Episode 1555 Scott Adams: The Democrat Party is Coming to a Rapid End. I Will Tell You All About it.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Prediction: Vaccine mandate won't happen
Glenn Greenwald is living my personal nightmare
A story too big for most people to grasp
Peter Doocy's brilliant question to Biden spokesperson
Only a new HOAX can save the Democrats
Make elections auditable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best thing that's ever going to happen to you.
Until possibly tomorrow.
I have high hopes for tomorrow and beyond.
But for now, this is the peak of your existence.
The best day of your life so far.
And what are we going to do to make it even better?
Yeah, we're not going to be satisfied.
Don't be satisfied.
No. If you want to take it up a level, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better and stronger, and especially your antibodies.
Watch this.
Go.
Ah, yeah, that's good.
Yeah.
I don't mean to sound racist, but my white blood cells are just charging up.
All right. Is everybody good?
How are you all doing?
Enough about me.
I mean, really, I'm sick of me.
But are you doing well today?
Because I might be the only person who asks...
How many of you think you'll get a compliment today from anybody?
In the comments, tell me, how many of you would expect to get a compliment today about anything?
About anything?
Me? Okay.
I will, every day, if somebody says.
Yes. Interesting.
Interesting. A number of you expect a compliment today.
Now, I usually get a compliment just because I'm a public figure.
But I'm kind of surprised that so many of you expect a compliment.
Many of you said no, but I'm wondering if the people who said yes are all female.
You know, have you ever thought about the...
We have a standard in society...
That women must be complimented on just a continuous schedule.
You've got to compliment women, especially your significant other or spouse, whatever.
But it doesn't work the other way, does it?
Have you noticed that there's no requirement for complimenting men?
That... That women are automatically expected to be complimented.
That is just the standard.
But men? No, no.
In fact, men expect to be insulted, don't they?
Men? How many of you expect to be insulted by the significant person in your life today?
Like, actually just insulted?
Oh, some of you. All right, I won't cause any more trouble.
So I have a strategy for dealing with climate change, and I think it's time to roll it out.
As you know, there seems to be some kind of division between the young and the old, and the younger generation believes that the older generation has essentially screwed them with climate change, and they're pretty mad about it.
Pretty mad about the boomers.
And I thought we should take the fight to them, rather than just being, you know, boomer victims, if any of you are boomers.
I'm just speaking for my people now.
But I think we should start brainwashing the kids into thinking that the cause of climate change is them leaving doors open while the heat's on.
Now, remember, they're kids, so they're not going to do a deep dive into the science.
They'll believe anything, you tell them.
If you get them young enough, that's the trick.
You've got to get them young. They'll believe anything.
Really, anything. So, forget about the science.
Just tell them that the problem with climate change is their own damn fault for continually leaving the door open while the heat is on.
Now, you don't think that this is a good idea?
What do you think they're going to do to your social security payments once they realize you destroyed the planet and you're planning to die and leave it to them?
Well, they're not going to be happy about it.
So I recommend a preemptive strike.
I feel it's inevitable that the youth of today will get so mad they will take your social security away and watch you die in your own degenerated state.
So I think we've got to get them first.
Who's with me? We've got to target the children and brainwash them into thinking it's all their fault.
We can do this if we all band together.
All right, we'll work on that.
So I did a joke on Twitter that some people didn't think was funny.
Some people didn't think this was funny.
But I believe that those who didn't think it was funny...
Have a few things going on that is different from other people.
Number one, most of them were artists.
Yes. Yes, they were artists.
Coincidence? Probably not.
But the other thing is, I don't think they understood the joke.
And let me tell you the joke that I tweeted, and you tell me, is this the unfunniest, horrible thing, most horrible thing you've ever heard?
Or is it kind of funny?
All right? Which is it going to be?
Horribly, horribly tasteless.
Or kind of funny. It goes like this.
I said, I hear Pfizer is working on a vaccination that prevents concerts.
Now, in the comments, can you tell me what is the point of the joke?
Because it's a joke with a point.
What is the point of the joke?
Anybody? Anybody?
