Watters: Bernie Sanders has never found an existential crisis he didn't like

8. The “AI worship” discussion is culture-war filler<br><br>Watters asks whether people in San Francisco are:<br><br>“Worshiping AI like a god.”<br><br>No evidence is presented—not a study, organization, quotation or representative survey. The subject functions as cultural bait: San Francisco is strange, technology workers are godless and delusional, and Fox viewers are sensible.<br><br>Calacanis responds by diagnosing unnamed people with:<br><br>“Delusions of grandeur.”<br><br>This is not analysis. It is speculative psychiatric labeling of an undefined group.<br><br>Some technologists do use quasi-religious language about superintelligence, salvation, immortality or building a machine “god.” That phenomenon deserves serious analysis as technological utopianism. Fox turns it into another opportunity to laugh at a cultural out-group.

The biggest investors in data centers are major technology corporations like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, alongside massive private equity firms such as Blackstone and specialized real estate companies.<br>DO YOU TRUST THESE ABOVE COMPANIES? 👆NOT ME

. Calacanis has a financial interest Fox does not meaningfully examine<br><br>Jason Calacanis is not a disinterested computer scientist appearing solely to explain technology. He is a venture capitalist, startup promoter and founder of LAUNCH, with extensive investments in technology companies.<br><br>That does not make his arguments false. It does mean viewers should be told plainly that he belongs to the industry that benefits from rapid deployment, abundant investment and comparatively light regulation.<br><br>Instead, Fox presents him as the neutral voice of technological reason while Sanders is depicted as an ideological opportunist. This is classic authority laundering: an interested participant is introduced as an objective expert, while the opposing side’s actual arguments are never presented.

A brutal analysis of the Fox News AI segment<br>Bottom line<br><br>This is not a serious examination of artificial intelligence. It is a polished propaganda segment designed to transform a complicated policy debate into a familiar Fox News morality play:<br><br>Bernie Sanders is the ridiculous socialist attempting to “control” technology.<br>Silicon Valley investors are the sensible adults.<br>Government safeguards are suspicious.<br>Regulation is probably a corrupt scheme.<br>Trump understands technological progress.<br>China is racing ahead, so America must not slow down.<br>Anyone worried about catastrophic risk is either hysterical, politically motivated or suffering from “delusions of grandeur.”<br><br>Some of Jason Calacanis’s technical observations are reasonable. But they are embedded in a fundamentally dishonest presentation that misstates Sanders’s proposal, trivializes genuine risks, omits the guest’s financial interests and replaces evidence with mockery and categorical assurances that no responsible expert could make.<br><br>1. The foundational lie: “Bernie Sanders is going to control AI”<br><br>Jesse Watters begins with:<br><br>“Bernie Sanders is going to control AI? Why?”<br><br>That is a straw man. Sanders has not proposed appointing himself America’s chief AI programmer or placing every AI model under his personal control.<br><br>The AI Data Center Moratorium Act of 2026, introduced by Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, proposes temporarily stopping the construction of new AI data centers until national safeguards are enacted concerning:<br><br>worker displacement;<br>public health and safety;<br>privacy and civil rights;<br>electricity prices;<br>water and environmental effects;<br>concentration of AI’s economic benefits.<br><br>One may reasonably oppose that proposal. A moratorium could be too broad, could slow beneficial investment and—if existing facilities are exempt—could unintentionally protect established technology companies from new competitors.<br><br>That would be a legitimate policy debate. Fox avoids it. “Bernie Sanders is going to control AI” is easier to ridicule than the actual bill.<br><br>2. Calacanis has a financial interest Fox does not meaningfully examine<br><br>Jason Calacanis is not a disinterested computer scientist appearing solely to explain technology. He is a venture capitalist, startup promoter and founder of LAUNCH, with extensive investments in technology companies.<br><br>That does not make his arguments false. It does mean viewers should be told plainly that he belongs to the industry that benefits from rapid deployment, abundant investment and comparatively light regulation.<br><br>Instead, Fox presents him as the neutral voice of technological reason while Sanders is depicted as an ideological opportunist. This is classic authority laundering: an interested participant is introduced as an objective expert, while the opposing side’s actual arguments are never presented.<br><br>3. He concedes the cybersecurity danger—and then minimizes it<br><br>Calacanis says AI agents are:<br><br>“Extremely good at hacking and making software.”<br><br>He describes experiments involving large numbers of agents looking for vulnerabilities. This is broadly credible. Advanced models can assist with vulnerability discovery, exploit development, reconnaissance, phishing, malicious code modification and the automation of portions of an attack.<br><br>He then says that defenders could deploy a thousand agents:<br><br>“To make your system impregnable and perfect.”<br><br>That is technological nonsense. No sufficiently complicated computer system is “impregnable and perfect.” AI can help defenders identify vulnerabilities, but it can also generate new attack surfaces, make mistakes, miss novel vulnerabilities and be manipulated by adversaries. Automated testing improves security; it does not create perfection.<br><br>The most revealing contradiction is that Calacanis acknowledges that AI agents are increasingly capable hackers but treats regulatory concern about those capabilities as hysteria. If the tools are powerful enough to transform cybersecurity, then careful testing, incident reporting, access controls and external evaluation are not irrational burdens. They are the predictable requirements of responsible engineering.

