Episode 193 Scott Adams: Talking to Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai (Running Against Elizabeth Warren)
Date: 2018-08-23 | Duration: 58:02
Topics
“Only a real Indian can defeat the fake Indian” Dr. Shiva, PhD (M.I.T.) is running against Elizabeth Warren for Senate Dr. Shiva is the Inventor of email, with 4 degrees from MIT Immigration policies Paths to success in life Education policies and the predatory student loan system The importance of Votech (Vocational-Technical) schools Healthcare insurance companies have NO incentive to lower costs GPO corruption in healthcare keeps cost artificially inflated Campaign website: https://shiva4senate.com
Transcript
Introduction and Simultaneous Sip
Hey everybody, come on in here. It’s time for a coffee with Scott Adams, and today we have a very special guest. Get in here and I’ll introduce him in a moment. As soon as we’ve got our thousand people, we’ll do the simultaneous sip and then we’ll get going with our amazing content for the day.
Everybody knows the best coffee of the day is a simultaneous sip. I’m here with Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, who’s running against Elizabeth Warren for Senate in Massachusetts, and he’s going to join me for the simultaneous sip. Is everybody ready? Grab your cup, grab your mug, grab your vessel full of delicious liquid, and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Mmm, that’s good stuff. Dr. Shiva, should I call you Shiva or Doctor? Scott, we’re going to go with Shiva for this. Many of the people watching this are already familiar with you, and I think they’re most familiar because everybody heard of your awesome campaign slogan that got you in a little bit of trouble. Can you remind people of your Elizabeth Warren campaign slogan?
The “Real Indian” Campaign Slogan
The slogan is just a very powerful slogan: “Only the real Indian can defeat the fake Indian.” Now, I have some connection to that story in the sense that, like Elizabeth Warren, my family told me that I was Native American for my entire life, and then I did a DNA test in the past year to find out that I have no Native American whatsoever. So she and I bonded a little bit on that.
For those who don’t know you so well, you were running as an independent, but do you lean more Republican? Is that a fair assessment?
Bottom line, Scott, I ran as a Republican. I’m a real Republican, real conservative, real Trump loyalist. But if you think about it, Massachusetts is where the center of the deep state—or the sewer of the deep state—is. If you think about a beacon coming out from that center point, there is no difference between the quote-unquote Republican and Democrat establishments. They are one.
I gave the quote-unquote Republicans a chance here and I realized that wherever I went, the ground-level Republicans loved me. I was getting standing ovations. But the Massachusetts GOP is in collusion with Elizabeth Warren. So we dumped them, and we’re running as true Republicans and true independents, which is really the spirit of the people who woke up in the 2016 election. One million people voted for President Trump; 80% of them were independent in Massachusetts, and they’re frankly anti-establishment. It’s not like they’re part of the Massachusetts GOP establishment.
Path to Victory in Massachusetts
Give us the numbers. Keep it simple. Why do you have a path to victory? People would assume, “Oh, Elizabeth Warren, they’re talking about her running for president; obviously she’s going to win.” What’s your counter to that?
When you look at the math of it—and everyone should start looking at the map—it shows that in a midterm election in Massachusetts, we have a very high probability of winning because there is so much uncertainty. There are 4.5 million registered voters in Massachusetts out of the potentially 5.2 million. Of those 4.5 million registered voters, 1.5 million are Democrats and less than half a million—let’s say 500,000—are Republicans. The remaining 2.5 million are independents or unenrolled.
In a midterm election, about 2.3 million people will vote, and over half of those will be independent. Given that 80% of those independents voted for Trump, the Trump loyalists are much more adept at understanding what’s going on in politics. They can see through the BS. That’s why the “real Indian, fake Indian” slogan hits them so strong. They just love it. It carries on with the Pocahontas theme and talks about the hypocrisy and lack of integrity among not only Warren, but all of these politicians.
I’ve noticed that people also assume that people who have a sense of humor are also smarter. You’ve got that going for you. The fact that it’s funny and provocative means people automatically give you a little credit.
Dr. Shiva’s Academic and Professional Background
Let’s talk about your background. I know you would be too modest to volunteer this, but could you just list your academic credentials, like the number of degrees you have?
I have four degrees from MIT. My undergraduate is in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. After that, I worked as a founding engineer at a company, then came back to MIT and did two more master’s degrees. One of them is in Applied Mechanics, or what’s known as Mechanical Engineering. My other degree, believe it or not, is in Art and Visual Design out of the MIT Media Lab. I loved graphic design and I have a penchant for art. I studied with the grand dame of graphic design, Muriel Cooper.