What is the point of the joke?
Am I... Making fun of people who died at a concert.
Is that what I'm doing? Am I having fun at the expense of tragic loss of life?
Was that the point of the tweet?
I see a yes from somebody who obviously works in the arts.
Anybody else work in the arts and think that that's about...
No. The people on Locals, especially, who probably know me best, are kind of shouting the answer.
It's about the pharma. It's about the pharma companies looking for any situation to sell some drugs, no matter how reasonable it is or no matter how good it is for you.
That's what the joke's about.
The joke is about big pharma.
Now, if you're an artist, you think, hey, I think he's against music.
LAUGHTER I think he's against concerts.
He doesn't want us to get together and have fun.
What's wrong with that cartoonist?
Now, I'm not making fun of tragedy.
I'm making fun of the pharma companies who would make money on any tragedy if they could.
Okay. So, yes, I'm using the event.
Why? Take it to the next level.
Why? Because it was a tragedy.
You realize the joke doesn't work unless we all agree it's a tragedy.
Right? That's the only way it works, is that the person telling the joke and the person listening to it all agree that the concert was just a tragedy.
There's nothing else you can say.
It was just a tragedy.
Right? So, anyway, for those who don't understand jokes, that could be important.
Now, here's the best thing that came out of that.
There was a comment I saw in the comments to that joke, and one of the comments was just one word.
Dog burnt. Just one word.
Dog burnt. Now, how many of you get that reference?
Now, I know you know that Dog Bird is the character that I draw in the comic strip.
But who gets that reference?
Yeah, I wrote it in Dog Bird's voice.
Exactly. It was written not in my own voice.
It was basically written in the voice of Dog Bird.
Now, who would be smart enough...
To make that connection.
What kind of observer would be smart enough to say, oh, you just wrote in Dogbird?
Well, I had to check the profile of the person who said that, because it was just one word, and it was perfect.
Just Dogbird.
And it was Brody Gupta.
B-R-O-T-I. Brody Gupta.
Who, at least in the...
It looks like she's a writer for The Simpsons.
She's a writer for The Simpsons.
So I'm going to give her a pass for being an artist.
Because if you're writing for The Simpsons, you're really smart.
You're really smart. They only hire really smart writers.
So Broti was smart enough not only to know that it was a joke, but that it was written in Dogbert's voice.
So she's operating at a whole other level than even the people who got the joke.
And that was correct.
That was Dogbert's voice.
So I called out a potential mass hysteria.
I think I got this one right.
When the Travis Scott concert tragedy happened and it was still in the fog of war and we didn't know what was happening, how many of you heard an untrue rumor that somebody was stabbing people with fentanyl or that it was fentanyl deaths and that, in fact, one of the security or police, I forget, was stabbed with a needle and had to be revived with Narcan?
How many people believed all that was true?
All right. When I was asked, when I first heard it, I said, nope, I don't believe that's true.
And I want to give you a trick for deciding what's true or not.
It goes like this. Imagine you hear a story and you say to yourself, well, there's only one explanation for this.
And here's the part of the story that you probably said there's only one explanation for.
I forget, was it a police officer?
I think it was a police officer who collapsed at the concert and was taken to the emergency room and revived with Narcan.
Now, Narcan is a drug you use to revive people who have fentanyl overdose.
So, based on the fact that Narcan was used and seemed to have worked, you could conclude there was probably fentanyl But I'm not sure you would know for sure.
And maybe people just pop back to life and you don't know why sometimes.
I don't know. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know.
But that would be the implication, that it must have been fentanyl.
And then the medical team found what they thought was a needle mark in the neck.
And then when they asked him, he said, yeah, I think I felt something on my neck.
So putting 2 plus 2 plus 2 together...
People thought that the other deaths might be fentanyl and this guy was stabbed with a needle.
Maybe there was a crazed needle fentanyl guy running around.
Here's why I knew this wasn't true.
Number one, nobody would put fentanyl in a needle deadly amounts.
I don't think anybody would do that and not expect to die themselves.
Because it's pretty dangerous just to work with it.
