David Bloomberg and Spencer G. Watson dissect Survivor Season 48’s "honesty, loyalty, integrity" (HLI) strategy—Kyle won despite abandoning it—while comparing zero-sum game tactics to politics, where voters may prioritize drama over stability, like Trump’s 2016 rise or JD Vance’s 2024 "weirdness." Democrats’ reluctance to counter aggressive attacks risks fueling conspiracy theories about collusion, echoing historical bipartisan backstabbing. Ultimately, the episode reveals how ethical stances clash with strategic survival in both entertainment and governance. [Automatically generated summary]
The Vaccination Station is a registered non-profit organization that promotes vaccines, universal healthcare and critical thinking.
It provides materials to support amateur and professional vaccine advocates, including a wide range of properly referenced infographics addressing topical issues in health and science.
The vaccination station also produces resources to help people improve their critical thinking skills and interpret information in a more structured, rational way.
You may be familiar with a book called The Real Anthony Fauci, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The vaccination station has published a response entitled In Defense of Fauci, which thoroughly refutes Kennedy's claims using robust scientific evidence.
Finally, the vaccination station has a podcast where you can hear interviews with doctors, scientists, authors and parents.
If you'd like to be interviewed, whether to share your experiences or promote your own content, please get in touch.
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that is driven by the neurodivergent urge to solve every problem by describing it more and better and more and better and more and better and more and better and more and better.
Okay.
Yeah, I saw that on Facebook and I told someone that listens that I would use that as a tagline at least once.
So there you go.
But now that you've used it once, you have to use it more and better.
I have to do it better next time.
Yeah.
And use it more and do it better.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I mean, that's the treadmill we climb.
Yeah, I'm Spencer, your host, and I'm here today again for regular listeners.
I'm here today again with a person you would recognize, David Bloomberg.
How you doing, David?
Good.
How are you?
You know, really good.
I'm happy to be talking to you today.
We're going to be very nice to each other today, aren't we, David?
We'll see.
Oh, good.
Oh, now that's good.
Oh, that gives me the opportunity to take the gloves off, too, you see?
Oh, yes.
Okay.
Right.
So I'm going to set this up.
Not everyone who listens to this podcast really enjoys Survivor.
Okay.
Let's just get that out there right away.
Well, it's to each their own, David.
They didn't come here for Survivor.
They came here for other stuff.
But we are going to talk a little bit about Survivor today.
But I promise, even if you don't, you know, really, you know, watch Survivor or anything, this is going to loop right into real discussion of another topic and it just maps on.
So just stick with us.
The first couple minutes are survivor talk and then it's survivor relating to other stuff talk after that.
So now that I set that up, before I forget, I have to remind everyone all the time that if you have any questions, comments, complaints, concerns about this podcast, you can send that email to truthunrestricted at gmail.com.
So for those who do watch Survivor, this season of Survivor was marked by a particular style of play that could be summarized as, in quotes, playing nice.
So it stemmed primarily from one single player.
His name was Joe, whose effect on the other players was so strong that even the players that were ready to backstab and betray ended up admitting to each other beforehand that they were going to do so.
Not always.
Well, not always, but we did see a particular example.
We saw two other players, Kyle and Camilla, admit to each other in what I thought was a particularly poignant moment that if they were both in the final four together or the final three together, that likely neither would win.
And therefore, each had the plan to make the other make fire at final four if they had the chance to make that choice in the hopes that they would get cut before the final tribal cancel.
And neither player, neither of those two players was upset about the other's impending betrayal, which if you knew the players, maybe isn't that much of a surprise.
But both understood each other's future decision.
And this is just kind of one example of how this permeated the game.
Ordinarily, we would see this, we would see two players of this type sort of guess that maybe the other would and kind of talk about it in sort of their moments where they talk to the camera, the confessionals, and just sort of think, yeah, if I was them, I would do this and I'm going to do that definitely.
And I'm, you know, but I won't say it to them, but I, because I still hope that maybe if they win, that they will take me to the end.
And because that's still a better shot than getting cut at the final four.
You know, I mean, so we'll stop here and just check in with you.
Your analysis of the game, of course, is far superior to mine.
But, well, you, you have so much more experience at both watching many more seasons than me, watching them far more often than me, going through all the other behind the scenes stuff sort of thing.
What's my take so far?
How am I doing on this final?
Yeah, I think that's generally correct that, you know, there was this idea this season, you know, of this approach that we call the honesty, loyalty, integrity approach, which is why I'm wearing the honesty, loyalty, integrity shirt today.
And so there have been some players historically who have tried to play survivor this way.
They lose.
And so.
So far, David, so far they've all lost.
Yes.
Yeah.
It's only been 48 seasons, 48.
Only been 48 seasons.
Only 48 in a row.
But several of them have made it to the final.
And still lose.
Well, I'm pointing out facts here, David.
Yes, I know, but I mean, some people post it.
And so are you.
I see.
Yeah, I get it.
Some people post that as comments in my videos or post-profits.
I see why you weren't willing to have in advance say that you were willing to play nice here, David.
I see the game you're playing here.
And, you know, some people say that.
Well, it got him to the end.
It's like, yeah, but getting to the end isn't the goal.
Winning is the goal.
Or at least it should be.
Not for everybody.
Some people, being nice is the goal.
And that's fine, but it's a game for a million dollars.
Well, I think sort of what you normally put it on your podcast, YX Lost, is that, yeah, that might be their goal, but then you shouldn't be upset when they don't win.
Right.
Right.
Because the goal of the game is to win the game, right?
So if their goal is to just be nice to other players and then they don't win, they achieve their personal goal and that's good for them.
Pat them on the back, and then also congratulate the winner of the game who backstabbed and cheated and did all the things you have to win and won, right?
Yes, yes, exactly.
And so there was this, it just was the right mix of players this season that it kind of just took over.
And even the people who did not believe in that at all joined up with them because they knew that it was the right thing to do.
You know, you don't want to get tossed out because you're seen as dishonest or disloyal.
So they just joined up and, you know, that way they could use the people who were being nice.
And in the end, that's what, you know, that's what the winner did.
That is what Kyle did was he, I mean, he's a nice guy, but he joined up.