4. The nuclear discussion attacks a cartoon version of the risk<br><br>Watters asks how a computer program will:<br><br>“Launch a nuclear missile at Seattle.”<br><br>Calacanis responds that nuclear systems are air-gapped and suggests that reaching them would require an implausible thriller involving an infected thumb drive carried into a missile silo.<br><br>That is a grossly oversimplified account of AI-related nuclear risk.<br><br>The principal concern is not necessarily that ChatGPT independently hacks into a silo and selects Seattle. More plausible dangers include:<br><br>corrupted intelligence or early-warning information;<br>AI-generated deception during an international crisis;<br>automated cyberattacks against military-supporting infrastructure;<br>decision-support systems producing false confidence;<br>deepfakes impersonating political or military leaders;<br>compression of decision time during a possible attack;<br>interaction between autonomous weapons and nuclear forces;<br>human officials trusting unreliable machine-generated analysis;<br>malware introduced through contractors, maintenance systems or supply chains.<br><br>Air gaps are important safeguards, but they are not magical force fields. Human operators, portable media, maintenance procedures, contractors and connected supporting systems create possible pathways. Furthermore, the danger can arise before anyone reaches the launch machinery: a president could make a catastrophic human decision because AI-generated or AI-corrupted information falsely indicated an incoming attack.<br><br>The segment refutes the least plausible Hollywood scenario while ignoring the more credible pathways studied by national-security specialists.<br><br>5. “It won’t create bioweapons” is unjustifiable certainty<br><br>Calacanis states:<br><br>“It won’t create bioweapons.”<br><br>He cannot responsibly know that.<br><br>Present systems cannot independently produce a biological weapon merely by generating text. Creating one requires biological materials, equipment, specialized knowledge, laboratory access and the ability to overcome numerous practical obstacles.<br><br>But that does not eliminate the risk. AI could potentially help a malicious actor:<br><br>locate technical information;<br>compare pathogens;<br>troubleshoot laboratory procedures;<br>design or modify biological sequences;<br>identify suppliers and equipment;<br>automate portions of experimental planning;<br>lower the expertise required to begin dangerous work.<br><br>The correct conclusion is not that an AI-generated pandemic is imminent. It is that biological misuse is uncertain but sufficiently serious to justify capability testing, restricted assistance, monitoring and safeguards.<br><br>OpenAI itself evaluates advanced models for biological and chemical risk. The international AI-safety assessment also treats AI-assisted biological misuse as a genuine area of concern. Fox’s guest declares it impossible while the companies building the systems invest substantial resources in preventing it.<br><br>6. “China is racing, so we cannot slow down” is political coercion disguised as analysis<br><br>Calacanis says:<br><br>“The Chinese are going to speed-run to get the superintelligence, so President Trump is correct. We can’t slow down.”<br><br>This is the most dangerous argument in the segment. It converts uncertainty into an arms-race imperative: because a competitor might move recklessly, America must also move as quickly as possible.<br><br>That logic can produce a race to the bottom in which every government and company recognizes the risks but insists it cannot act unless everyone else acts first. The rational response is not necessarily unilateral surrender or an indiscriminate moratorium. It could include:<br><br>enforceable testing standards;<br>bilateral or international agreements;<br>prohibitions on autonomous nuclear decision-making;<br>incident-reporting requirements;<br>security requirements for model weights and data centers;<br>common red lines for biological and cyber misuse;<br>independent evaluations before deployment.<br><br>Even Elon Musk—whom the segment invokes as a voice of common sense—signed the 2023 letter requesting a pause in the training of systems more powerful than GPT-4. Fox conveniently omits that history because it complicates the narrative.