Then I went out and started another company called EchoMail, which we grew to around $250 million in value in the AI field for email. I came back to MIT in 2003 and did my PhD in a very new, exciting field called Biological Engineering. Biological Engineering is to biology as Chemical Engineering is to chemistry—understanding the laws of biology and learning how to use that to advance humankind.
I have four degrees from MIT and I’m also a Fulbright Scholar. I used to teach at MIT as a lecturer. I’ve been in and out of academia, but MIT is really a high-tech/low-tech school. In the middle of that, I started seven different companies which created a lot of jobs in Massachusetts.
You did all of that, but you’re running against a tough competitor because she was a lawyer. I think we’re done with her lawyer-lobbyist background. You and I have a lot in common in terms of our academic credentials. You did all of those things, and I write a cartoon strip about a character who also went to MIT. Dilbert has an MIT degree.
I didn’t know that, but Dilbert was one of those cartoons I read all the time. It was one of my favorites. The way you brought out the different contradictions of the human versus phenomenal man is awesome.
Well, you should have led with that, because that shows your intelligence right there. I like Dogbert actually. Dogbert was modeled after my own inner thoughts—the things I have to say out loud.
Technical Literacy in the Senate
You have a commanding intellectual and accomplishment advantage over Elizabeth Warren. Can you give me a sense of the landscape of Congress and the Senate? How many people do you know of who even understand technology and innovation at a working level the way you do? Most of them are pretty old. How many have a scientific or technical background?
It’s a great question. In the Senate right now, I believe there’s one microbiologist, and in the House, maybe two engineers. That’s about it. Compare that to the founders of this country. Washington was a surveyor and a farmer. Jefferson could do pretty much anything. Then you have people like Franklin. We’ve lowered the standards to such a low level because of the entire career politician model and the lack of term limits. We’ve ended up with a bunch of salespeople, Scott.
I like to use the word “scumbags” as a technical term—the scum that floats on the top of the septic tank that you put in a bag. I called Elizabeth Warren that at one of the rallies. I can’t find any nice terms to say. I think we’re being too kind by calling them salespeople. They are a strata of people who are leeches on society at the worst level.
As a citizen looking at this, I see the immense opportunity we have if we get technology and innovation right. If Elizabeth Warren is the senator, she brings more of what they already have—another lawyer. But someone with your skill set… there’s no way we don’t need more of what you offer in terms of technical and real-world experience.
Coming to America: An Immigrant Story
Let’s talk about a couple of topics that are close to you: immigration, education, and innovation. You came to this country at seven years old, right?
I came here as a seven-year-old kid from India. The India I grew up in was fascinating. We were considered “Untouchables.” I grew up in Bombay, which is a very cosmopolitan city—an industrial furnace—but I also grew up in a small village in deep South India where my grandmother worked 16 hours on the farm and was a village healer. She practiced India’s traditional system of medicine. She could observe your face, diagnose you, and come up with personalized combinations of herbs. Here was this woman with no degrees who I saw empirically heal people.
I was fascinated by medicine as a young kid. When I came to the United States, I really wanted to be a doctor. We settled in Paterson, then Clifton, Parsippany, and Livingston. My parents kept moving to better public school systems in New Jersey.
When I was 14, I had an amazing opportunity because of the roots of America: a good public school system, great mentors, and a loving family. I finished calculus by the ninth grade. My high school didn’t have anything else to offer me, so I ended up getting an opportunity to go to NYU in 1978 when computer mainframes were coming. I learned seven programming languages, graduated top of the class at NYU, and then went back to my high school.
The Invention of Email
I got a full-time job in Newark, working in a small medical college where I was asked to convert the old-fashioned interoffice paper mail system—the inbox, outbox, folders, carbon copies—into an electronic version. I wrote 50,000 lines of code and I called it “email,” a term never used before in the English language.
We’re not talking about simple text messaging; we’re talking about that entire system. A few years later, I got the first U.S. copyright. You were commenting about politicians; politicians thought software was sheet music. The only way you could protect software in 1980 was through copyright. In fact, when I invented email, you couldn’t even protect it with a patent. It was only in 1994 that you could patent software because people finally woke up and realized software is actually a digital machine.