He's got the voila's for the season, by the way, if you haven't seen it.
Yeah.
Kyle wins.
Kyle wins the season.
Kyle.
Kyle's the one.
Yes.
Joe, Mr. Nice Guy, didn't even get second place.
He got third place.
He got one vote.
And that one vote was from someone who voted for him for reasons other than the game.
So the but what Kyle did and Camilla, the one who went out in fourth place that you were just describing, Kyle in particular, was part of this nice alliance until he knew he had to make a move.
And he waited and waited and waited and had, you know, this very secret ally in terms of Camilla.
And then when the time came, he made the moves that were necessary to undercut the honest people.
And he won because of it.
Because of the way he ended up playing, which is what's always going to happen on Survivor.
You know, you can have all these people playing nice, but, you know, that's usually not what the jury wants to see.
Right.
So, I mean, when we look at the show itself, I think that, I mean, it's possible that Jeff Probst really wants there to be a winner like Joe eventually, who plays with the honesty, integrity, and loyalty, and does all the right things and doesn't deceive people.
And, you know, I mean, personally, I think that Jeff would hold that up as like the ultimate winner, the good guy, the Hollywood winner, because that's sort of the maybe not quite now, but certainly, you know, when I look back at my childhood in the 80s and early 90s, this was sort of like the Hollywood ideal hero, right?
The good guy who's doing things for the best and is incredibly noble all the time and wins at the end of the movie, right?
It's possible that he wants that, right?
And I don't know if he's ever really going to get it.
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, just from his discussion, maybe for those who don't watch Survivor, Jeff Probst is the host and showrunner.
Yeah.
So, in case, you know, people don't know who he is.
He's not a household name.
I mean, he should be.
But you would be disappointed to hear that.
But he might want someone like that.
He probably does.
But on the other hand, he knows, you know, just from discussions within the game, he knows it's a sneaky game.
knows it's a backstabbing game.
I find it funny that some people still try to say, oh, well, in the old days, it was honorable and people didn't lie and it was more, some will even go so far as to say it was more Christian and this.
And it's like the first winner was a gay nudist atheist.
Yeah.
Who lied his ass off.
Yeah.
So he never cheated, but he like I've heard some of the podcasts where he discusses strategies for the game and I was like, yeah, that guy has some interesting thoughts about ways that you could get advantages in the game.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, really interesting.
So, so yeah, it's it's you know funny when people try to harken back to the quote unquote good old days.
And then in, you know, right after that, the guy was like, oh, I'm going to be a nice guy.
And when I go to the final two, I'm not going to take this one guy who everybody hates and I will easily win.
No, I will show what a nice guy I am and take this quote unquote older woman.
And then he lost to her.
It's like, congratulations.
Good job.
You just showed why you don't play as a nice guy.
So I'm going to rattle off a bunch of questions about the nature of play here.
And we're not going to answer any of them.
Well, I know.
That's not like me.
We're going to direct people to your podcast and other podcasts on the network where you do that because that's where they discuss all those kinds of questions about survivor.
But all those questions are going to relate to what we're going to transition this to.
So I still have to ask them in order to make the transition work.
I'm sort of explaining the show as I'm doing it here.
Okay.
Well, it's a good thing you did because otherwise I'd have jumped in and answered each one.
Oh, I know.
I might still start to rein you in, David.
I might still.
I don't, I'm not even, well, I guess I can mute you.
I could, I could take you right off stage.
I could, I have the power.
We'll see.
I'm not obligated to play nice here, David.
So questions I would ask about this, and I think many of them have been already discussed in some of the, as I said, some of the media I've listened to from your podcast and others about that is, how do we think of this as watchers of Survivor?
Do we think this is good television?
Do we think this is the way Survivor should be played in future seasons?
Was this more boring than other seasons?
Did it give us some extra, like, I don't know, hope for humanity?
And, you know, I mean, all those questions, I mean, I would refer people to the RHAP network.
He has, I don't even know how many different.
Yeah, you could go to we know survivor.com and just look for me.
It's, you know, why blank lost.
Why blank lost?
That's an excellent one.
But I mean, he also has Rob Cestronino has himself and looks like at least a dozen other people also talking about this one show.
I'm not going to say he's overdoing it, but like, I'm just one guy just talk about this one thing.
I mean, it's all I need, Rob.
Why do you need a dozen people all talking about your show?
Everybody views it from a different perspective.
Okay, okay, David.
I mean, I get why he has your show.
I mean, that's two shows.
It's two is enough.
Like, okay.
It's not a dozen.
It's closer to a show.
I'll take a fight with Rob Cestronino and others.
It's closer to a half dozen.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, people, different people talking.
Yeah.
It's probably close to a dozen.
So anyway, but those questions are going to work directly to how we're going to transition this.
So as a matter of comparison, right now in society in the Zeitgeist, we're looking at our democratic processes right now and thinking about how much sort of hatred and spite and vitriol we have and should have in our politics.
So should our politicians play nice with each other?
Should politicians of opposing parties treat each other as colleagues in parliament or Congress?
Or should they spit venom at each other when they meet?
If we want survivor to be good TV by having the players use every advantage possible, then do some people also want politics to follow suit?
Do some people vote for the candidate that will give the most surprising outcome rather than the most stable outcome?
Do some people vote in such a way that gives them good television rather than a good nation?
So these are the discussions.
These are the questions we're going to discuss today and reflecting from the way we look at survivor in that same way, or maybe that we want to do it in a different way, right?
I mean, most of those questions that I just rattled off were very close reflections of what I had said before.
Should we look more positively at our world if our politicians are getting along, even if they're of like opposite political parties?
Yeah.
So first take here, David, take us away.
What's your first thoughts on this?
I mean, my first take, and really it's an overarching take, is that survivor is a game.
Okay.
And the things that you can and should do in a game are different than the things you can and should do in real life.
One, if I can interject right along this line, one might also point out, as you do all the time on your podcast, that in the game of survivor, there's only one winner by design.
And in the game of life, it's possible that we all get advantages or disadvantages based on what the politicians that are running things do.
Right.
Right.
So it's the dynamics are also drastically different between these two.
Survivor is a zero-sum game.