So I don't know that anybody would put it in a needle.
Because the alternative would be easier.
Suppose you wanted to kill a bunch of people with fentanyl.
How would you do it? Well, if you had the raw fentanyl you could put in a needle...
It means you have some wherewithal, right?
You have some ability to manage something with fentanyl.
It would be much easier just to buy pills, fake pills.
Just put a little extra fentanyl in them.
Press your own pills. But, you know, we didn't see that happening.
So, here's my little tip.
Suppose you said to yourself, I can't imagine any other explanation for how that police officer had a hole in his neck...
It collapsed to fentanyl and was revived by Narcan.
How can you explain it any other way?
Anybody? Does anybody have an imagination in which they can explain those facts any other way?
Go. It took one second for somebody at Locals to have the right answer.
I don't want to make an accusation because there's no evidence for what I'm going to say next.
So hear that clearly.
What I'm going to say next has no evidence.
I'm just saying that there are different ways to explain what you observed.
Let me walk you through one.
I'm not suggesting this is what happened.
I'm suggesting that if you couldn't imagine this was a possibility, then you could easily be fooled.
It goes like this. How many police officers are taking drugs on the job?
Some, right?
You have to assume that some police officers take drugs because some of everybody does.
I don't think there's any profession in which there aren't some people who come to work high or stoned or drunk.
How many police officers would be more likely to take, let's say, a drug that put them in a good mood if they were going to be working a concert?
Probably slightly more, wouldn't you think?
If you were somebody who took drugs anyway and you were a police officer and you thought you were going to spend the night at a concert just standing around, you might...
Pop a bar. A bar is usually a fake Xanax that has fentanyl in it.
Now, you might not know it has fentanyl in it, and you might have taken it before and said, well, I'll just pop a bar, it'll take the edge off, and I'll have a good time here.
No, it's not mind-reading. We're speculating what another possibility would be.
Mind reading is if you actually think you know what somebody's thinking.
I'm just saying there could be another explanation for the facts.
That's all. Now, unfortunately I know what it means to pop a bar because that's probably what killed my stepson.
So I got too educated on this.
All right, so let's take the possibility that you had a police officer who took a bar, a little pill, that he thought was going to be safe enough, but it had fentanyl in him because they almost all do.
And maybe this one had too much.
Now imagine that this police officer simply had an overdose.
Just popped a bar, had an overdose.
That would explain why he collapsed, It would explain the Narcan revived him.
Now explain the hole in his neck.
Go. Again, I'm not alleging any of this happened.
I'm saying it fits the facts, as other explanations also do.
Why would he have a little needle mark in his neck?
From the Narcan shot, somebody says.
Oh, my God.
I hadn't thought of that.
I don't know where you give the Narcan shot.
Do you give it in the neck?
I don't think that's the answer, but as soon as you said that, I thought to myself, oh my god, that's actually possible.
Totally possible. Yeah, I don't think the Narcan is a needle that you put in the neck.
So let's rule that one out.
What do you think it could be? Exactly.
The right answer on locals again.
That's what you say so you don't get fired.
So imagine you're, again, I'm not alleging any of this happened, so I don't want to cast aspersions.
Something happened to a cop, that's all we know.
We don't know anything else.
But imagine, he had taken a bar, got caught, had an overdose, didn't want to get fired.
So what would he say?
He would say, I don't know how that got into my system.
But I felt something on my neck, you know, it was like a little pinch.
And then once he told people that maybe there was a little something on his neck, do you think they could find it?
Yeah. If you tell somebody that there might be a needle mark on your body somewhere, not necessarily in the neck, but if you told medical professionals there might be a needle mark somewhere in my body, do you think they could find something they thought was maybe a needle mark but not quite sure?
Yes, because it would prime them to look for something.
So the alternate explanation is that the cop was an addict, he took some fentanyl, and he lied when he got to the hospital.
And maybe they did or did not see a mark on his neck, but probably it was a coincidence or confirmation bias.
Right. Now, here's the trick.
Just because you can't imagine another explanation for a thing...
Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Do you know how magic tricks work?