That early phase really exposed me to the public education system before the Department of Education screwed everything up. I learned more in that public school system than I did at MIT, and I say that with all honesty.
Immigration Policy and the Border Wall
What do you think about the President’s immigration preferences in terms of the wall and merit-based immigration? Would you have gotten in on merit-based immigration?
When my parents came, it was all merit-based. My dad had to submit his resume and reference letters. He had become a chemical engineer in India through sheer hard work. It was a huge opportunity and a process he had to go through. My mom was a mathematician. They both had to apply. My dad came here first and we actually waited in line; we were separated for about a year before my parents, my sister, and I came. It was considered an honor to come to this country.
I don’t even understand what the issue is here. People should try to get a visa to go to India or Russia or Saudi Arabia. It’s a difficult process. The fact that we even have to discuss illegal immigration—it’s an oxymoron; it’s ludicrous. I support the concept of a border wall. As a biologist, every human cell in the body has a membrane. We protect what comes in and out, and nature in its infinite wisdom has created walls around every cell. When I was living out in Hollywood, I didn’t see one person who didn’t have a wall around their house.
The notion of having protection, merit-based immigration—everything the President is saying is just rational thinking. I find it nonsensical that we’re even discussing this issue.
The Fairness of U.S. Immigration
I made the provocative statement in the past that any big change of policy in government is racist in outcome, not necessarily racist in intention. If you change tax policy or immigration, it’s going to disproportionately affect somebody. Would you say our immigration policies are fair, or do they target the brown population unfairly?
I think U.S. immigration policies were probably some of the fairest in the world. Other countries, where the rule of law and meritocracy are not the norm, are all about who you pay off and who you know. Those are the things that dominate. The U.S. immigration laws were probably one of the fairer sets.
What’s happened is that neither Democrat nor Republican establishment—particularly in Massachusetts—ever wants to solve immigration. One block uses illegal immigration for cheap votes, and the other has been using them for low-cost labor to get high profit on P&L statements. Both of these parties want to keep this issue alive because it’s a voting bloc for one and a profitable medium for the other.
The Mollie Tibbetts Case and Political Persuasion
What do you think of the White House talking about the Mollie Tibbetts situation—a young girl killed by an illegal alien? They have a video out where they batch up parents talking about their dead children. Does that strike you as fair or over the top? Anecdotal persuasion rubs me the wrong way. If you can’t make the case on statistics, talking about the individual seems like too much persuasion and not enough data.
I think when people have attempted to give data, the mainstream media—typically the CNNs and MSNBCs—have not wanted to present that data. We can calculate how much value merit-based immigration adds to the GDP, or how much tax revenue we’re losing by illegal immigration. Those numbers would clearly prove the case. But the mainstream academic elite and the media don’t want to share facts.
I think the shortcut people are taking is the emotional approach—the anecdotal stories. I was down at the border wall about a month ago with Joe Arpaio, and the Angel Moms were there. These are women who’ve lost children to illegal killings. They are very heartfelt stories, but I think to your point, we can use emotional pieces as an opportunity to talk about the larger numbers.
Solving Illegal Immigration and Merit-Based Systems
Do we have those larger numbers? The key number would be: are illegal immigrants committing crime at a higher level than legal citizens?
That’s one number. I have an interesting immigration policy. Say there are 20 million illegal immigrants. A subset of them have completely become part of the American economy, even if it’s the underground economy. They aren’t criminals; they’re actually working. The concept of converting them into legal, tax-paying status involves them going to the bottom of the line to do that. Then you take all the criminals and identify them and send them out.
The other piece of the equation is the people on the other extreme who live off the dole. They live off an economy where they don’t produce anything; they’re also leeches. Give them an opportunity where they go get a votech education, or you say, “Why don’t you go to another country and experience what it feels like to not be in America?” You almost do an immigration exchange program.
We have a four-trillion-dollar budget. If people are working, we should capture their tax revenue and put them on the path to immigration. But Congress doesn’t want to solve these problems. These guys take six-month vacations. If you’re at MIT or you’re an engineer, you have a deadline. As a cartoonist, you have deadlines. These guys have no deadlines, so there’s no motivation for them to roll up their sleeves and actually solve this.
The “48-Hour Rule” and Political Hypocrisy
Under everyone’s plan, a comprehensive agreement would probably include work visas for farms. Given that both sides agree with that, wouldn’t the person who was the murderer in the Mollie Tibbetts case have been legal under a functional work visa system?
