Elon Musk & Don Lemon
PVP: Player v. Player Fact Check
Fuck Don Lemon, here’s the full interview with Elon Musk, which got his show cancelled on 𝕏 🍋 pic.twitter.com/mwbuvG6dY0
— Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) March 18, 2024
I watched the Elon Musk Interview with Don Lemon (linked above) and thought it would be a great opportunity to fact-check Lemon, as he stated multiple times throughout the interview that Elon Musk was lying. So let’s get to digging.
Statement #1
Musk: Old Twitter was a tool of the far left.
Lemon: You think it was far left?
Musk: Yes, I do.
Lemon: I actually got off the platform because I would get so much hate.
Fact Check:
It’s evident that the landscape of Twitter underwent a significant shift with Musk’s takeover, particularly in terms of political leanings and the dissemination of information. Initially, Old Twitter was often perceived as leaning left, a sentiment echoed by numerous articles highlighting conservatives’ relief at the change in ownership, juxtaposed with vehement outrage from left-leaning figures. This reaction begs the question: why such uproar unless the platform, previously perceived as under their control, was now transitioning to a space more aligned with principles of free speech?
For those who seek quantitative validation, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center sheds light on the transformation in Republican and Democratic usage patterns following Musk’s intervention. In 2021, a notable 60% of Republicans viewed Twitter unfavorably in its contribution to American democracy. However, by March 2023, this figure plummeted to a mere 21%. Conversely, among Democrats, the platform’s perceived positive impact on democracy dropped from 47% in 2021 to a diminished 24% in 2023.
Moreover, the study revealed an interesting trend: since Musk assumed control, Democratic users have become notably more inclined to disseminate misleading or inaccurate information compared to their Republican counterparts. In 2021, both parties were relatively evenly matched in this regard, with Republicans at 52% and Democrats at 54%. However, by 2023, while Republican misinformation decreased to 37%, there was a sharp rise among Democrats, soaring to 68% from their previous 54%.
In essence, the dynamics of Twitter underwent a palpable transformation under Musk’s stewardship, resulting in a recalibration of perceptions, behaviors, and perhaps even the very essence of the platform’s political discourse.
Sources:
Elon Musk’s uneasy relationship with the left explodes over Twitter takeover
After Musk’s takeover, big shifts in how Republican and Democratic Twitter users view the platform
Statement #2
Musk: The political donations of Old Twitter were 99% Democrat. Does that sound left-wing or right-wing to you?
Lemon: The Twitter donations?
Musk: Yes. You know when they look at donations from a company? If a company donates literally 99% of all donations onto Democrats, does that strike you as, a left-leaning or right-leaning company?
Lemon: Oh you mean the company donated, I understand what you’re saying
Musk: What I’m trying to tell you is that Twitter employees, people at Twitter their political donations were 99%, literally 99% to Democrats. That’s obviously an extremely left-leaning group.
Fact Check:
Prior to 2021, Twitter employees displayed a marked preference for Democratic candidates in their political contributions. In 2020, this preference was starkly evident, with over 98% of donations from Twitter employees amounting to more than $909,000 directed towards Democrats, while Republicans received a mere 1.53% of the contributions, totaling over $14,000.
Similarly, in 2018, Democrats received over 96% of donations from Twitter employees, totaling over $295,000, whereas Republicans garnered slightly over 3% of the contributions.
These consistent patterns underscore the clear inclination of Twitter employees towards supporting Democratic candidates in their political donations leading up to 2021.
Sources:
Twitter Total Contributions by Party of Recipient: Democrats v Republicans
Twitter employees continued massive donations to Democrats in 2022, records show
Statement #3
Lemon: Can we talk about the Great Replacement Theory now? Some of the things that you post, the Great Replacement Theory. You claim Democrats, President Biden’s immigration plan to open up the border, you said that they’re, the president is getting and Democrats are doing it to get more votes. Um, but undocumented immigrants cannot vote in federal elections so how is that possible?
Musk: Right. Well, you’re conflating two things. One is Great Replacement Theory, uh, the other is which I, I don’t subscribe to that. I’m simply saying that there is an incentive here. If uh, illegal immigrants, which I think, have a very strong bias to, at least everything I’ve read, a very strong bias to vote Democrat. The more that come in the country, the more that are likely to vote in that direction. It is in my view, a simple incentive to increase voters, Democratic voters. Yeah, so the question is how? There’s a few ways that this works. One is that. When the census is done, the census is based on all people in an area, whether they are citizens or not. So if there are a concentration of people who came here illegally in a particular state. That state will actually get an increase number of house seats. So the House Seat apportionment is proportionate to the number of people, not the number of citizens. So, the illegals overwhelmingly go to places like California and New York and the, if you just look at the math. If you look at the apportionment with and without illegals. I believe California would lose, I believe the blue state there would be a net loss of blue states of approximately 20 seats in the House. This also applies to the electoral college, so this also applies to electing the president. Because the same, the electoral votes are also done via apportionment, the same way that house seats are done.