If I win, you lose.
You know, there's no two ways about it.
There's no splitting it either.
There's no agreement to share it at the end.
One person gets it.
Yes.
Yeah.
And so the things that are done on Survivor should be very different.
Like, I would not advise people to, you know, backstab their closest friends in normal, everyday life.
It is not a good way to go about things.
Well, okay, but should the politicians backstab each other?
That's the real question.
Well, right.
But I'm just saying, you know, to start with, I think we have to separate people.
In game, everyday life.
I mean, it's the same thing if you're playing poker with somebody.
We shouldn't live our ordinary lives the way that we might play Survivor.
Yeah.
That's definitely true.
Right.
And some people don't understand that.
I mean, the people who go in wanting to play honest, loyal, integrity games, they don't understand that difference, some of them.
There's no context switch for them, yeah.
Yeah.
And some people who comment on my videos and stuff don't understand either.
You know, one guy was like, posted, you know, I posted a video about Kyle and he was like, well, he lied.
I'm like, yeah, it's Survivor.
He's like, well, that's bad.
I'm like, have you ever watched Survivor before?
Your moral judgment pales in the comparison of his million dollar check.
Yeah.
And so it's, but it's similar to, you know, playing poker.
You know, if I go to a friend's house to play poker with my group of friends in a home game, they're still my friends, but in that moment, they are my enemies, and I am going to lie to them.
Within the context of the game, how you can do that.
And they are going to lie to them.
They don't represent other cars than you have, David.
That's just underhanded.
Yes.
But what's interesting is that's just, oh, sorry, you never bluff.
I'm sorry.
I don't want to be smirked.
But what's interesting is when that same group of friends would, let's say, go down to Mississippi and play in a casino, we might be sitting at the same table.
We would still be playing against each other.
And I don't want to say we soft played, but maybe we play a little differently when it's me and one friend and a table of eight, other people, because now it's us against the world.
I mean, we still win individually, but you can tell that it's like, okay, we're playing a little differently than when it's just the friends themselves.
And so, you know, it is, it's an interesting situation that comes up.
But in a, you know, getting back to the whole game situation, you know, no matter what it is, no matter what game it is, if I'm playing risk, that doesn't mean I think that my government should invade countries just to take over the whole world.
But what if it's to your advantage that you raid the country?
Well, it depends on what advantage it is.
minerals um i mean many precious minerals that are worth a lot of money And for that matter, you know, mining jobs for the minerals.
I mean, these in older days, yeah, I think they would have.
You know, these days, I would like to think were a bit more civilized than that.
Right.
So you would give up an advantage because.
Oh, okay.
Interesting.
Yeah, okay.
Hold on.
I can make a note of that.
Yes.
But yes, getting to how that works in politics, I think there was, well, I have a combination of answers.
I think there was a time when, and it wasn't that long ago, when people in different parties could be somewhat friendly and collegial with each other.
Okay.
I do not think that is necessarily the case right now.
And I think part of the problem that some of the longer serving Democrats have is that they don't realize those days have passed us by.
Yeah.
Because they were serving in a time when, for example, if you live in another state, which almost everyone does, and you have to go to Washington, D.C. to represent that state or represent that district, you know, not everybody buys a house or a condo or something like that.
And congressional salaries are not typically huge.
Of course, nowadays they can get money from other places.
But so there were plenty of stories that I'm aware of of like congressmen sharing a house where each had one room.
There were four of them.
And two might be Democrats and two might be Republicans.
They all lived in the same house.
Right.
You know, they didn't agree on everything, but they were at least getting along well enough that they could live together.
Do you feel that they had a written agreement as to how much of the fridge each could use?
Like, I want to, like, I want to dig into the story of these four people in the house.
Like, what kind of roommate rules would they have?
Would they have to write them down?
I feel like if they're all in Congress, I feel like they should write them down.
Well, nowadays, they'd stick cameras there and make a reality show out of it.
So, all the money.
They could all afford their own places at that point.
Right.
But then you'd lose the reality show.
So, you know, four other next season, you'd have just four others who hadn't made the money yet.
They'll make the money at the end.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, but and this is what we saw with situations like the Democrats saying, well, we don't want to do anything with the Supreme Court.
You know, we don't want to force the issue with the Supreme Court because then the Republicans will do it to us.
And then the Republicans are like, do it anyway.
Whatever.
Yeah, we're going to stuff the Supreme Court.
We're going to say, on the one hand, oh, no, we would never fill a Supreme Court seat in the last year of a president sitting there.
And then when Trump's about to go out the door, shove her in there.
Yeah.
Hurry up.
Hurry up.
Get it done.
Yeah.
And you see it with things like the filibuster.
Now, as of this moment, the filibuster still exists.
But there have been times, even for what many would consider life or death situations, where the Democrats, when they controlled the Senate, would not get rid of the filibuster.
And what they always said was, if we do that now, then the Republicans will do the same thing when they're in charge.
And my response was always, if you don't think they're going to anyway, you're kidding yourself.
Right.
If I'm catching you right, it seems like you're describing an unlevel playing field because one side is willing to skirt closer to the edge of the rules or maybe even a little past them, while the other one is sort of, well, being more like playing nice, right?
I mean, that seems to be what you're describing.
And then therefore, because they're willing to do that, they're willing to play in that way that's more underhanded, they're gaining advantages in this thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They're doing, you know, so if you could put up my image there, this shirt that I'm wearing, the honesty, loyalty, integrity shirt.
This is what it says on the back.
Scheme and plot.
Because that's what you do behind people's back on Survivor.
Yeah.
Is you scheme and plot.
You could be honest, loyal, and have integrity to their face, but you scheme and plot behind their back.
Behind their back, you can take that down now.
And that is what, I mean, I would say Republicans aren't even bothering to do it behind anyone's back.
You know, they're doing it in full view.
Yeah.
You know, they don't even care.
Now, if Democrats were in charge, the Republicans would say, oh, no, we would never do that.
How could you think of doing such a thing?
And that sort of thing happens in Illinois, where the Democrats are in charge and have super majorities.
And the Republicans just sit there and say, you know, the Republicans in Illinois are like, oh, it's so terrible that they're doing this.