11. The propaganda methods<br><br>This segment operates through several recognizable techniques:<br><br>Straw man: “Bernie Sanders is going to control AI.”<br>Mockery before evidence: Sanders is framed as perpetually hunting for another “existential crisis.”<br>Interested expert presented as neutral: Calacanis’s venture-capital interests are not examined.<br>False binary: Either America races forward or China wins.<br>Selective skepticism: Sanders’s motives are questioned; Silicon Valley’s motives are not.<br>Argument from ridicule: Nuclear and biological risks are reduced to science-fiction plots.<br>Categorical reassurance: “It’s not possible” and “It won’t create bioweapons.”<br>Anecdotal culture war: People in San Francisco supposedly worship AI.<br>Psychiatric name-calling: Unnamed critics suffer “delusions of grandeur.”<br>Utopian promises: AI will lower prices, extend life and create abundance.<br>Erasure of labor: The bill’s central concern—worker displacement—is barely addressed.<br>Partisan conclusion embedded in the premise: Trump is “correct,” while Sanders is assumed ridiculous before his proposal is explained.<br>Final judgment<br><br>Not everything said in the interview is false. Calacanis is right that current AI cannot simply decide to launch an American nuclear missile. He is right that AI can strengthen cybersecurity as well as attack it, that regulation can protect incumbents and that AI offers enormous potential benefits.<br><br>What makes the segment propaganda is the arrangement of those truths around a fundamentally deceptive frame. Sanders’s actual proposal is withheld. The guest’s financial position is obscured. Genuine risks are replaced with absurd Hollywood scenarios. Speculation favorable to industry is presented as certainty, while contrary concerns are treated as hysteria.<br><br>The responsible position is neither “ban AI” nor “race ahead because China.” It is to pursue the benefits while requiring independent testing, transparency, incident reporting, worker protections, competition safeguards, environmental accountability and strict human control over military and nuclear decisions.<br><br>Fox does not conduct that debate. It stages one side as sane and the other as ridiculous—and calls the performance journalism.<br><br>Sources<br>Senator Bernie Sanders: AI Data Center Moratorium Act of 2026<br>Sanders’s explanation of the proposal, published by Fox News<br>International AI Safety Report 2026<br>International AI Safety Report: Executive Summary<br>Anthropic: AI-orchestrated cyberespionage campaign<br>OpenAI: ChatGPT Agent System Card and biological-risk evaluation<br>OpenAI: External testing of advanced AI systems<br>International Energy Agency: Data centers and electricity demand<br>Future of Life Institute: 2023 letter calling for a pause in giant AI experiments<br>Reuters: Elon Musk and other technology leaders signed the 2023 pause letter<br>Fox News: Video page for the Calacanis–Watters segment

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invested substantially in American Data Centers, a firm created to support artificial intelligence cloud computing and infrastructure. TRUMP Family Investments and Roles American Data Centers (ADC): Donald Jr. and Eric Trump joined the advisory board of Dominari Holdings and invested in ADC to back domestic AI and crypto computing power. American Ventures: The Trump sons hold advisory roles and ownership stakes tied to Dominari&#39;s American Ventures fund, targeting data centers, AI infrastructure, and nuclear energy.1789 Capital: Donald Jr.&#39;s venture firm has expanded past $3 billion in managed assets, heavily backing emerging tech, AI, and defense companies. <br>Foreign Partnerships: President Trump previously announced massive foreign-backed U.S. data center investment pledges, including commitments tied to Emirati billionaire Hussain Sajwani of DAMAC Properties.