Lemon: But the reason Elon, the electoral college is in place is to balance that so that that doesn’t happen. So what you’re saying about it is the exact opposite of the reason that the Electoral College is there.
Musk: No
Lemon: The Electoral College at this point. At this point now in our history gives people who are in smaller states and red states much more of an influence over our election than people who are in blue states. And the majority of the people in this country. That’s what the Electoral College does. It actually does the exact opposite of what you’re saying. It protects people who are in smaller states and people who are in red states. Red states because they tend to be smaller and less populous.
Musk: I think that statement, what you said is true, but what I said is also true. Which is that, if, as is the case a disproportional number of illegal immigrants go to blue states, they amplify the effect of a blue state vote. And the math, as I understand it, you can research this obviously very easily on it. It’s like pretty straightforward to research this. But my understanding is that there would be, that the democrats would lose approximately 20 seats in the House if illegals were not counted in the census. And that’s also 20 less electoral votes for President. So illegals absolutely do affect who controls the House and who controls the presidency. It does not affect the Senate.
Lemon: In blue states, you’re talking about? I don’t believe your information on that is right.
Fact Check:
The United States census, conducted every ten years, serves as a pivotal determinant in the allocation of House seats in Congress. Through this process, each state’s population is assessed, influencing the distribution of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. States experiencing rapid population growth garner additional representatives, while those with slower growth or decline may lose seats. For instance, following the 2020 census, Texas gained two House seats, while seven states experienced a loss of one seat each, including California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Apportionment, the process of dividing the 435 House seats among the 50 states, follows a structured methodology. Initially, the first 50 seats are automatically assigned – one per state. Subsequently, the remaining 385 seats are allocated utilizing the Method of Equal Proportions, established in 1911, which determines the order in which states receive additional seats beyond their initial allocation.
The census results not only impact congressional representation but also wield influence over each state’s delegation to the Electoral College. The number of House seats directly affects a state’s electoral votes in presidential elections, thus altering its political sway at both federal and state levels. For instance, Texas gained two votes in the Electoral College and Congress post-2020 census, while states like Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gained one vote. This redistribution of seats, driven by population changes from the census, directly shapes the number of electoral votes a state possesses.
The fixed total of 538 electoral votes remains constant, yet the distribution among states fluctuates every decade following census results. States may gain or lose electoral votes based on population shifts relative to other states, ensuring equitable representation. Noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, are counted in the census. The U.S. Census Bureau gathers data from all foreign-born individuals, irrespective of legal status, which implicitly encompasses unauthorized migrants in its estimates. This inclusion of illegal immigrants can notably impact the allocation of House seats among states.
According to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2020, if illegal immigrants were considered in the apportionment count, California, Florida, and Texas would each secure additional congressional seats beyond what their population alone would warrant. Specifically, California would gain two additional seats, while Florida and Texas would each gain one, underscoring the consequential ramifications of counting unauthorized immigrants on the distribution of House seats among states.
Sources:
2020 Census: Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives
Here’s How The 1st 2020 Census Results Changed Electoral College, House Seats
How removing unauthorized immigrants from census statistics could affect House reapportionment
Apportionment 101 For Students
New Census Numbers Mean A Political Power Shift For Some States
Statement #4
Lemon: Alright, so let’s talk about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It’s been a target of yours lately on X. There was a repost of Ben Shapiro that you claim that DEI is killing people specifically you point to medicine. You claim that DEI programs are putting people at risk. Do you really believe this to be true? And what evidence do you have to support it?
Musk: Uh, what I was referring to there, that if we lower the standards for doctors such so that they… if the test for a doctor is lowered then the probability of them making a mistake and killing someone is going to be higher.
Lemon: Wait say that again. I’m not sure I understand what you said. I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
Musk: If the standards for passing median exams and becoming a doctor, especially somebody like, a surgeon. If the standards are lowered then the probability of the surgeon making a mistake is higher. They’re making mistakes in their exam. They may make mistakes with people and that may result in people dying.
Lemon: What evidence do you have though that they’re lowering the standards? There’s no evidence of that.
Musk: Well I believe there is.
Lemon: There’s no evidence of that, Elon. What is the evidence?
Musk: I believe they have literally lowered the standards at Duke University and that is what the article was referring to.
Lemon: There’s no evidence.
Musk: They have not lowered the standards?
Lemon: There’s no evidence about lowering the standards and I think that there is.
Musk: I believe that that’s a false statement that you’re making.
Lemon: Well, we’ll figure it out.
Musk: The interesting thing, is that when this is posted on the X platform, there will be a whole bunch of things that rebut what you said and what I said. And so then people can make their own decision based on the replies and the rebuttals and community notes.
