like, everybody's just trying, man, like, it's, it's, it's,  it's a tough go at life, and every single person is, is,  at least attempting to do what they can with what they've been given.

That's not every case and there's some people who, who should probably try harder, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't have empathy for them because it could be your child sitting on the side of the road asking for money.  It could be you doing the same thing. If you were given a different life with a different set of skills and a different set of intellect and, and a different level of drive and, and all of these things.

So. You start to, you start to see the world and other people and society in a different perspective. And that can bring you to a more interesting religious conversation, but we'll leave that for another day. But another thing that I found interesting is, this is a thought that I had  regarding my children, and  I don't remember a ton of my childhood.

I wish I had a better memory. I wish I remembered, you know, the friends I had and how we played on the playground and um, sleepovers and, and uh, you know, time with my family and all of the fun trips that we went on and all of the things like that. And I do remember some highlights and I have it in there somewhere.

But it's not as, it's not as vivid as I would like it to be.  And so, when you have a child, You have to realize too, and I think about this, it's like, it's very easy to write off your children's experience because it's like, oh, they won't even remember this,  right? Like, oh, maybe, maybe I shouldn't have acted that way, but they'll probably forget it, because I forgot what my parent did to me in that situation too, right? 

But that's a dangerous path to go down.  But if you do, if you look at it from the right perspective, it's your children  are the opportunity to  live your childhood again only through the lens of someone who can actually appreciate it.  And so,  if you treat your child as if they are the opportunity for you to give your own inner self, your own inner child the opportunities in life and  experiences that you,  Wish you would have had or you wish you remembered. 

You get that opportunity. You get to experience that thing again. And as a result, the world can open up to you. The, the creative, the, the, the way that you view everything can change. And it's a secondary opportunity to, to, to have that. If you can put yourself in the shoes of your children, and I'm sure the same thing goes for grandchildren and great grandchildren and so on.

It's really not that much so on after that, but you get the idea. So to me, it's like when you have children, you get to relive what should be and can be the most illuminating  fun, exciting time of your life. There's magic and there's, there's mystery to everything. And there's so many questions that you want answered.

Like, uh, with my daughter,  I'll sit there and she was asking me today, like, how was the world created?  I was like, shit, that's a good question. Well, there's a couple belief systems and one of them is the religious and Christian belief system, which is that God created the earth and all the people in the universe and the stars and the sun in, in seven days.

And then there's a scientific perspective, which is the Big Bang Theory. And I tried my best to  explain that pathetically, uh, but I, I explained those to her. And then she, she asked a better question when she said, is there other?  Is there other things like our thing, like is there anything outside of what our, not our world, but our place, like everything, is there another everything?

And I said, well, I think what you're talking about is  Like the multiverse theory or even like kind of like string theory, right? Like things can be happening simultaneously in a different reality. And so we got to ask Chad GPT to explain these things and like just the, the interest and, and  mystery to her that is the, the surrounding world.

And, you know, I still feel that way that I don't know what the hell is going on. And for all I know, there's a firmament above us. And we, or for all I know, we really did go to the moon, like who knows anything, uh, which is, you know. Another interesting realization as you get older is a lot of history is just fabricated by the authors of large conglomerate organizations that wanted to rewrite history and in their way,  I digress.

That's a side note, but to me, having children so important living life in a way that you are. That your ancestors lived, and there's a reason you have children. Your biology changes, your perspective changes, the way that you view the world, the way you view society, the way you view people,  it all changes.

Everything, your perspective is so important, and the only way that you get that is by having a child, and having something outside of yourself that is a extension of you, that gets to go off into the world and face their own hero's journey as a result. And so Yeah, you better have a damn good reason, um, in, in all of that to, to get back to the, to the original point, which is that, you know,  even Trending within the conversation that we talked about earlier of like the depopulation of the world and our trending downward spiral of population It's like there's one half of society that is absolutely outbreeding the other half of society there's one half of the political spectrum that is absolutely Having babies, not having abortions, not using plan B and living a happy, healthy, fulfilling life with children and grandchildren.

And there will be somebody by their side  with food and flowers and comfort and jokes when they are dying. 

And there's another half of the political spectrum that has fallen into the trap  that you are. everything that matters in this universe, right? Go back to like postmodernism, right? Your perspective in your reality is the only reality.  And they fall in for this trap that says like, well, I'm a girl boss. I don't need to be a mom. 