-Big oil is an existential crisis because its disruption can collapse the entire civilization; due to their lobbyists having DC reject a diversified grid system.<br><br>-Big pharma is an existential crisis because if one cannot afford their healthcare then they will die.<br><br>-Trump is an existential crisis because he disregards the Constitutional order, engages in illegal wars, accepts bribes to receive pardons, protects the Epstein collaborators, disrupts international trade, destroys alliances, etc.<br><br>If you&#39;re trying to make Bernie sound like an alarmists then maybe don&#39;t start the video bringing up three topics he was right about all along.

Reminds me of Y2K. I was 16 years old and watching Godzilla at midnight on New Year&#39;s Eve. Nothing happened. My friend told me he went down to his basement while everyone was counting down. He cut the power to his house right when the clock struck midnight. Everybody screamed.

In a rare instance I agree with some these points! <br><br>This vanguard of old politicians is holding us back. <br><br>Yes the perspective of an 70+ politician provides wisdom; they should not be the deciding factor that dictates the future they won’t be a part of.<br><br>With that said: <br><br>WHY do we have an 80 year old head of state, a senator that can’t vote correctly, and a Supreme Court who most members are holding on long enough to give their favored party a new seat? <br><br>This video continues to confirm the reality we face. Drumpf is the only thing holding MAGA together. His days are numbered and you fail to realize the party will not survive once he goes

Hey Fox fools,<br>trump has made more stock trades while in office, than EVERY member of Congress, COMBINED<br>trump and his family, has made BILLIONS of dollars off the presidency.<br><br>You all ok with that?<br>Imagine what you all would say if Biden had done that?

Nevermind the 8 month old Middle East war and record diesel huh? <a href="UCkszU2WH9gy1mb0dV-11UJg/KsIfY6LzFoLM6AKanYDQAg"></a><a href="UCkszU2WH9gy1mb0dV-11UJg/KsIfY6LzFoLM6AKanYDQAg"></a><a href="UCkszU2WH9gy1mb0dV-11UJg/KsIfY6LzFoLM6AKanYDQAg"></a>

The biggest threat to us from AI will be posed by bad actors, terrorists and foreign states. So the democrats want us cripple our ability to develop the very technology that could protect from that threat and instead want to use it to ensure power hungry people in our own ranks are given total control over what we speak, see and hear. Meanwhile, our enemies will rolling full speed ahead. That is a feature, not a bug. The only thing the Democrats have ever gotten right was choosing a jackass as the symbol of their party.

Facts. Not Fox Baloney. <br><br>&quot;Free Palestine&quot; ----- The Two Most Important Words In The Entire Universe <br>💪💪💪☀️☀️☀️🤗🤗🤗❤️❤️❤️💙💙💙👏👏👏✊✊✊😎😎😎🗽🗽🗽👍👍👍💕💕💕✴️✴️🗣️🗣️🗣️🎉🎉🎉💯💯💯✅✅✅🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲⭐⭐⭐👻👻👻🦾🦾🦾👌👌👌😍😍😍🗽🗽🗽👍👍💕💕💕✴️✴️✴️🗣️🗣️🗣️❤️❤️❤️💙💙💙👏👏👏✊✊😎😎😎🤗🤗🤗🎉🎉🎉👻👻👻⭐⭐⭐💯💯💯☀️☀️☀️💪💪💪✅✅✅🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

Facts. Not Fox Baloney. <br><br>Bernie Sanders is the best president America never had. God Bless Mr Sanders. We love you<br>🤗🤗🤗❤️❤️❤️✅✅✅👍👍👍🦾🦾🦾👻👻👻🗽🗽🗽💯💯💯💕💕💕🎉🎉🎉😎😎😎💙💙💙☀️☀️☀️💪💪💪👏👏👏✊✊✊🗣️🗣️🗣️✴️✴️✴️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲😍😍😍⭐⭐👌👌👌🦾🦾🦾👻👻👻⭐⭐🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🗽🗽🗽👍👍👍💕💕💕✴️✴️✴️🗣️🗣️🗣️🎉🎉🎉💯💯💯✅✅✅😎😎😎✊✊✊👏👏👏💙💙💙❤️❤️❤️🤗🤗🤗☀️☀️☀️💪💪💪

“ Success does not cause inflation stupidity causes inflation.” - Donald J Trump.<br><br>The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate by 0.25% to a range of 3.75% and 4.00% in September 2026—marking the first rate hike in over three years—to combat stubbornly elevated inflation driven by rising global energy and oil prices.