Episode 1668 Scott Adams: Let's Figure Out What's Going On In Ukraine Without Any Useful Information
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Alexander Vindman fake news tweet?
Is Russia holding any major cities?
Is Ukraine really doing as well as reported?
"Slow Walk" strategy by Russian Generals?
Drone warfare in Ukraine
Germany extends use of nuclear plants
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Gets better every time.
Can you confirm that?
Yes, you can. It's the power of the crowd.
They've already convinced you.
Now, some say it's just a placebo.
Some people say that Coffee with Scott Adams makes you think you're happier.
But what if you're not? And I say those people are idiots because if you think you're happy, you're happy, damn it.
And I don't care what Joe Biden tells you.
So let's take it up a notch.
Because we can. All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vassal of mankind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better except the war in Ukraine.
And Laurie, Laurie Posonek, that's a funny last name in the sense of funny that it sounds familiar.
Sounds like a family member to Jack.
But I digress.
Join me now.
Sip.
Encircled and being shelled.
Yeah. - Thank you.
All right, let's talk about all the things that are happening.
Number one. So yesterday I retweeted an Alexander Vindman tweet, which some say included fake news.
The fake news being that there was a general in charge of the Ukraine situation who was fired by Putin for presumably doing a bad job.
But... As other people said, wait a minute, Alexander Vindman, maybe the reports of this general being fired are fake because he appeared with Putin at some announcement after he supposedly had been fired.
So, what do you say?
The general was reported to be fired, but then very soon after appeared with Putin in what seemed to be an official capacity.
So is it fake news?
Or... Is it a reverse fake news?
Meaning that if Putin had actually fired his main general, do you think he would not invite him to the meeting on the camera?
Of course he would.
Number one, the guy you just fired from the head of the situation also knows the most.
Even if you just fired him, you'd keep him on the team.
He'd still go to the meeting.
And if you didn't want the world to know you had just fired your general, you would still invite him to the meeting.
So I'm going to say that the people who debunked Vindman's tweet may be the ones who debunked themselves, because their debunk is not convincing, and Vindman only said it was a report.
He did not state it was true.
He said it was reported. So the tweet was that it was reported and that's true.
And then the debunk is, I would say, marginally persuasive.
Marginally. I get that being filmed in public after he should have been fired does make you wonder if it was true or not.
But it doesn't tell you anything for sure.
So I'm going to say that's a question mark, but I'm guessing that story, because it sort of went away, we'd probably have some more confirmation if it were true by now, I think.
On the other hand, I also can't imagine that Putin wouldn't be firing a general by now.
Am I right? Doesn't it seem to you that some general would be fired by now?
Or, you know, demoted or something.
All right. I guess Ukraine and Russia are going to talk in Belarus.
Do you think this is real?
Do you think that Russia actually wants to talk about peace?
Or is it just part of the public relations?
Because we do think that Putin might need an exit ramp unless he's actually winning.
Do you believe anything that's coming out of Ukraine?
Because you probably shouldn't.
Do you believe that the Russian army is basically thwarted?
Or do you believe that they're just uncoiling and they've got the city surrounded and they can kind of take their time and do what they want?
Because nothing would stop them.
Well, we don't really know, do we?
And here's my question.
Does Ukraine already not have cell service?
Anywhere? Is the entire Ukrainian mobile phone network already down?
Can somebody tell me that?
It feels like that should be in the news all the time, if it is.
Do they have access to the Internet?
They can still upload videos.
So... If you've got a population center that's full of people with smartphones, and the population centers are being attacked, why are we not really seeing much in the way of video?
Should we not be seeing almost unlimited video, like people cowering down but sticking up their phone to record things?
Somebody says we are, but I'm not.
What news source are you watching?
Check Reddit, somebody says.
Well, I also worry that things that are labeled to be from there are fake.
You'll see a lot today.
I don't know. But don't you have a question about that?
It just does seem like...
First of all, why are the phone networks working?
And if they are, it doesn't make sense we're not seeing a lot more video.
Because even the sources that I look at would still have those videos.
Yeah. So I guess that's a big question.
Here's a question I asked.
Apparently this was a plot for the TV show Silicon Valley, but I didn't know that.