A magic trick works because you, the audience, can't imagine how it happened.
It's your lack of imagination that makes magic tricks work.
Likewise, when you see these situations, if you think, well, there's only one thing that could have happened, you're a perfect audience for a magic trick.
Because there's always another explanation that you didn't think of.
Always. There's always another one you didn't think of.
And, you know, I run into this too.
It's not like I don't make the same mistake all the time.
Saying, well, there's only one explanation I can think of.
So a better way to say it is put odds on it.
Just say, well, I don't know.
That looks like 75% chance that that's what happened.
That'll keep you a little bit out of the trouble.
So Trump has basically told us he's running without telling us he's running because he says a good time to announce his intentions would be after the midterms.
He's already talking about vice presidents.
He's already decided.
If there's anything that I can say with complete certainty, Trump has decided to run.
Why wouldn't he?
Why wouldn't he? It looks like he can win.
Right? I mean, that would be the best reason to run.
He would get his revenge.
He would get, you know, maybe vindicated.
He would be back in the news.
It would help his startup, because now he's got a social media platform.
He kind of has to run just for the social media platform to work, because otherwise it'll just go away if he doesn't run.
So yes, he's running, unless something weird happens right away.
He is definitely running.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are scared.
I saw CNN touting the infrastructure bill as a big, big win for Biden.
Big, big win. What do you think?
How many Americans think the infrastructure bill is, that's the thing?
You know, I was a little undecided about Biden, but we got that infrastructure bill.
Nobody. Nobody even knows what's in it.
The news is going to try to push this infrastructure bill as if people care about it.
Do you know why it took so long to pass it?
Because people didn't care about it.
If the public really wanted that thing, I think it would have happened sooner.
The public didn't care.
I mean, the few people who follow this stuff cared.
But not the public.
I don't think more than 5% of the country even knew there was an infrastructure bill.
Do you? If you did a survey and said...
Did you know there was a big vote with an infrastructure bill?
How many people would say, oh yeah, I've been following that?
5%? Maybe?
Yeah, 5% at most.
So, if that's what they're holding on to as their victory, good luck.
Because you've got parents who can't afford to buy gas...
To drive their little masked-up kids to the place where they are taught that they're racist and or white people are racist.
Think about the things that real people are concerned about.
The mandates, the vaccination, the masks, the schools, CRT, gas prices, right?
Inflation. They're not worried at all about the infrastructure bill.
Now, when explained to them, they probably would say, oh, I guess that would be good.
But I don't think people care.
They care about the crime, they care about the drugs, and none of that's good right now.
So, no surprise that...
Well, we'll talk about Biden's ratings in a moment, his popularity.
So, Thomas Massey, representative...
Thomas Massey says this about the...
I guess Biden wants to have a mandate for vaccinations for any company that's got 100 or more workers.
And as Thomas Massey correctly states, this is absolutely unconstitutional.
Is there anybody who disagrees with that?
Now, I guess the way it would be enforced is through OSHA. But who gave OSHA the authority to put drugs in your body?
Or to require it?
What part of the Constitution says OSHA can make you get a vaccination?
Or anything like it?
No. No.
And no.
So here will be a good test of what I've been telling you for a while.
That the government is not in charge.
This will be the test case.
I say that people are in charge.
And when the people want something by enough of a majority, if it's 50-50, then the government is in charge, or anything close to even.
But as soon as the public just totally wants something, then the government will just give it to them.
They have to. Do you think the public is going to put up with this?
Seriously? Do you think the public is going to put up with a vaccine mandate for companies as small as 100 workers?
Nope. Nope.
They are not. This is the red line.
So you wondered how far things could get pushed?
Well, you just found it.
You just found it.
This is as far as it can get pushed.
This is the end of the road.
This won't go.
This isn't going to happen.
There will not be an enforced mandate for vaccines for people with 100 workers.
It's just not going to happen. Now, that's my prediction.
So either this will be withdrawn or it will break the system.
So I can imagine it would get implemented, but I think it will break the system, meaning that the system will just come apart over this.
And Irma says it happened in Australia.