They're not listening to us.
They're doing this.
They're doing that.
Meanwhile, ignoring the fact that their own national brethren are doing the exact same thing.
Yeah.
So we're going to go straight into we're going to do a thought experiment here, David.
Okay.
I very, I very specifically did not prepare you for this.
Did not tell you in advance what the thought experiment would be.
Okay.
Because I'm not playing nice.
Are you surprised?
I am.
You're surprised that I'm not playing nice?
Oh, okay.
Good.
Good.
It worked.
Okay.
So let's see if I can set this up properly.
So let's say that, I mean, all thought experiments are hypothetical.
So in this hypothetical thought experiment, you are the Democratic presidential candidate in an election.
It doesn't matter which one.
And your opponent is someone who is very, very bad.
And just for the sake of whatever, they're not the incumbent.
They're just, they're just, you know, it doesn't matter who the current president is.
You're running for president, two non-incumbents, but the other one is notably bad.
And not just as bad as in.
We could just randomly name him like VJ Dance.
Yeah, sure.
That's a good one.
Yeah, yeah.
I was going to say something like Toronto Dump or something, but yes, VJ Dance also works.
So, and they notably have a lot of social policies that will be terrible for many people and not just terrible, but like cataclysmic.
Potentially people, you know, dying in the tens of thousands by the things that this person is, you know, likely to do as president.
So the stakes are high.
Stakes are very high.
And in this thought experiment scenario, it doesn't work quite the same as the current U.S. elections do.
In contrast or in stark contrast to how U.S. elections work now for president, the debate is of utmost importance.
Okay.
We're going to say that you vote like the next day.
You debate, and then that's the last you hear from the two candidates.
You vote the next day based on what happens.
That's a really hypothetical situation.
Yeah.
Hey, I'm allowed to make the thought experiment whatever I like.
But it's so that there's one moment that's the key moment, all right?
So you are facing off in a debate against VJ Dance.
So, David, in the day before, what do you do to prepare?
I mean, I let me give you some options.
Let me give you some options.
I know this was multiple choice, but yeah.
Well, okay, let's say, okay.
Do you have, you know, do you find a way to spike his coffee with laxative before the debate?
I mean, it's not, it skirts the line.
It's not really illegal.
It's maybe some kind of immoral, but it's.
Oh, it's illegal.
That would be illegal, yes.
Well, okay, okay, all right.
Well, I don't know, maybe, but it's not going to kill him.
It's, it's just, it's just a laxative.
Maybe he needs a laxative.
Like, I mean, right, but do you do that?
No.
No, why not?
Mostly because, you know, if you can be hypothetical, so can I. I'm already ahead 90 to 10 just because of my winning personality.
And so I don't.
I'm the one making the thought experiment.
It's deadlock.
Deadlock 50-50.
Every advantage is going to count here.
I mean, the problem is.
I mean, he's going to be locked on stage.
He can't go anywhere.
What's he going to leave?
He would have to.
Well, I mean, like, and if that could save all those tens of thousands of lives because you made him look bad, I mean, why wouldn't you do it?
Did you happen to be poor candidate if you don't do it?
Did you happen to watch recently a particular show on Peacock Network?
I don't know many shows on Peacock Network.
It's the one all of a sudden I'm blanking on the name of the show.
It is...
No, no, no.
It is.
Hold on, then I will tell you.
Pokerface.
No, no, I've heard of this show, but I've never.
Okay, there was literally the plot like two weeks ago that someone got mad and wanted to embarrass not a politician, but someone who kept winning an award.
Oh, yeah.
And so wanted, so spiked his drink with laxative.
Okay.
And so that he would have to run off the stage.
It's the sort of thing that was a juvenile prank in the 80s and now is frowned upon more than that.
Yeah.
Right.
You know, and people say you shouldn't spike drinks because of the other things you can spike drinks with, which are much more dangerous.
Yes.
You know, you could probably make a case for this if you were ever had to bring the court.
You're like, you know, I was just trying to save tens of thousands of lives, Your Honor.
I mean, it was an important election.
I mean, that's, but that circles back to the reason why, no.
One of the main reasons why no.
There is no such thing, despite what people think, there is no such thing as a conspiracy that will hold.
So someone will find out about that.
Right.
Okay.
Well, and you shouldn't do it because you get caught.
Interesting answer.
Interesting.
I mean, yeah, you get caught.
So I want to win the presidency.
Yeah.
But once you're president, who cares if you get caught?
They won't know.
I mean, the elections tomorrow.
They'll never know.
Well, I mean, that's, you know, assaulting your opponent in a normal world is the sort of thing that would get you kicked out of the presidency.
Okay.
Maybe not in the Trump world, but in a normal world.
Right.
But if you're not willing to, you know, get your knuckles dusted a little bit, you know, then maybe you're not the right candidate, David.
I mean, you need a candidate that's going to do whatever it takes to win, right?
Isn't this the case that we should be willing to, you know, like, like, what if it was another thing?
What is another thing that wasn't illegal?
Let's see if I can come up with one that's underhanded but not illegal.
Okay, here's one.
Let's say just because that you know what one of his pets looks like because of whatever.
And then you know, you find another animal that looks remarkably like that pet and then you send a picture to him just before the debate that makes it look like you've kidnapped his pet.
So you haven't, but it just makes it really look like it to bother him, to knock him off his game, to like these people.
These are the care about other humans.
They're not going to care about a pet.
Well, I mean, I hate to shoot down your hypothetical with reality, but I mean, JD Vance is out there insulting and attacking anybody who's not white, and his own wife and kids are not white.
So, you know, a pet is not going to matter to any of them.
And anyone who is going to be out there doing, you know, instituting policies to kill tens of thousands of people is a sociopath.
Well, E.J. Dance.
They, you know, want to make the people that they like live.
I mean, they're not sociopathic to the people.
No, it's not people that they like.
It's people that support them.
Well, okay.
And even those people.
I mean, look at it right now.
How many articles are there every day interviewing people who voted for Trump saying, well, this isn't what I voted for?
Yes, it freaking is what you voted for.
Well, you were just too dumb.
You were just too dumb.
Or you didn't want to admit that this was what you were voting for.