Is there a way to make, in an emergency, is there a way to make your mobile phones a mesh network of some sort, so that as long as you were close enough to somebody else who had a phone, your signal could hop to their phone before it finds another way out?
Is that a thing? Well, it doesn't have the software, of course, but could it?
The mesh needs to be in every app.
If the camera's pointed in the right direction.
Stuxnet? Think they do that on cruises?
I don't think they do, do they?
Tethering? All right, so I guess we don't know that, but a company called Gotenna does that, somebody says.
Mesh-tastic. All right.
So I guess the open question is, is there a way that despots could be thwarted from turning off networks because the phones just turn into a mesh network on their own?
It feels like we should be working on that for disaster, right?
See an Elon Musk tweet?
Well, I know about Starlink, but you need a certain kind of terminal for that.
That's not going to help you if you don't have the right equipment to use their network.
We already have Meshtastic and LoRa devices.
Yes, you can use your phone with those through BT. Okay.
Interesting. So maybe there's something there.
Question. Do you think that the experience in Ukraine so far is making China more or less confident that they could take Taiwan?
I feel like China is watching this and saying, uh-oh, you can't really move massive equipment into any place that has drones or any place that has modern technology.
Right? Because the whole process of occupation requires lots of heavy equipment...
Weapons and troop carriers and tanks.
And I don't think there's any world anymore in which that kind of equipment can make it into the country unmolested.
I mean, I think it would just be turned to burning embers somewhere on the highway toward the metro centers.
So we'll talk about that a little bit more.
Do you remember when the military said that the biggest threat to the U.S. military was climate change?
And a lot of people snorted and said, come on, you're being all politically correct there.
That can't be the biggest military threat.
And then we find ourselves looking at Putin putting his nuclear forces on alert because of Ukraine, which is largely because, or at least partly because, the way we manage energy in the United States, which is partly because of climate change, Narrative.
So indeed, maybe not in the way that was imagined, but climate change actually literally became our biggest military problem because of the way it works through the system and makes Russia richer and that emboldens them.
So I didn't see that coming.
Are you seeing any reports that Russia is holding a major city in Ukraine?
Because the standard news is saying no, right?
But I'm also seeing Russian trolls on Twitter saying that, you know, some city fell.
Now, is anybody else getting a lot of Russian troll action?
No. Because I am.
I'm getting obvious Russian operatives who are tweeting at me.
I mean, they're just really obvious.
Now, is everybody getting that, or are they targeting people who just do some kind of public commenting?
Why assume they are trolls?
Because they have completely different information, and it's obvious disinformation.
I'm not even going to tell you what they're saying, because it's pretty obviously disinformation.
Yeah, I think I might be a target, but it could be just a general approach.
Who knows? I remind you again that I might be the only person who said prior to the invasion that if there was an invasion, which, by the way, I predicted incorrectly, because I said there's no way Russia...
I said there's no way Putin thinks this could pay off.
Right? And so I got that wrong.
But I was making an assumption that he was operating rationally.
And who knows?
The information at the moment is that he's not.
But you can't rely on that either.
Oh, you are a bad person there.
Let's get rid of the bad person who's putting the bad words here.
Remove. Sorry about that.
Sorry you had to put up with that.
Now, there's a big mystery going on, which is why is Ukraine doing so well, or are they?
I guess the first question is, do we even know for sure that the Ukrainian resistance is putting up a great fight?
Because I don't know that we know that for sure, right?
Yeah. I don't know that we know that for sure, right?
Yeah, you know, we're also not seeing pictures of dead Russians.
Is that true? Well, I saw Mike Cernovich asking about this yesterday.
It was a good question. Apparently, there are people who know more than I do who say, it looks like the Russians are sending their low-end tanks.
They're not sending their best equipment.
Does that make sense, that they wouldn't send their best equipment?
Yes, my allergies are back.
And I'm not sure even that's true.
Now, could it be?
I was seeing a lot of speculation about why we're seeing what we're seeing, if it's even true.
One is that maybe they're just testing the defense, so they send in their bad tanks to see what happens, and they figure they'll lose a bunch.
It might be that they're putting all the good equipment in one place.