In the current immigration reform model, that person would have come in on a worker’s visa and would have been legal. They would have been prosecuted as a legal worker. What’s interesting with the Mollie Tibbetts case is Elizabeth Warren’s reaction. She recognized what happened to the child, but then she quickly pivoted to talking about quote-unquote “real problems” with the separation of families.
The hubris and the nonsensical value of that statement is what I think really hit people. The fact that she can pivot like that with such ease goes to the fact that in Massachusetts, the Republicans and Democrats work so closely together that there’s really no opposition to her. She feels absolutely comfortable saying that.
I’ve introduced the idea of the “48-hour rule,” which is when you say something people go wild about, you have 48 hours to correct or clarify because you may have just misspoke. Would you think that’s a good idea?
We all make mistakes. There’s probably an initial visceral response some people make in reaction, and then they think about it. I like your 48-hour rule. It’s like when you write an email; if you’re really angry, you write it, hold on, and wait at least 12 hours before deciding if you should hit the send button. Never text when you’re angry or drunk.
Strategic Parity and the Path to Success
Would your immigration preferences be very close to the President’s?
What I like about Donald Trump is he’s a very practical person. If you look at the core concept—rule of law and America First—it means merit-based immigration. Then you also have to address practical needs because you could have worker shortages. It’s a very practical approach that emphasizes enforcing the laws we have on the books.
Any big change in government affects some ethnic group more than another, even if you don’t mean it, because ethnic groups tend to bunch economically or geographically. Wouldn’t you say everything has a different effect on different ethnicities?
Before we came from India, my mom said something interesting. She said in India you can be discriminated against nine different ways; in America, around three. In India, it’s North vs. South, which caste you are, what language you spoke, what curry you used, religion, and skin color. My mom said the advantage in America was that you could work hard and overcome that.
Whenever any policy is implemented, it’s going to affect some cluster statistically. But the difference in America is that you’re not beholden to being in that cluster; you can move forward and overcome those things. That’s what makes this country great. You have more options to escape.
I call that “strategic parity” or “strategic equality.” The path I took to be successful might not work for an African-American man or woman, but they have their own paths that might not be available to me. As long as everybody has some path to success, that’s better than no path.
We each have our very particular journey. The difference is some systems don’t allow everyone to have their own journey because they cannot make those decisions. In this country, you have much more variability of choice. We can traverse a journey that is very different from someone else even if we feel confined to an ethnic group. It comes down to the variability of choice America offers.
The Predatory Student Loan System
Let’s talk about education. What are we doing wrong?
My great-grandfather was an indentured servant—basically the slaves before slaves. He always said he would spend whatever he had on education because it was seen as a way out of ignorance and suffering. But in the higher university systems, people have to spend a lot of money to get a quote-unquote “good education,” and the student loan system is a racket.
Every year, private colleges keep increasing tuition, and loan companies allow predatory student loans. The loan should not even be called a “student loan” because it never goes to the student; it goes right to the university. The bamboozling is that educational costs are not modulated because student loan companies—who had record profits last year—keep giving the loans out while students get indebted and universities keep raising tuition.
But the deeper phenomenon is: what are the kids actually learning? I run a lot of companies. The students coming out now are not learning tangible skills. They don’t have customer service skills or know how to write a good email. They are getting degrees, but not skills.
The Importance of Vocational-Technical (Votech) Education
We need to go back to the public school system and, at the associate’s degree level, offer more votech education. If we started opening up two or three votech schools in the inner cities, that’s how you really solve racism. You can make six-figure salaries as a plumber, electrician, software engineer, or med-tech. We don’t have enough of those people. Close to 2.9 million technical jobs are being generated, and we need 120,000 people annually to fill them. I am a big proponent of high-tech votech education.
Second, we need to bust up the monopolies these big universities have on education because there’s no market competition. Third, these large universities need to pay their fair share of taxes. Harvard University is fundamentally a 45-to-50-billion-dollar hedge fund with a “fake university” attached to it as a two-billion-dollar operations budget. Two years ago, they paid their hedge fund managers 58 million.
We need to eliminate predatory student loans. Today, a student does not have the right to go bankrupt on a loan. If a loan company knew a kid could go bankrupt, they would really assess the course of study. If the kid says, “I’m going to study the Anthropology of Artbox” or “Bathroom Studies,” the bank would make an assessment on whether that investment would yield a valuable member of society. Right now, we are 35th in the world in science and engineering education. A set of elites are well-educated, but the vast majority of Americans are not getting that technical education.