Or they got grifted.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, because there is a con man element there.
But, okay, let's change the thought experiment just a little bit.
Let's say that you aren't running for president.
Let's say you are you and someone else is running for president.
This exact same scenario, though, it's the night of the debate, and then the very next day, the U.S. votes.
This is the event that really, you know, and then the Democratic candidate does one of these underhanded things.
Oh, I thought you were going to tell me I was the caterer and I have no option to do it.
Okay.
No.
Do you still support them ahead of the problem is by that point, you said the vote's happening the next day.
Well, yeah, yeah.
But for some reason, you know, or you strongly suspect that this underhanded thing has happened.
Yes.
Okay.
Because of the greater good.
The greater good.
Okay.
In that case.
But you can still do it another way.
Where, fine, somehow I have this special magical knowledge.
I saw it happen.
Yeah, yeah.
You have the powers of Colombo and you were able to, while watching the television, you could tell that this is happening.
You're like, no, no.
And you tell your wife and she thinks you're crazy because whatever.
But you could see that this is happening this way.
And then how it turns out proves you right.
Yeah.
So you know because you have Colombo powers.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, the other thing is, are people really going to not vote for him just because he had to dance around on stage a little bit?
But some people might.
If 2% think he looks foolish and votes the other way, that tips the scales, right?
Yeah.
I mean, the other option then is let the Democrat win and then turn in the information and presidential immunity, baby.
No, presidential immunity only applies once you're president for one thing.
At least in theory.
Try that one out in court.
Yeah, go ahead.
Well, it's a Democrat, so the Supreme Court.
and get me the supreme court if they're willing to if they're willing to spike a drink um yeah i don't know then you know then you turn over the information after the election and uh either let them get punished and have handed over to the vice president or you know whatever happens let let the courts or the electorate at large decide.
But as a single person with this all-knowing information.
Columbo powers.
Yeah.
In this very strange hypothetical.
All hypotheticals are strange and judging minds.
You don't realize how special you are.
I normally, when people ask me hypotheticals, I say I don't answer hypotheticals for just this reason.
Well, I have you trapped.
I'm not playing nice today, David.
Yes.
Yes.
I have you cornered.
Yes.
But the overall point is that we are getting to a point where not only are we willing to, more willing to accept if we are willing to act honorably, we might still accept another person acting dishonorably in order to get a better outcome.
But some of us might even expect them to be dishonorable if that's what it takes to avoid the worst outcome.
Right.
And I think that we're getting to that point in our political discourse where we think about, you know, if, you know, this last U.S. presidential election, Trump is running a lot of negative ads and Kamala is taking a lot of heat for not running as many negative ads.
Right.
It's, I mean, that's, that's, you know, encased in this same idea that the Democrats have to be ready to, you know, fight bare knuckle on this thing.
You know what I mean?
They have to, they have to, you know, be willing to do this.
And a lot of the things that they, a lot of the little things they did to try to mock the other side were lame and stupid and without a lot of effort, right?
I mean, I didn't think that.
I think a lot of the things that they did really got to the other side.
And then the Democratic strategist came in and said, oh, stop doing that.
You have to stop doing that.
And listen to us because we're well-paid strategists.
Tim Walz and his their just weird thing was an interesting moment, right?
Because that lasted about a week and it ramped up and it really seemed to be doing something.
And then I think you're right that some other people came in, whoever they were.
We call them just Democratic strategists.
They're people behind the curtain to us, right?
Someone must have said something that they claim to have known based on something.
And then, you know, that all seemed to change.
The messaging all seemed to change, right?
But that's also part of this discussion is that they went more towards sort of a playing nice approach.
They were still doing other things, but their just weird stuff was definitely not playing nice.
It was sort of a it was an attack that was, I mean, it does put it in this weird gray area because Tim Walz is sort of a notably nice guy.
Like it's hard to imagine him being not a nice guy.
Although, I mean, to me, we had this discussion.
Minnesota and Minnesotans are very Canadian.
Like when I watched Tim Walz speak, I feel like I know that guy.
And I feel like if you got in a, you know, the wrong discussion with him in a bar, he'd throw down with you.
That's my feeling.
Like, you know, he's not so nice that he's just going to like, no, no, you be, I'll be the better man and walk away.
Like, you know, I believe he just recently gave a speech.
If he's not a politician and he's just in a bar and it's, it's about the hockey game or whatever and it gets heated.
Yeah, he's, he's not going to hesitate to throw punches back.
Well, I'm not going to not throw first, but, you know, yeah, yeah.
Like, that's the feeling I get, right?
That he's not so nice, but I still consider that a nice guy, right?
He's not, he's not overtly trying to make people uncomfortable just for the sake of it, right?
But so, so his moment where he starts, I think that started at the, at the, uh, if I remember, that, that started at the Democratic National Convention, right?
He did his speech and he said that, I think, for the first time there.
Yeah, I don't remember.
They're just weird.
And that was, or maybe it was like the day before or something.
There was like she got picked and then she picked him as the, as a candidate.
And then that happened.
That was all in quick succession, right?
Right.
And he did say that in front of a crowd, and I'm pretty sure it was, if it wasn't at the convention, it was really, really close to it.
And that picked up right away.
But like, like even that line of attack, that's like a nice guy's denigration of the other side.
You know what I mean?
He didn't say they're all fucking nuts.
He said they're downright weird, which is like the most Minnesota way to say they're all fucking nuts, right?
Like, like, so to me, that was an interesting thing, but it was definitely on the attack side.
It was on the they're going to have to defend the weird shit they do.
And they were bad at it.
They were notably bad at it.
Everything that the Republicans are trying to do to say, we're not weird.
We do this thing.
And it's like, oh, no, man, that's so weird.
Like, you know, you had JD Vance just going into a store to, you know, buy a, I don't know, coffee and a donut or whatever.
And he does it in the most weird way.
You're like, no, man, no, you are so weird.
Like, I don't know how to tell you, but you are so weird.
Oh, yeah.
I don't know why your handlers aren't like telling you, don't, don't, don't do that, man.
Like, that's not, that's not how normal people do this.
They're going to think you're weird.
Like, and so it is this strange moment in our political time where you have sort of one side that's trying to be nice, trying to be as nice as possible and play nice.