What do you say to that, Americans?
Now, I know you're not all Americans watching this, but somebody said it happened in Australia.
Give me the answer.
Second Amendment. Second Amendment.
Do you know, does the Australian government have to do what the Australian public tells them to do?
Nope. They don't.
Because they have the guns.
Now, I'm not saying that the armed civilians can have more military might than the actual military, but that's not even who they're going to fight.
That wouldn't be the fight, because I'm not even sure the military would be on the government side in this case, and they're certainly not going to turn on the public over this.
Do you think that the military would mount a response like the American military?
Do you think they would put bodies in the street to support an unconstitutional rule from the government?
Would the American military enforce an unconstitutional rule?
One that's obviously unconstitutional.
I don't think you have to be a scholar to know this is unconstitutional.
No. No.
So Australia might learn the difference between America and Australia.
And I think they're going to learn that.
Because there's a reason so many Americans have guns.
It's this. I mean, lots of other reasons, too.
But this is a big one.
Because when the Americans want the government, by enough of a majority, when a majority of Americans want the government to do something, it's going to do it.
It's going to do it.
So... My confidence is unfounded.
Well, let's make it a prediction.
Okay? So my prediction is that this will either be withdrawn or modified in some way that makes it more palatable, I suppose, or it'll break the system.
So it might temporarily be implemented, but it's just not going to work.
It's going to break the system.
And... This is just purely a red line.
Let me say this as often as I need to.
In the context of an emergency, I'm comfortable giving power to the government because you need quick decisions, and I'm even comfortable knowing they'll make mistakes.
Because in an emergency, everybody makes mistakes.
So you're just doing the best you can.
But we're now informed enough, and enough time has gone by, we're not really making emergency decisions anymore.
So this is not really the time for the government to be making these decisions.
It needs to be started to be delegated down to the citizens.
And this is the time.
It's time for the citizens.
Now, I think what's going to happen, if I had to make a guess, I think the therapeutics will come online...
We'll have new therapeutics, and then that will be the cover for them to back down on this.
I think the cover will be, oh, we got these new therapeutics.
Well, I guess this mandate isn't as important as we thought it was before.
So I think the therapeutics will give them the exit ramp to back down from this, I think.
All right. Glenn Greenwald is living my personal nightmare.
Do you ever have the nightmare where...
You can see the monster, but nobody listens to you.
Have you ever had that one? Can't everybody see there's a monster in the room?
Why am I the only one who can see it?
Why aren't you acting worried?
Have you had that one? Well, that's sort of a classic one.
I've had that one. And I think Glenn Greenwald is experiencing that because he keeps talking about the fact that it is now obvious and a matter of fact, I would say, that the American intel agencies, Department of Justice, Democrats, and the media colluded to run a coup against Trump.
And maybe succeeded.
Trump's not in office.
And Greenwald just keeps tweeting and writing about it, but it's not having the response you'd expect.
Meaning that the public is just like, I think I'll buy some Christmas presents.
No way, didn't you hear me?
That there's this most awful thing that's happened, and it's still happening, and there's nothing that would stop it from continuing.
It's the worst, most terrible thing that's ever happened in this country, far worse than Watergate, and it really matters because it's affecting you right now.
And the public says, I didn't see anything about it on CNN. So we've reached a point where...
The news business can disappear, not just an embarrassing story, but the biggest story of the last five years.
They're making it disappear right in front of you.
That's actually happening.
Now, what does that tell you about all your priorities that come from listening to the news?
They're all assigned.
How long have I been telling you that your opinions are assigned to you by the media?
Not every one of you, right?
Some of you might be exceptions, but probably not.
Probably not.
And so the media has decided that it won't assign the opinion that something bad happened.
They will only assign the opinion that there are lots of details coming out and do what you want with them.
But we're not going to tell you that it's important or that it's the biggest thing that's happened in, I don't know, 10 years.
If you don't count wars or terrorism, it's the biggest story of the last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years.
It's bigger than Watergate.
So it's the biggest political story by far, right?