Virtual Reality and the Future of Education
Is it important that the average student knows calculus? It seems like a waste of time to me because they’re never going to move the needle in that field.
There are many jobs that just require technical skills—plumbers, electricians, even good writers and artisans. I’m talking about skills at a broad level. A large percentage of college students are not learning tangible skills.
I’ve got one of these virtual reality computers here. I can go into a whole different world. I could be standing in the middle of a famous battle or the Constitutional Convention. Do you think we’re close to a point where homeschooling with VR is the better option? It feels like nobody has optimized the technology to make it a better alternative than school, which is just where the bullies are.
Technology curves typically take 30 years, and I think VR is about to explode. Peter Guber, one of the big Hollywood producers, told me about a technology company he invested in where he wore glasses and was walking across a cliff and started shivering. The technology is essentially here.
Another friend of mine created a company that mapped all the museums of the world, like the Louvre, with 3D mapping cameras that map every pixel. Those VR glasses, like Oculus, are going to be in every home like a TV or a microwave in the next five to ten years. They’re going to be part of the educational experience.
The public school model was an industrialization process to train soldiers in a robotic way. What’s happening now is “personalization.” Personalization in medicine, education, and healthcare. That’s ultimately school choice. You can train your kid to understand history by experiencing it in VR. We’re heading into a cool Renaissance where technology allows parents to make different decisions.
Decentralizing Content and Big Tech Collusion
Do you see the content for the VR world being owned by private industry, or will the government mess that up too?
The Department of Education should be busted up. You have two types of centralization: the government wanting to own things, and private companies like Google and Facebook colluding together. Those people owning power and royalties are going to try to drive the direction for economic reasons.
However, because of the decentralized nature of these technologies, the opportunity is for us as citizens to push for individuals to do more local stuff—atomizing education back to the individual. Facebook bought the company I mentioned that had exclusive contracts with museums. So Facebook likely owns the digital content to many of the great museums in the world right now. You’re going to have that struggle. That’s why advancing innovation and becoming aware of the dangers companies like Facebook and Google represent is key.
Innovating to Lower Healthcare Costs
We’ve got legacy systems like education and healthcare that don’t account for the way we live. I’ve complained that the government should spend more time shining a light on innovations that lower costs—telemedicine, low-cost blood tests, etc. Are we close to the place where we could package these technologies into a low-cost healthcare offering?
Awesome, timely question. Tomorrow we’re hosting a town hall at my building in Cambridge. Several hundred family practitioners are showing up who are tired of Obamacare, which is Big Insurance, Big Hospitals, and Big Pharma.
The question is: why is the cost of healthcare so high? It comes down to this: right now, a 50-cent hamburger is selling for half a million dollars. If you look at the healthcare supply chain, by the time a drug goes from the manufacturer to us, there is a layer of middlemen very few people even know about called GPOs—Group Purchasing Organizations.
GPO Corruption and Middlemen in Healthcare
These GPOs are the people behind the curtain. They write elusive contracts which allow kickbacks. Those kickbacks take a 32,000. These middlemen are allowed to practice legalized corruption. They control the entire supply chain. These guys buy half a trillion dollars’ worth of goods and they should be made illegal because of these GPO kickbacks. That’s the existing corruption Obamacare supported.
Personalized Medicine and Crisis Management
The second piece is unleashing innovation, which comes down to personalization. Everyone recognizes that every body is different. We have different genetics, likes, and dislikes. Medicine has to get personalized. Everything we have created until now is out of the wartime model. The entire healthcare model today came out of putting a soldier back on the field in the 1800s.
Florence Nightingale was a member of the Royal Society of Statistics. She found out that soldiers were dying not because of getting shot, but because when they went into the hospital in 1800, they went there to die. She created the modern healthcare system to put the soldier back on the field. Everything we do is crisis management; it’s not about prevention or preserving health. We need crisis management for surgery, but we also need the aspect of health care that deals with what food you eat and how you optimize your supplements.
How much privacy does the individual have to give up for personalized medicine?
We’re in the era of blockchains. There are new innovative companies where you can protect privacy and still transport information through blockchain. One of the companies I started, CytoSolve, came out of my work at MIT where we can mathematically model the human cell on a computer—not just the physical cell, but the chemical reactions. Very much like how we build an airplane today, we build it on a computer first. This breakthrough allowed us to model Alzheimer’s and pancreatic cancer. We discovered a combination therapy for pancreatic cancer and got FDA allowance in a record 11 months.