And the other side notably just doesn't care about that, is willing to tear down all the posters that say play nice, right?
And I think it goes back to, again, the same people I was talking about earlier on.
These Democratic strategists who have been there forever and they are still playing by different rules.
And they are still, I mean, to be frank, they get paid whether you win or lose.
And so, and I'm not saying, you know, they don't want to win, but like they keep getting jobs even when they lose.
So, you know, they keep trying the same thing.
When you have a nutcase screaming, they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats.
Yeah.
You need to jump on that.
You need to, you need to jump on that and jump on him, you know, and everything else bizarre that they are doing, you need to be putting that out there.
And instead, they were playing this weird defense where they just I think, you know, they, I mean, it's hard to say for sure.
I think some of them were getting a little high on their own supply.
And I don't mean like Elon Musk.
No, no, no.
I mean, I've gotten that impression from the Democratic Party a lot.
Like as a Canadian watching what they do, I mean, this, this was part of what I think was happening in 2016.
They saw that their opponent would be Donald Trump.
And I think they didn't look at the primaries as much as we need to pick the best candidate as we get to pick whoever we think is going to be the next president because obviously whoever we pick is going to win.
That seemed to be more the way they approached it.
And I think.
Well, I mean, even in the primaries, nobody thought Donald Trump would win the primaries.
Well.
Well, towards the end, it was looking clear they weren't.
In the beginning, they weren't.
But after Super Tuesday, I think they were like, no, this guy's very likely going to get it.
Right.
But by then, the candidate was clear also on the Democratic side.
Well, yeah, but still, that's how they looked at it.
And I think, like, it's not that doing it a different way would have made someone else the candidate.
I think the way the attitude that the Democratic Party and all of the various people that were doing the talking for them, all of their attitudes collectively, led people to think that, oh, they think they already have this and that they don't need our support as voters.
They just get to pick within their own party who's going to be president.
And that sort of bled through.
I mean, we saw that.
That was an impression that a lot of Canadians had of that election at the time was that the Democratic Party wasn't working as hard to win votes as they were just to, in their mind, and as they thought, let Donald Trump lose votes and they just, you know, elevate their candidate.
To be fair, what sane person in that year could think that Donald Trump would win?
I thought Donald Trump could win.
Never in a million years.
I thought it because I had seen the way.
I did say what sane person, by the way.
So just saying.
Oh, gloves are coming off, David.
Wright.
Me in the corner of the ice right now.
Yeah, I mean, to me, and this circles back to another question that I have that I did slip in earlier with my onslaught of questions, but it's a thing that I think is sort of happening among some voters.
There's some subsection of voters who are doing a particular thing.
They are voting for good television rather than for a stable nation.
They're looking at two candidates, one of them as exciting and one of them as boring.
And that's the thing that they see.
And that's this is swaying some voters.
I mean, I'm sure you could find someone out there who voted this way.
Okay, I could find two million.
No.
You don't think so?
No.
Start counting.
Go.
I think you're talking to the wrong people with respect.
Like, I think there are people who do this, who look at the situation and go, one of these is more exciting and the other one is boring.
I mean, exciting and boring.
And in America, I should have the exciting president.
I mean, they may be faithful and they shouldn't do that.
They may say that.
But then I think it often comes down to a much simpler reason.
I don't want the black woman to be president.
Well, okay, but they, I mean, they may cover it.
There's a lot of other beasts.
Some might have also said they didn't want the white woman to be president, right?
Well, right.
But it's, you know, some of them might have said, I don't want the, you know, extremely, extremely old guy to be president.
Maybe I only want the extremely old guy to be president.
But I don't think, like in a, in a race that that close, all of them that close, really, the Biden victory probably least close of them.
But, you know, it didn't take that many extra voters to think about it that way to side that way.
You know what I mean?
And I think there are people who were enthusiastic about Trump, not because of any of his policies, but because he was the exciting candidate.
I mean, exciting is, I mean, he was the loose candidate.
He tells it like it is.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, he'll, he'll tell those, you know, those other people.
He'll tell those woke people to go to hell.
He'll tell the other countries.
He'll tell China to go to hell.
He will.
But that's not for exciting TV.
That's being a bully.
That's exciting.
Why can't it be both?
But if you're narrowing it down to a reason, I really don't think there's that many that said, I want exciting TV.
Well, I want him to be a bully because I am a bully at heart.
See, in both of those scenarios, you're going to have the situation where it's difficult to ask the people that because those probably aren't the things they're thinking about when this is happening.
Like, I'm sure there were people who voted for him as a bully because they were bullies, but those people definitely aren't telling themselves, I'm a bully, grats to me.
I want other bullies to be in charge.
No, they're saying telling it like it is.
They're saying things like, I recognize his qualities because they're qualities I have.
You know what I mean?
Like they're reassuring like he's a, he's a, uh, uh, an entity that they know well because they're that entity, right?
Right.
And they're, they're sort of using cloak language to assist their own ego and self-esteem past a barrier sort of thing.
And in the same way that they're not, you know, if there's anyone who's doing what I say of they're voting for him because he's good television, they're not actually using those words either.
They're using some other words that simply would mean that.
You know what I mean?
They are the ones saying, oh, yeah, he's going to tell it like it is.
He's not going to take any shit.
He's going to, he's already made a fortune, so he doesn't have to do any other things.
He's already, I mean, he's so great because of whatever.
But these are people, and believe it or not, I saw people in Canada who were thinking this way too, who wanted Trump as president because that was going to be like awesome in some way that they couldn't describe with any other term.
You know what I mean?
And granted that they're not poets or political pundits of any kind, so that there might have been other words that they'd come up with if they practiced thinking about this and talking about it a lot.
But that's, you know, when you hear people say, it's because he's awesome, you know, it's possible that they just think, you know, that they want to live in exciting times, right?
That's not, that's a, that's a, not a curse, but a blessing to live in exciting times.
That, that old Chinese curse.
Yes.
Interesting.
And so like you get people like we are living in the nations that are kind of at the, in the best living condition that's ever been, you might get people who are bored in this way, right?
I think who want to be like, yeah, you know what?