Those stay at home moms are just whatever, right? Like fill in the blank. And this culture has been tricked into believing that the mom should be, you know, that the ultimate.  goal isn't to be a, a mother or a father in life like that. That is everything.  And they've been deceived into thinking that that's not the most fulfilling thing that you could accomplish in your life is, is pro creating and, and.

Creating something outside of yourself and giving that, that version of you, that extension of yourself, the opportunities and experiences that you weren't given, or maybe you don't remember or whatever, right? It's like such an important thing, but we are absolutely outbreeding the crazy. And eventually, the pendulum will swing right back in our direction.

I think in 20 years, we're going to see either a huge wave of non liberal. Uh, ideologies poke their head from the next generation because  a very large percentage of people,  much larger than any other time period of history, are deciding not to have children. And doing so through many means, including, you know, birth control and, and Plan B, but also abortions.

And, and doing so after the fact, and, and having, causing much, you know, there's, there's its own psychological effects that even come from that, so.  Anyways, so important, very interesting to see him talk about that, you know, the conservative leaning ethos of creating a family unit and, and the value of that in today's world and And how that kind of even pertains to political ideology.

So here we go.  Just a minute. Equity, equity. That's worse, right? Equity means  Equality of outcome. It means that every single organization has 50 percent women and 50 percent men. Doesn't matter whether the men and women differ in their intrinsic preferences, which, by the way they do, the scientific literature on that is completely clear.

It was established by the early 90s. It was established in the Scandinavian countries, where they've done most to flatten out the socio economic Differentials, say, between men and women. Didn't get rid of the differences between men and women. In fact, they became exaggerated. The biggest personality differences in the world between men and women are in Scandinavia.

Just as the biggest differences in interest between men and women are in Scandinavia. Because when you get rid of the socio cultural differences between men and women, the biological differences don't disappear. They maximize. So,  you hear the egalitarian, clarion call everywhere.  Everything should be equal.

Everything should be equally distributed. We should strive for equity. It's like, wrong!  Especially if you're a conservative. Wrong! What we want are just hierarchies of competence.  Not everyone's a neurosurgeon. You know, if your father has a brain tumor, you probably want a hierarchy of competence for neurosurgeons.

So you can pick the one that's the best, so that he might not die. That's what a hierarchy of competence is for. For the postmodernists, there's no hierarchy that isn't based on power. Well, because they think the world runs on power. We need the best plumbers. We need the best contractors. We need the best  Alright, so, yeah, and so that touches on another conversation, which, you know, there wasn't as much political socialization aspects within that that I was expecting, but, um, there are some interesting points there, which even talks about gender, right, there, there is a specific divide when it comes to voting percentages that are tied to gender, um, so just pulling up some of my Notes here, and we'll walk through some of those together. 

So here are some of the statistics and formations of political affiliations. So here, here's what I have written up here. Um, political socialization and the determinants of party affiliation. So political socialization begins early in life. Influenced by a variety of factors including family, education, peer groups, media, and significant life events.

The family is often the first and most impactful. We talked about that. The party affiliation is often a result of long term political socialization processes. Individuals tend to align with parties that reflect their values, beliefs, and perceived Social identities, key issues such as economy, social justice, national security, environmental policies can be determinants in aligning with the political party.

Voters often choose parties they believe will be best addressing these issues according to their personal beliefs and values.  Um,  all right, so. impact of changing social and political contexts.  Interesting, says that the political socialization is not static and can evolve over time. Changing social and political contexts, personal experiences, and exposure to new information can lead to a shift in political attitudes and party affiliation. 

Yes, says research has shown that individuals who grow up in a politically active household are more likely to participate in elections and have strong party affiliation. So even starting at the the answer of do you vote? Well, if your parents vote and they found value in that, you're much higher likelihood of voting. 

Surveys indicate that major political events, such as economic recessions and wars, can have a lasting impact  on political attitudes and party preferences.  Political socialization is Yep, and the interplay of personal experiences, we talked about that. Um, alright, so,  geographic location. So people living in dense urban areas like New York City, San Francisco, often leads toward the Democratic Party, while those in rural areas, like, we know that.

