David Sachs

I think that's a much better line of attack. And I think that's what the campaign will be about from here. I don't think we want this campaign to be about identity.

I mean, look, just think about what's going to happen over the next four years if Harris is elected. I mean, you're going to have a prompter president. I mean, she's just never going to be off prompter. It's going to be like Biden. Biden at least tried to go off prompter. Whenever he did, it was a disaster.

I mean, look, just think about what's going to happen over the next four years if Harris is elected. I mean, you're going to have a prompter president. I mean, she's just never going to be off prompter. It's going to be like Biden. Biden at least tried to go off prompter. Whenever he did, it was a disaster.

I agree with you that whether you're a CEO or you're a politician, authenticity counts. But I think this election is going to be a test of what people want in their president? I mean, do you think the president needs to be a chief executive who at some level is calling the shots?

I agree with you that whether you're a CEO or you're a politician, authenticity counts. But I think this election is going to be a test of what people want in their president? I mean, do you think the president needs to be a chief executive who at some level is calling the shots?

Or do you think it's good enough for the presidency to essentially be a construct and to be a manifestation of the staff, right?

Or do you think it's good enough for the presidency to essentially be a construct and to be a manifestation of the staff, right?

Yeah, the decisions that get made are the result of bureaucracy and political infighting and staffers. Exactly. You need someone to control that. And I think it's really interesting that when Biden was still the candidate, but everyone could tell that he was sort of impaired, that the arguments you started hearing from Democrat partisans and the media is that, well, you're voting for a team.

Yeah, the decisions that get made are the result of bureaucracy and political infighting and staffers. Exactly. You need someone to control that. And I think it's really interesting that when Biden was still the candidate, but everyone could tell that he was sort of impaired, that the arguments you started hearing from Democrat partisans and the media is that, well, you're voting for a team.

You're not just voting for a president, right? You're voting for a shadow cabinet. Exactly the thing that we criticized on this pod for the last year. My point is that you're still voting for a shadow cabinet unless Harris is willing to get out there and answer questions and be unscripted. You're just voting for a staff. And I don't think that's good enough.

You're not just voting for a president, right? You're voting for a shadow cabinet. Exactly the thing that we criticized on this pod for the last year. My point is that you're still voting for a shadow cabinet unless Harris is willing to get out there and answer questions and be unscripted. You're just voting for a staff. And I don't think that's good enough.

When we're in a world where we're in a proxy war with Russia and we could be in a war with China and we have these problems in the Middle East, I want a decider. I want to know that the buck stops here, not the buck stops wherever. Let's shift topics.

When we're in a world where we're in a proxy war with Russia and we could be in a war with China and we have these problems in the Middle East, I want a decider. I want to know that the buck stops here, not the buck stops wherever. Let's shift topics.

I guess what I would say about the economy is that in nominal terms, we're not in a recession according to the data that's come out. The Q2 GDP was roughly 2% GDP growth. However, I think there's a couple of problems. One is that what we've seen over the past year or so is that the economic data that comes out keeps getting reforecast down.

I guess what I would say about the economy is that in nominal terms, we're not in a recession according to the data that's come out. The Q2 GDP was roughly 2% GDP growth. However, I think there's a couple of problems. One is that what we've seen over the past year or so is that the economic data that comes out keeps getting reforecast down.

So they put out a provisional number or an estimate, and then when they finalize the number three months or six months later, it always seems to go in one direction. We've seen this over and over again with new jobs being re-forecast down. And we saw this with the Q1 GDP, where initially they were reporting, I think it was like a 1.8% number, and then it got restated down to 1.3%.

So they put out a provisional number or an estimate, and then when they finalize the number three months or six months later, it always seems to go in one direction. We've seen this over and over again with new jobs being re-forecast down. And we saw this with the Q1 GDP, where initially they were reporting, I think it was like a 1.8% number, and then it got restated down to 1.3%.

So the Q2 GDP number was around 2%. It was good, but again, It's a provisional number, and let's see where it actually ends up. The bigger problem is government spending. The deficit is running at 6% of GDP, whereas economic growth is at, let's call it charitably 2%. Well, government spending is included in GDP.

So the Q2 GDP number was around 2%. It was good, but again, It's a provisional number, and let's see where it actually ends up. The bigger problem is government spending. The deficit is running at 6% of GDP, whereas economic growth is at, let's call it charitably 2%. Well, government spending is included in GDP.

So if you were to balance the budget, let's say that you were to make government live within its means and not have a deficit, we'd have negative 4%. GDP growth. So the only reason why we're in positive GDP growth territory is because of massive government spending that we know is not sustainable. And at some point, the bill is going to come due for that. So I have to say that