Let's let's throw some spice into this stew because I'm not going to eat boring stew.
Screw that.
Let's throw some cayenne peppers in there.
You know, like I think there are some people who do this.
I mean, I, you know, I'm not in a pollster position where I can craft the right questions to kind of prove it.
And it might even still be difficult to prove because, again, they're not ever going to even admit that to themselves, probably.
And so how you show that is difficult.
But I wonder if, like, when we look at survivor versus this, like, we're in this interesting situation where we want survivor to be good television, right?
And politics isn't supposed to be good television.
Like, you shouldn't be voting for the madman just because you're like, yeah, but when he gets in, he's just going to do things that are just like, you won't believe what he's going to do.
Because, yeah, no one did believe what he was going to do, right?
But I think there's some cohort, however small, that do that and talk to each other about that and like bullshit over the water cooler about that.
You know what I mean?
And be like, yeah, but this is just going to be something incredible.
And that's all I really want is just something incredible to spice up my incredibly boring cubicle life or whatever.
You know, something else to talk about because regular politics is boring.
I don't think there are many of them.
Okay.
You know, I just, I have not seen anything to indicate that.
Okay.
You know, and I've, you know, in all the various people that I talk to from different aspects, whether they're Trumpers or not Trumpers, you know, I've I've never heard one of them even say something remotely like that.
Plenty of other stupid reasons, but not that one.
All right.
All right.
Well, we'll agree to disagree for now on that.
But I do have another question of note that we need to get to.
So you've probably heard about the idea of controlled opposition.
Now, I think we haven't like talked about it a great deal on this podcast ever.
I think it's come up briefly once or twice, particularly when we talked about psyops.
But controlled opposition as an idea is the idea that politicians don't really oppose each other.
That it doesn't matter who you vote for.
They're all just sort of puppets on the string of some other mastermind.
I mean, this idea of controlled opposition goes along with grand unifying conspiracy theories like the Illuminati, right?
Or what have you.
You know, George Soros owns them all because of, you know, he somehow has enough money to pay them all to do all the things that he wants them to do or whatever, right?
The evil billionaire can, you know, can co-opt them or whatever.
Usually these narratives are not very, not very cohesive, not very self-cohesive.
Like they don't make sense internally.
There's no true internal logic to them because always in them, there's still some politicians who escape the controlled opposition.
And that's not clear why that would be the case if there was such a thing called controlled opposition.
But there is a sort of, some people have this idea that the political left and the political right are quote unquote two wings of the same bird, right?
This is sort of an idea that's floated among conspiracy.
Yeah, among people who believe in conspiracies, that the deep state is just running the show at the end of the day and that it doesn't really matter.
That's just political theater of some kind and that's just a sideshow, right?
It doesn't really matter because at the end of the day, they're going to do what the evil entity behind the curtain wants them to do.
So when we look at playing nice in politics, do you think that when we were in an age, like we're not really in so much of an age now where we're kind of playing nice and getting along and that the people of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, for example, are considering each other to be colleagues in Congress who just happen to be of different political parties?
We don't think they're kind of in that camp now, but they definitely used to be.
There was a time, you know, in past ages where they were less politically divisive and probably thought of each other more like colleagues, right?
Do we think that age where they acted in that way and thought of each other in that way, do we think having decades of them act that way lent itself to a world where people could more easily come to the idea that controlled opposition is real, that they were just two wings of the same bird?
Do you think that's possible?
I mean, when it comes to conspiracy nuts, anything is possible.
Right.
Well, okay, but is it possible that not everything that they come up with comes up in a vacuum?
That they, however errantly, still take some things that are real and twist them.
You know what I mean?
Like, is this like, and I'm not even using this as like a reason to like not play nice.
I'm just saying that is this a thing we should recognize about the nature of conspiracy ideas that some of them might have seeds of reality that get twisted and that this is one of them.
And that if it is, maybe this is something we can, additional knowledge we can add to the pile of things we might use at some point to like untangle this mess, right?
Like, do you think that's feasible, that this might be one of these little seeds of nuggets of truth that's at the bottom of a distorted reality?
Not really.
You don't think so?
No.
I think the whole deep state thing is simply, I mean, it's the normal conspiracy that there must be some greater power controlling everything.
Right.
But when they, when the first person was sort of coming up with this and telling other people and they were examining it in their minds, they were examining that versus what they were seeing, right?
It's possible that the first person that did it was a true grifter and didn't care what anyone thought.
But at some point, they had to show that idea to some other people.
And those people had to compare it with reality to see how much sense it made.
And probably that grifter didn't come up with the one idea because that's not how they work.
They came up with 10 ideas and one of them stuck, right?
So like this is one of the ideas that stuck.
Is it possible that when that person came up with the idea just because he wanted to grift, showed it to a bunch of people and some portion of those people compared that idea to what was happening in their world and said, you know what?
Maybe, right?
Based on something that they were seeing?
Like, I don't know.
Is this?
I don't think so.
I really don't.
No, I think that there's plenty of other things that they base baseless conspiracies on.
And, you know, whenever, even when they were acting more like it was just a job, right?
Yeah.
But even, you know, and this is what I was referring to earlier.
I don't remember what I said, but like, even if we go back to the founding of the country, you know, the founding of the country did not take place with political parties in mind.
They developed naturally.
Yeah.
You know, the original idea was, oh, we have the president, and then whoever comes in second is the vice president.
Yeah, they'll work together great.
And that quickly went away because they did not work together great.
And then we'll elect members of Congress and they will represent the individual regions and districts, etc.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
And I mean, you can see it even, you know, just watch Hamilton.
You know, why did Hamilton never get to be president?
There was a whole song about it.
Why?
Because he slept with a woman, you know, and they had the goods on him.
And they were willing because they were so mad at him.
You know, like they worked on a deal.
They worked on a deal to, okay, we move the capital here and he gets his banking thing here.
I'm presuming that, you know, my understanding is the show Hamilton pretty much, you know, got it mostly right in terms of many of those things.
So I have not done a deep study of Hamilton.
Nor have I.
Yeah.
By the way, the only thing I really know about Hamilton, I learned from drunk history lessons.
Okay.
Which was the episode about Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr going to a duel.