Fact Check:
The main Fact Check source here will be the first source listed below: Code Red: Downplaying Academic Excellence in Med School Admissions
Shift in Admissions Criteria: The article highlights a shift in medical school admissions (Columbia, Harvard, University of Chicago, Stanford, Mount Sinai, and the University of Pennsylvania) criteria towards a more holistic review process, which places less emphasis on academic performance and standardized test scores.
Inclusion of Non-Academic Factors: Medical schools are increasingly considering non-academic factors such as diversity, community service, and personal experiences in their admissions decisions.
Concerns Raised: Critics express concerns that this emphasis on non-academic factors may compromise the quality of medical education and the preparedness of future physicians.
Impact on Academic Standards: There are worries that prioritizing diversity and other non-academic criteria could result in less qualified candidates being admitted to medical schools, potentially lowering academic standards and affecting patient care quality.
Call for Balance: While diversity and inclusivity are important goals, some argue that it’s crucial to strike a balance between these objectives and maintaining rigorous academic standards in medical education.
Long-Term Effects: The article discusses the potential long-term effects of this shift on the medical profession, including concerns about the competence and preparedness of future doctors to handle complex medical challenges.
Utilizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives to lower the standards of medical care poses significant dangers irrespective of race. Healthcare ought to prioritize merit-based practices over diversity considerations.
In contemporary discourse, the utilization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives to adjust the standards of medical care has become a contentious issue, raising concerns about potential risks regardless of racial considerations. Rather than solely focusing on racial diversity, merit-based practices are advocated for in healthcare, ensuring that qualifications and competency remain paramount.
Legislation aimed at counteracting DEI initiatives underscores the divisive nature of implementing policies that prioritize diversity over merit, particularly in critical sectors like healthcare. This legislation reflects broader societal debates regarding the unintended consequences of excessively prioritizing diversity objectives over maintaining excellence in healthcare delivery.
America’s heightened focus on DEI initiatives reflects a societal shift towards prioritizing diversity and inclusivity. However, the emphasis on diversity may inadvertently lead to a dilution of standards, potentially compromising the quality of healthcare services.
Critiques from notable figures like Elon Musk highlight the inherent risks associated with compromising medical standards in the pursuit of diversity objectives. Musk’s stance suggests a fundamental conflict between DEI goals and the imperative to uphold the excellence and effectiveness of healthcare services.
Furthermore, concerns raised by healthcare advocates, as reported by Fox News, underscore the dangers of allowing ideological agendas to supersede the paramount importance of patient safety and quality of care. Liberal ideologies that prioritize diversity over merit-based criteria risk undermining the fundamental principles of medical ethics and patient well-being.
The evidence suggests that leveraging DEI initiatives to lower medical standards poses significant risks to healthcare quality, irrespective of racial considerations. It emphasizes the necessity for healthcare systems to uphold merit-based practices to ensure the provision of safe, effective, and equitable care for all individuals.
Sources:
Code Red: Downplaying Academic Excellence in Med School Admissions
DEI in NC medical schools and hospitals spark concerns over patient safety
What is anti-DEI legislation, and how can students get involved?
How America’s Obsession with DEI Is Sabotaging Our Medical Schools
Elon Musk clashes with Don Lemon over DEI lowering medical standards: ‘People will die’
Liberal ideology ‘quite dangerous’ in health care, Do No Harm founder says: ‘Poisons the American experience’
Conclusion:
Elon Musk’s interview with Don Lemon underscored Musk’s formidable intellect, surpassing our already high expectations. Musk’s meticulous approach to research and his unwavering commitment to factual accuracy made the interview exceptionally engaging.
Lemon seemed intent on tripping Musk up, probing him with intrusive questions about his late-night tweeting habits and even delving into personal medical details, potentially crossing ethical boundaries.
Yet Musk deftly navigated these challenges, eloquently defending X’s dedication to upholding free speech principles. Lemon’s advocacy for content moderation clashed with Musk’s staunch stance on censorship, leading to a spirited exchange of views.
Throughout the interview, Lemon’s attempts to corner Musk were met with remarkable responses, each grounded in solid evidence and logic. Musk adeptly sidestepped Lemon’s more absurd inquiries, countering with well-researched insights. Despite Lemon’s persistent skepticism, Musk remained composed, asserting the validity of his statements with unwavering confidence. Lemon’s insistence on fact-checking Musk’s assertions seemed to imply a lack of trust, but Musk’s reliance on verifiable data only bolstered his credibility.
In essence, Musk’s performance in the interview showcased his intellectual prowess and ability to navigate challenging discussions with finesse. Lemon’s efforts to challenge Musk’s viewpoints ultimately served to highlight Musk’s unwavering dedication to truth and his steadfast commitment to defending free expression.
– F.W
Sources
Stand with X to Protect Free Speech
The fine print I have to include for my own protection:
The following text presents the author’s opinions and interpretations of events without intending to cause harm or defame any individuals, organizations, or entities mentioned. While the author has provided sources to support their claims, readers are encouraged to conduct their research and employ critical thinking to form their own conclusions.