January 6th, if you were to compare the January 6th event on a scale of 1 to 10, that's like a 1.
And the Russia collusion hoax was a 10.
Because one of them was an actual genuine attempt to overthrow the frickin' government.
And it looks like it worked.
Looks like it worked. Because it wounded Trump enough that he lost the election.
So I think it was a successful coup attempt.
And that's not even in the news.
And I don't think there's anything that's going to change it.
Because even the right-leaning media isn't treating it the way I would treat it.
So maybe everybody's waiting for Durham.
Maybe there's some confirmation somebody's waiting for.
I don't exactly know what's going on.
But I have some theories about why the public finds this invisible.
Number one, the story is too big to grasp.
So I'm going to give you a few different explanations.
But one of them is the story is too big to grasp.
Not just complicated.
That's another problem.
It's complicated so people can't hold it all in their heads.
But it's actually too big.
It would be as if we found out that all along the presidents have always been lizard people from another planet.
You almost couldn't deal with it.
Your brain wouldn't know what to do.
Wait, you're telling me that all of our past presidents have actually literally been lizard people from another planet, and we now have proof of it?
Your brain wouldn't be able to process that.
You just couldn't handle it.
And so you would just go do something else.
You would just go on with your day because you can't handle it.
It's only the little outrages that we can handle.
It's like, oh, there's what you think is a man in a dress when the restroom.
So you're all worked up about that.
Or somebody, they were kneeling for the flag.
Stop kneeling for my flag.
Afghanistan withdrawal was bad.
These are all tiny things.
Compared to the news that's being hidden from you.
So one is it's just too big.
We can't wrap our heads around it.
And the other is, and it's complicated.
And the other is the news simply decided it wasn't going to be the news.
So they just told you it wasn't news, and now it isn't.
Just not news. Amazing.
All right, well, I don't think we should call it the Russian collusion hoax.
It was a coup attempt.
I think. All right.
Rasmussen tells us that 57% of those polls say they don't want any settlement payments to immigrants who are separated at the border.
So do you think anything can happen if 57% of the public doesn't want it to happen?
Can it happen? This one could.
Because this is not quite passing the pain level.
This could actually happen.
57% is on the border of being enough people against it, but it's not enough.
I think you need around 70% of the public to hate something before it won't happen.
But certainly 57% is enough to guarantee that the Democrats won't win any elections anytime soon.
I'm pretty sure that this issue is a really good one.
And... How many of you saw the Peter Doocy question and answer at the last press conference?
So whoever is the stand-in speaker for Jen Psaki, I don't know her name, but whoever the current fill-in is for that, Peter Doocy asked her, is there any discussion of giving money to immigrants who come here legally?
A brilliant question.
Because, you know, the whole point of these press conferences is to get the sound clip.
Like, you want to be the one who says the clever thing?
This is really clever.
Really clever. All right, here's how it goes.
He says, is there any discussion of giving money to immigrants who come here legally?
And the spokesperson looks at him and says, why would we give money to people who come here legally legally?
And Peter Doocy, without missing a beat, says, why would you give money to people who come here illegally?
That's really good.
Oh, my God, that's so good.
Now, is it fair?
No. No.
It's a totally unfair statement, right?
Because Doocy's comment, it's a 10 out of 10 for public zingers.
But it doesn't really pass any kind of rational analysis.
The reason that the illegal immigrants would get money is because some crime was done against them, meaning the separations.
So since that didn't apply to the legal immigrants, the whole question didn't make any sense.
It sure sounded good on video.
So if your job is to look good, that you ask the right question, he just nailed it.
And it was a setup, right?
I assume he had that answer locked and loaded, right?
He knew what her answer was going to be, and so he already had the answer.
That was really good. Anyway.
CNN's sounding the alarm again.
According to a USA Today Suffolk University poll, Biden's approval rating is 37.8.
He's got a 59% disapproval.
That's pretty bad.
Really, really bad.
And 46% of those said Biden has done a worse job.
Well, that probably just lines up with political parties.
And 64% said they don't want Biden to run for re-election, but I think that has more to do with his age.