Okay.
I just thought it's hilarious, but I just thought you really were either you or your high school teacher were drunk in history lessons.
No.
But so the point is they could work together, but they also stabbed each other in the back.
I mean, you said it.
Why did Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton worked together for years and years and years, and then they ended up in a duel?
Yeah, yeah.
You know, yeah, people were willing to throw down at a drop of a hat for love reasons back then.
Yeah, yeah.
And so it, you know, even the founding of the country, you could have both of these things happening at the same time, working for the common good while also stabbing people in the back.
And I think that that's the situation.
You know, even the people who were sharing apartments or houses or whatever, you know, they didn't agree on everything.
They represented their districts or their states, and, you know, but they lived together for, you know, just to make it cheaper.
I don't know that we could find anything like that.
And if we did, it wouldn't be people like, you know, you're not going to find Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, living with a Democrat.
No, but she would shack up with Lauren Boebert.
Well, would she?
I thought they were going to each other.
That would be a reality TV show for ages.
Yes.
In fact, they should sell that.
They should, because money is the ultimate thing.
Yes.
And they'll make lots of money.
So, yeah, I mean, you know, we are in a current trend of crazier, you know, more insane politicians on the right.
But we'll see where it goes from here.
I don't think you're skirting the edges of the line enough, David.
I think I don't know.
I mean, you're giving away too much advantage.
I'm giving away too much advantage by not be willing to, you know, bend the rules.
I don't know.
Which rules?
All the rules, David.
All the rules.
All the ones you could possibly think of.
I mean, come up.
I mean, as a presidential candidate, you would also have teams of people also coming up with other rules that you might break.
Or Ben, sorry, Ben.
Yes.
I mean, just like the Republicans, right?
It just depends.
You put me, you know, you put me in a room with Elon Musk, and he might end up looking very much like he looked in a recent, you know, a recent press conference that he claimed his five-year-old did to him.
You know, but you know, I'm not in the room with them, so there's not a whole lot I can do.
Yeah.
Here's the thing, David.
And I don't wait till you hear the whole thing before you get insulted.
Then get insulted afterwards?
I still don't think you would do that because I think you would realize that it's not a winning strategy.
It wouldn't get you the win that you'd be looking for, and you would look for a different way to get an advantage.
But I'm not sure.
I'm not convinced that you would do that.
You would look to the goal.
If we're looking at that.
If you know anything about your podcast, you would look to the goal and say, if all I get out of this is a story about how I punched him in the nose or whatever, I don't know if I really won.
Maybe I can use something else to get a different advantage and get a different bigger victory.
I think, in my hypothetical, that's a big enough story right there.
I don't know.
I think there's bigger victories.
I think, I don't know.
It's hard to get bigger victories against the richest man in the world.
There's tricking him into punching you so you could sue him for millions of dollars.
Yeah, he wouldn't care.
Yeah, but you would get millions of dollars.
Do you know how much money people would pay me if they found out that I punched Elon Musk in the nose?
I don't know.
Oh, God.
It's difficult to say.
I don't know.
I mean, they're not offering money.
Just to be clear, I have not offering the money.
I'm not planning to do this.
Like, maybe if they really wanted that, they should start offering an advance, like, like probably illegal bounty.
That is probably illegal.
Tell it, raising money for someone to break the law is probably illegal.
Well, in my hypothetical situation, there would be like an MMA or something.
Well, okay.
All right.
Not that I'm any good at MMA.
I just think he isn't either, and he'd probably be high out of his mind anyway.
So, anyway, those are the pointed political questions I wanted to ask about.
You took a turn there that you didn't expect.
We're going to wrap this up, David.
We're going to wrap this up right now before we get any deeper into this.
You know, turn this into a, you know, what level of crime would you commit podcast?
I realize I've made a big mistake.
So we're just going to cut our losses on this.
So that's, like I said, those are the two bigger questions I kind of really wanted to ask was that, and I really want everyone else to kind of ask themselves.
And if they want, they can write in with their answers.
Is do you think that some people, some cohort, however small, vote for a presidential candidate based on how good the TV is going to be, how exciting their world is going to be versus how boring it's going to be?
Or do you think that in the past, having politicians of political parties, opposing political parties, sort of play nice led some people to the idea that, you know, some part of the idea of this two wings of the same bird of this controlled opposition.
And people can write that in if they like.
So you're just trying to get more people to support you.
I know what you're doing.
Yeah.
Yeah, David.
That's the name of the game.
This is the whole purpose.
So you're scheming and plotting in order to try to find a way to claim victory.
You say this as though it's not expected and part of the whole podcast game.
I don't understand this at all, which, by the way, we're about to pivot to.
Where can people find David Blueberg?
I only podcast with honesty.
I have nothing to say.
Speechless.
Totally speechless.
Wow.
If I'm ever on your podcast, this is going down.
I will remember this moment.
You were on the podcast one time.
Not on your main podcast.
Not on the main one.
I was on a third-party ponket.
That was neutral ground.
That was not your podcast and not my podcast officially.
That was very nice Matthew and his podcast, and he wasn't even there.
And this hadn't happened yet.
Oh, you're about to get hockey on you.
All right.
So where can people find you, David?
Well, the easiest way to find me is by going to linktree/slash David Bloomberg.
And you can find all of my different accounts.
You can find me directly on Blue Sky as at David Bloomberg.
You can find me posting mostly survivor-related material right now in terms of videos on YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram as at David Bloomberg TV.
And of course, like we mentioned earlier, you can go to we know survivor.com and find the why blank lost podcast that way.
Yeah, I listen to the why blank lost podcast.
I don't listen to very many of the others, not because they're not good, but mostly because I don't have time.
But yeah, I think they're all very good.
When I did have time, I thought Rob Setranino was an excellent podcast host.
I envy his ability to speak.
Let's just put it that way.
He's very good, very engaging.
Yes.
And you can find me in a couple places.
If you are a friend of mine on Facebook, you already have me there, and you don't need to find any more about me there.
But you can find me on Twitter at Spencer G Watson.
And you can find me on Blue Sky at Spencer Watson.
And again, you can find the email address for this podcast as just the name of this podcast at gmail.com.