But why? Right, what is it about that that makes it, you know, what I think that comes down to is that when you're shoving a group of way too many people into way too small of a space, then there's Not enough resources to go around and there's way too much, uh, oversight happening there. There's going to tend to be, well, economic disparity, right?

There's going to be people who make lots of money. As you see in every downtown area, there's like high rises with beautiful, uh, penthouse suites that are 5 million. And then there's also, you know,  Shitty, slummy areas where homeless people are three minutes down the road, right? Also, occupational field, educational and field of study.

Um, it says that individuals with advanced degrees in social sciences lean Democratic, while those with business degrees lean Republican. Okay. Religious attendance.  That's probably obvious. Um, consumer preferences and habits. It says a preference for electric cars. Like Tesla's might correlate with democratic leanings. 

You don't say a social networks. If somebody's friends and family is predominantly democratic. They are more likely to align with the Democratic Party, and vice versa for Republican circles. So your actual social, social network in general, not social media networks. Um, attitudes towards change in tradition, travel experiences, hobbies and recreational activities.

This is, this is a good one. Enjoyment of outdoor activities like hunting might correlate with Republican leadings, while urban hobbies like yoga might. Be more common among Democrats.  Who'da thought? Uh, life experiences. Someone who has benefited from social welfare might support Democratic. Yeah.

Psychological traits. Individuals with high openness experiences, which is what we talked about, have a, as a personality trait, might lean Democratic, while those with high conscientiousness might lean Republican.  Dietary choices. Pet ownership.  Sports. fanaticism, um, while fans of soccer or basketball could lean.

So this is great. Um, fans of NASCAR and college football are more inclined to lean Republican while fans of soccer or basketball lean Democratic. So, the two biggest pansy sports there is are generally Democrats. Interesting. Who'd have thought? I would have. Individuals with interest in organic gardening or native plant landscaping might lean Democratic.

Those who prefer traditional landscaping. Decorative preferences, literature choices, holiday preferences, tech usage, movie genres, commuting habits, craft  and DIY interests.  Um.  Enthusiasts of crafts like knitting or pottery might lean Democratic, while those who engage in woodworking or metalworking might lean Republican.

Sleeping patterns. Early risers might lean towards conservative ideologies, valuing traditional structures and routines, while night owls could lean liberal, often being more open to experiences. and non traditional lifestyles. Isn't that funny? So if you take all these into account, let's, let's like really archetype this person.

A, uh, let's, let's just like start from the top. We have a, uh, a  political, let's see, what did I say? Social sciences degree who doesn't go to church, drives a, a, a, uh, electric vehicle,  um, likes to, uh, do yoga,  nothing against yoga. I like yoga.  Uh,  Likes to listen to,  it says classical jazz. Lean's more democratic.

That's interesting.  Um, it says dog owners who are certain breeds like Labrador retrievers and German shepherds are more Republican while cat owners. With non traditional pets like reptiles might skew democratic. Wow. That's an interesting one. So a soccer loving reptile owning knitting and gardening, uh,  Tesla driver.

Who do you think that is? Yeah. Well, but isn't that interesting? Like you can archetype these things and there's stereotypes for a reason. Like why, why does that matter if you would like to knit? Why does that make you a Democrat? If you like to hunt, why does that make you a Republican? It's such a weird, distanced correlation for me that, but the causation is just like almost too high, right?

Is it, you can't say it's causation. Obviously if you hunt, it doesn't,  maybe it does. Like if owning chickens will definitely make you a Republican.  Um,  but, but it is, and I guess there's something to that. It's like realizing that you don't need daddy government, realizing that you can have intrinsic freedoms that aren't.

Just given gifted to you by those in power. No, they're they're your freedoms and and you are given those Regardless of what government says about it, right the we hold these truths to be self evident We were given these, these freedoms by God, not by the government, not by Joe Biden, not by, not by the, the tech overlords who determined censorship and what we can and cannot say.

No, we, we hold these truths to be self evident. We have a right to life, liberty. The pursuit of happiness. We have a freedom of speech. We have a freedom of, of, uh, to, to bear arms. We, all of these things that are the most important were rights given to us by God, not allowed by daddy. Right. And so maybe some of these things are just gateways, right?