A New Model for Health Insurance
The real healthcare model looks like this: you get crisis insurance for 50 or 100 bucks where we as citizens deal directly with the reinsurance companies like Lloyds of London. The rest of it should be direct pay where possible, where you choose the best technologies and practitioners. We need to put healthcare back in the responsibility of the citizen and not let Big Insurance and Big Pharma tell us what to do.
If I asked you to drop everything and draw up a white paper describing how to use what we have now to get a low-cost health insurance option that lowers costs by 50%, is that doable?
In about two weeks, we’re going to be putting that white paper up on our website. I swear I didn’t know that! You read my mind. I went into this as a systems guy and a scientist. It took me until the beginning of this year to figure out what was going on.
The big thing I couldn’t figure out is: why do health insurance companies keep raising premiums? Why don’t they want to lower the cost? A friend of mine, a direct-pay doctor in Texas, said, “Shiva, don’t you get it? They’re selling a 50-cent hamburger for $500,000.” The insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost. We buy insurance because we’re afraid of a bad accident, but you shouldn’t have to pay that much. They’ve inflated the cost of drugs and hospital stays because there are no market controls on it.
The Problem with Medical Education and Debt
Part of that white paper addresses that we don’t produce enough doctors. In the last 20 years, we’ve lost nearly 250,000 primary care physicians. A doctor comes out of four years of undergraduate, four years of medical school, and four years of specialization with 12 years of debt. We should eliminate that four-year undergrad requirement. You should be able to go right from high school to medical school; it should be a vocational-technical job.
My sister went to Harvard Medical School, and she can’t even work as a family care practitioner because the regulations Obamacare introduced are ridiculous. Good, well-meaning people go into medicine but can’t practice one-on-one medicine anymore. We have to get rid of the corruption of these GPOs and bifurcate the insurance model into crisis insurance and out-of-pocket pay. I spend $800 a month on premiums and I don’t even see the doctor that much. I’d rather spend it on preventative things like acupuncture.
Big Tech, Free Speech, and the Digital Postal Service
What do you think about big tech companies and shadow banning?
I’ve been a fighter for free speech. We fought Gawker Media, which was all about untruthful speech. When the founders set up America, they had the First Amendment and the Second Amendment which go hand in hand. The way they defended the First Amendment was through the Postal Service.
When the country was set up, we didn’t have telephones. The way you communicated was through letter mail. Franklin and the founders created the Postal Service. It worked for pennies, and here was the key: it could not be tampered with. If anyone opens your mail, it’s a 20-year sentence in prison. Think about that amazing infrastructure.
In 1997, I went to the Postal Service and told them they should be involved in electronic mail. I said they should offer public email and social media services that would be protected by the laws that govern postal mail. They laughed at me. In 2011, the Postal Service was going out of business. I wrote a scathing article in Fast Company saying they could be making money and protecting citizens. The Inspector General reached out and I wrote white papers for them, but they haven’t done anything.
Today, Facebook, Google, and Apple… if you take someone’s Apple ID, Facebook ID, and Gmail ID and put them in a database, you know what anyone is doing at any point. That kind of collusion is possible. The guys in Washington don’t even understand what these companies are doing.
The solution is a 21st-century version of the Postal Service. We already have the infrastructure. We pay a little bit, maybe 50 bucks a year, but that electronic communication is governed by the laws of the United States. You can’t be shadow banned, monitored, or interfered with.
Closing and Campaign Info
That is one of the most interesting ideas I’ve ever heard. There’s no other way. We can try to enforce regulations, but we already have an existing infrastructure that just needs the dust taken off it. I would love to have your voice in the Senate. I want more of what you offer in our government. What’s the name of your website?
Anybody who wants to support us, go to shiva4senate.com with the numeral 4. We want to make our win very participatory. I don’t want people on the sidelines. Everyone can go get one of these magnetic signs—we call it a “Road Warrior.” It says “Shiva” and it has the meme: “Only the real Indian can defeat the fake Indian.” We have 75 days in this election. If you want to help, get a Road Warrior sign, stick it on your car, and weaponize your car.
Thank you, Scott! Thank you so much, Shiva. I’m going to sign off now. I hope you liked this.