You know, that's all of the Republicans plus a few Democrats who think he's too old.
So that doesn't mean much.
So here's my bottom line.
Given Biden's popularity level, and given that the Democrats in Congress have done nothing but fight with each other and get us an infrastructure bill we should have gotten three years ago, I don't see how Democrats could keep control after the midterms, and I don't see how they could win the presidency unless they come up with a new hoax.
So one would imagine...
That even now, they're concocting, they meaning the media plus our intelligence agencies plus the DOJ, you know, plus the Dems.
It's obvious they're probably cooking up a new attack against Trump.
But here's the problem. Every attack that they've used on Trump so far wasn't enough.
So everything he's already done apparently had no influence on him doing his job as president, right?
So if you said to yourself, hey, what about that Trump University thing?
Well, before he was president in the first place, before he'd ever been president, that was a fair question, right?
I mean, I didn't even bother trying to defend him on that one.
That was a fair question.
But if you've served as president for four years, does that matter anymore?
I mean, it didn't matter to the first four years of his performance.
Why would it matter for another four years?
So all those things that were pretty good points before he had ever been president don't make any sense after he's done the job.
Because once he's done the job, you just say, well, how'd he do?
That's the only thing we care about.
And how he did was better than Biden on everything that matters.
Now, Biden's going to say that the stock market went up.
All right. I'm not sure that's the home run that anybody expects, given that spending is out of control and inflation and all that.
So I think that we don't have really...
There's really no mystery left.
Is there? At this point, we know how the midterm elections will go.
But here's how Trump could lose it.
He could say or suggest something that's just too far.
Now, I'm not going to be the idiot who says, you know, all Trump needs to do is just cool it, and he just walks back into the job.
And by the way, that's completely true.
If Trump, and this will never happen, so forget about dreaming about this, if Trump simply decided to cool down the rhetoric and said, you know, I don't need to be on Twitter, and I don't think I'll put out these statements unless it's policy-related, and he just played it straight, there's a 100% chance he'd be elected.
Am I wrong? Is there anybody here who thinks that Trump wouldn't get elected if he just played it right down the middle?
Because that alone would be hilarious.
Because CNN would go crazy.
They're like, oh, he's playing it down the middle.
When he ran the first time, he needed to be outrageous to set himself apart.
Right? So all of his outrageousness fit perfectly with strategy.
And the thing that Trump doesn't get credit for, that I think may be his strongest feature, is he is really strategic.
And he knows people and how people, you know, the psychology and stuff.
So he's really good at that.
He knew he needed to be outrageous the first election.
Does he know that that wouldn't work as well if he runs a second time?
Does he know that?
And if he knows it, can he change?
I don't know. Trump is Trump.
The reason people like him is they know exactly what they're getting.
There's no mystery there at all.
And so I don't believe that he can calm down his rhetoric.
I don't think that's an option. But he wouldn't need to use rhetoric to get elected this time.
Let me ask you. If Trump didn't run and Ron DeSantis did, could Ron DeSantis get elected?
No. Yeah.
Yeah. Kind of easily, I think.
I think Ron DeSantis would just stroll into the job at this point because the Democrats have done such a bad job.
The only thing that could keep Trump out of that job is either not running...
Or to do something that can be turned into a new scandal?
You know, make it easy for them to turn it into a scandal?
Because they got nothing else.
By now, all the opposition research must be exhausted on Trump.
What else do they have? All they have is his record, and it looks pretty good compared to Biden.
Yeah, so he says a sociopath is authentic.
Well, I would say that the interesting thing about Trump, and I'll remind you for those who have forgotten, is that he may have been the president who violated the fact-checking the most of any president.
I don't know if that's true, but let's say it is.
He may have violated the fact-checking more than any president.
At the same time, I think he did...
He tried harder to keep his promises than anything I've ever seen.
Would you agree with that take?
Even the things he didn't get done, the effort was clearly there.
I mean, the wall?
I mean, he really pushed on that.
It didn't work, you know, in the end.
Yeah. So anyway, we'll see what happens.