I assume if somebody watched soccer,  right. And you really like soccer, but then you watch, you know, watch some hockey or watch some UFC.  You might realize  that's a little bit cooler than soccer. If you start knitting and you see, uh, you know, uh, uh, I don't know, what were some of the hobbies? Um, whatever, whatever you want to say about a Republican.

Um, It's just so interesting to me that there's, there's such a correlation between personality traits, hobbies, interests, all of these little buckets that you can put on is just like a perfect archetype of the situation here. And again, this isn't anything against.  Uh, this is against you if you net, sorry, like, there's some cooler things you could do with your time.

It's also against you if you like soccer or baseball over football or hockey or the UFC or jujitsu. Um, definitely against you, but not against you if you're liberal. I don't care what you vote for. Um, I do think there's some, you know, we don't need to get into all of that. I'm not going to apologize, but  Um, I'm also don't, you know, cons, line perfectly conservative.

It's, but anyways, let's, let's go on. Language usage.  Uh, concrete language could correlate with conservative leanings while preference for abstract nuanced language is, can indicate liberal. Clothing brands. Hmm. Vacation choices.  Humor preferences.  Gadget preferences.  Social media behavior. Recreational reading material.

Artistic preferences. Parenting styles.  Attitudes towards time. A more flexible and relative view of time might indicate liberal leanings reflective of adaptability  and focus on present experiences, whereas a punctual, regimented view of time might suggest conservative leanings. Yeah, try that in the workplace, bud.

Uh, gender and voting behavior. The influence of gender on voting behavior and political affiliations is a critical aspect of electoral dynamics, reflecting broader societal trends in gender related issues.  Uh, historical trends, gender differences, and voting patterns have evolved over time, influenced by changing social norms and the political empowerment of women.

Initially, women's voting patterns were similar to those of men, but over time distinct gender based preferences have emerged.  Uh,  Interesting.  Uh, gender gap in partisan affiliation.  Says the gender gap in partisan affiliation has been widening with women increasingly leaning towards the Democratic Party in the United States, a trend observed in several elections over the past decades. 

Uh, the shift can be attributed to a variety of factors. Um, the presence of female candidates, particularly high profile positions, also influences gender based voting. Um,  interesting. Statistics. It says, according to Pew Research Center, in 2018, U. S. midterm elections, 59 percent of women identified as or lean towards the Democratic Party, compared to 47 percent of men. 

A Gallup poll showed that women by a margin of about 10 percentage points are more likely than men to prioritize issues like health care and gender equality.  Interesting. Uh, so political tribalism is interesting. Uh, political tribalism is characterized by a strong in group loyalty and opposition to out groups has become a defining feature in modern democracies.

Right, we see this play out perfectly and, and I, I, I would love to see RFK  Jr. It's, it's really too bad that he just dropped out, you know, and, and decided to be independent  because I would love to see,  uh, Robert Kennedy jr. Be the Democratic nominee. I would be just as happy to see him as the Republican nominee I I just think he to me he has the the Despite  shortcomings in his affiliation and ideologies that would align closer to mine I do think he's the most reasonable candidate.

I do think he's the most capable candidate I do believe he has the track record that I would want to see of having a distinct Uh,  issue with  unchecked power, like the CIA and the FBI, to me, it is, you know, I don't think we're going to see a landslide victory for a third party, uh, candidate because there's just too much money and too much  FRAUD for that to be the case, but too much  money going that way even, right? 

So social media amplification. So a Pew research study found that political polarization United States has increased dramatically over the past two decades with more people ideologically aligning strongly with their respective parties. So people are now even more entrenched in the idea of the two party system, which I just.

I don't, like I just said, I would vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. If it came down to it and he was actually a real candidate, like if he could actually win. I absolutely think that I, I would definitely consider the opportunity to vote for him. I think he's very reasonable. I love his stance on COVID and, and all of that stuff.

I, I don't love his stance on, you know, uh, gun rights and a few certain things that I've heard of and I  believe abortion. He talked about, um, some things like that, that I just, I don't align with him on, but I think overall.  The position of president is a,  uh, is a, more of a,  uh, a figurehead than anything.

And, and he aligns more with the figurehead that I would see demonstrating competency and the checking of power within our government than, than anybody else at this point. Um.  So there's some really interesting subpoints that we could get into. Uh, you know, we, this has some things about media bias, only 3.4% of, wow, that's a crazy one.