Elon Musk... Caused some interesting talk because he changed his Twitter handle.
So instead of saying Elon Musk, it now says Lord Edge.
And Lord is spelled with an E on the end of Lord.
Lord Edge. Why did he do that?
Why did he do that?
Well, he's always interesting, so it could have been, you know, he was just stoned and he thought it would be funny.
But, of course, everybody said, ah, it's an anagram or something.
If you arrange the letters, you can find out what it really is.
How long did it take you to arrange the letters and find out if there was a secret message there?
Well, it didn't take me long.
And I'd like to think...
That Elon Musk is giving everybody an IQ test to find out who to hire for Tesla.
And anybody who can solve this puzzle get a job offer.
That's not true, but it's fun.
So here's what you can rearrange these letters into.
So if you want to do this at home, it's Lord Edge, but Lord has an E on the end.
If you arrange those, you can use all of those letters and...
It spells Elder Doge.
D-O-G-E. Elder Doge.
Or Doge Elder.
Either way. Now you might know that Ilan has talked quite a bit about Dogecoin.
D-O-G-E. More typically just called Doge.
And he seems to be sort of the Doge Elder.
So is it a coincidence that That these letters could form Elder Doge and that there's no other obvious reason why it would be.
Or Edgelord?
Yeah, Edgelord is good too.
Doge not barking.
All right. I don't think there's any importance to this.
Maybe he's signaling that he's going to accept Doge for Teslas or something, but I think he's just having fun, and he's good at it.
All right, that is my message for the day.
Now, if I can give some campaign advice to Mr.
Trump, it would be this.
Stop saying the 2020 election was stolen.
You can still believe it, and if somebody asks you directly, and you still think it's true, yeah, say yes.
But, including it in the rallies now is a mistake.
Because here's what that should turn into.
It should turn into, I'm going to make the elections auditable.
All right? So 2020 is over.
It happened. We're running for a new election.
The system picked to the system picked.
And we must respect the system, but we can improve the system.
And, well, he would never say he respected that system, I'm sure.
But if he simply promises what we want, which is not really to live in the past, I don't even need...
I just don't need to know if 2020 was rigged or not.
Even if you could find out, even if it was, I just don't need to know it.
It's the past. I want to know what he's going to do in the future.
And if in the future he's the only one promising to fix the elections, not fix the elections, but fix the election process so that they can be instantly audited, which they cannot be, then he would have my full support.
But I'm going to mess with you a little bit harder.
If he doesn't do that, but some Democrat runs against him, who promises to fix the elections and is credible about it, I don't know who it would be.
I mean, maybe Bernie.
I mean, he's too old to run.
But somebody like a Bernie, I would say to myself, you know, I think Bernie actually means it.
Like, you can imagine somebody running as a Democrat that you would actually believe.
It's like, holy cow!
That Democrat's making a big deal about election integrity.
I might actually vote for that.
Because you've got to save the republic first.
Right? Like, all of the other policies and stuff are very important, but you've got to save the republic.
And if you don't have an election system, you're not going to keep your republic very long.
So that's sort of where we are at the moment.
We need somebody who would just go in there and say, I'm just going to fix this election thing.
Somebody said Tulsi.
Now, that's interesting.
Now, I don't know if she has enough support from Democrats, but that would certainly make her popular with some Republicans.
That would be an interesting choice.
Yes.
And if Trump has also been asked whether DeSantis would be a good VP pick, and he said he likes DeSantis, but there are other good people...
And so I think he's leaning in that direction again.
All right. A blockchain election system.
Yeah, I don't know if we need our presidents to tell us what technology to do.
I think they need to set a direction.
Maybe fund it. Help fund it.
Maybe report on it.
That sort of thing. Tulsi and Crenshaw.
I don't know. Is that really the dream team?
I mean, they both have a lot of good qualities, but I don't know if the two of them together, I don't know if they make each other stronger.
All right. All right.
Just looking at some of your comments here.
I think I've got Andy here.
Go do some other things.
And go have an amazing, amazing day.
And by the way, if somebody ever forms a competing party called the middle party, it would be a winner.