So let's talk about that.  Only 3.4% of US journalists identify as Republican.  So 90%, 97% of journalists that are out there today are liberals, are Democrats.  And you wonder why our media,  and this even goes for like people writing for Fox News, I'm sure it's not all conservative journalists, like,  that is crazy.

I just wonder why that, why that even would become the way that it is, especially in today's environment where like,  the old school journalist is just the epitome of what I would like to see in today's world.  Exposing government corruption and, and calling out the, all of the things that are wrong about our politics and, and everything like that.

Like that used to be the, the, the, the cigarette in their mouth with like an investigator's hat in a, in a notebook and they would go find the truth. Like that used to be the old school journalists.  97 percent of journalists  are, are  liberals.  So how do you, how do you function in a society where 97 percent of the articles, 97 percent of the opinions that are being pushed into the public psyche  are not aligned with 50 percent of the country? 

And to me, it's just so wild that it is a literal 50 50 split. Like how does that even happen? The statistical likelihood that the political divide being a. Almost exact 50 50 split to where every year there's a potential that we might win or we might lose or they might this and they might that and like  the percentage likelihood that it's a 50 50 shot  is  so unlikely to me like it just doesn't make any sense statistically that that that would be the split it just seems way more likely that 65 percent of people would be this or in 35 percent of people would be this and the next year right or four years from then You  It's, you know, 43 to, you know, 57.

And it just doesn't, it doesn't make any sense that it's so close. And then that just, to me speaks to the tribalism that is today's modern political divide, because,  and again, I think it definitely comes down to personality spectrums and it definitely comes down to some, but, but it also comes down to the fact that 97 percent of journalists identify as one half of it and are pushing constantly.

Right? That's the same reason that you see the big pushes for, uh, minority communities from the Democrats, for, uh, female communities from the Democra Like, they're trying to subsection and further tribal make it tribalistic, even more so than it has to be.  Uh, but that's a wild statistic. Wild statistic.

That 97 percent of journalists  are liberals.  And that came from a survey done from, and that was from the Washington Times.  That is crazy. 

All right, let's move on here to the next portion of this, which is going to be, let's see any other interesting statistics. A study by Pew Research Center found that 77 percent of Americans believe that major news outlets, 

major news outlets report with a bias, you don't say, highlighting widespread concerns about media impartiality.  Analysis by Harvard University showed that coverage of certain political figures and issues varied significantly across different news networks, uh, reflecting a varying degree of editorial slant.

Yes, again, um, if you need  a good news source, you should, and I signed up with ground. news, and they will show you, like they'll be able to tell you the article title, you can click it, it'll tell you how many people or what, what organizations with what political slant. Recorded what about that article or who reported none of it and it gives you all these really interesting statistics I highly highly recommend that more than anything else that I've you know news wise that I would recommend to you  And then here's the more interesting part of this too, which is the psychology of political campaign strategies.

All right. Now there's, there's a whole section on this and this, and this actually might be a, uh, it's pretty long. I think this might be a discussion for a whole nother day. So we will do that emotional manipulation and political advertising. Um, the cognitive dissonance in politics, the, I want to give it its due and I, you know, got to go to bed at sometimes guys, psychology of political campaigns strategies.

Uh, countering media bias, all of that stuff. So, we will save that for another day.  In the meantime,  I hope you have a wonderful day. I hope you appreciated the conversation. I hope that I gave you some reflection on maybe why you vote the way that you do. And you start to question the construct that is your  social, political identity.

And say, hey, do  I agree with literally everything that everybody on this half of the country, agrees. It says I should agree with, or maybe I have some varying degrees of, of, of, uh, thoughts on these topics. Maybe there's a spectrum within my own thought processes that are on one side or the other. And, and, you know, I can't point to too many things. 

That I, you know, uh, differ from, but I can point to several, several that I wholeheartedly believe, you know, when it comes to, uh, psychedelic legalization, when it comes to, uh, some social programs, I think there's some room for them. Um, but, but again, if I, you know,  anyways, I hope I gave you some reflection  and, uh, in the meantime, head over to YouTube, subscribe if you're there right now, I appreciate you.

Uh, subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, leave a five star review if you appreciated this conversation. I appreciate you and I love you. I hope you have a great day and I'll see you next time on  The Adams Archive.  Adams Archive.