So maybe the best equipment is already staged for, let's say, taking the capital or something.
So it could be that what you're seeing is the bad equipment being destroyed, but that's a diversion from the good stuff which is waiting to attack somewhere else.
I suppose that's possible.
The other possibility is they don't have any good stuff.
That they do have high-end tanks and whatnot, but not many of them.
Maybe they just didn't want to risk them.
Maybe they thought it would be such an easy war...
Or that Ukraine would just fold immediately.
That they didn't need to risk any of the good stuff.
Maybe they didn't want the Americans or NATO to see how their best equipment operates.
And they thought, well, we don't need the best stuff.
So those are all possibilities, right?
Let me give you my filter on this, which I don't know if anybody else has said this yet.
But I'm going to put the Dilber filter on this.
Now, the Dilbert filter is how does any large organization operate, whether it's a government, could even be within a dictatorship, or a regular corporation.
There are some things that are very common to large organizations, and one of them is the slow walk.
The slow walk is when the boss tells you to do something that you don't think should be done, but you don't want to argue with the boss for all the obvious reasons.
So you say, sure, boss, and then you go about the job of doing it, but inefficiently.
In other words, you might put in a phone call, but then you don't do anything until you get a return call, which often never comes.
And then when somebody asks you to say, yeah, I put in a call, I just haven't gotten a call back.
Now, if you were really trying to get something done, you'd put in a call, you'd put in a text, you'd go visit the person, you'd bug them until you got a response, you'd try somebody else.
That's what it looks like when you're trying to get something done.
But when you're slow walking, you do what you're told to do, and you just make it look like you're following orders.
To me, it looks a lot like the generals are slow-walking this because they don't want to win.
And one reason that they might not want to win is that they think Putin has lost it, and if they lose the war, then they could have a justification for taking Putin out.
A palace coup, as it were.
At the moment, correct me if I'm wrong, Putin is still wildly popular in Russia.
And I think taking Crimea brought him to like 80% popularity, didn't it?
At least for a while. Who knows if those numbers are accurate.
But there's no way that anybody could take Putin out unless they degrade his, let's say, his reputation.
Are the generals slow walking the war?
Because they have no reason to win.
There's nothing in it for them.
And their best play, if they think Putin has lost it and that he's actually just dangerous at this point, they might try to slow walk the war and not try to win.
There's huge corruption in the Russian army.
I don't know if that plays a part in it.
Maybe he thought it would be like taking Crimea.
Yeah. Yeah. Now let's talk about why it's not.
Have you all seen some drone footage of what looks like Ukrainian-operated drones?
I think they're Turkish by design.
And I asked how many they have and how many would it take to stop a Russian incursion?
Well, the big variable here is the Russian anti-aircraft attack.
So presumably, here, so I'm not a military person, so correct me in real time as I go, right?
I'm just saying some things that sound logical, but they may not be militarily sound.
That I would think that the only defense the invading army would have would be ground-based anti-aircraft.
So if a serious military drone came into their airspace, they would try to shoot it down with anti-aircraft.
Am I right? If the drone or some other kind of weapons took out their ground-based anti-aircraft, which would be easy to identify, because apparently they'd just come in on a big highway during the daytime.
If you're looking down from above with satellites or anything else, drones or satellites or who knows, can't you just see them?
And you're also talking about jamming equipment.
Couldn't we just see the jamming equipment?
And then could we take that out first?
So here's the real question.
Could we take out their jamming and anti-aircraft so soon that they would come into the country naked?
In other words, it's the only thing you target.
As soon as the convoy comes across the bridge, you take out their anti-aircraft, and then here's the genius part.
You let them in.
But you let them in naked, because they wouldn't have anti-aircraft.
You took it out first. Once they're in, and it's harder for them to go back, you just pick them off.
And here's the real question.
What kind of hardware or equipment would it take to make sure that you could take out their anti-aircraft on the ground before they can take out your whatever it is that's taking out the anti-aircraft?
Do you think that might have been maybe some American equipment involved in that?
You know, I don't know if there would be an American operator, but there might be American equipment involved in that somehow.
So, I do believe that it wouldn't be hard for ground-based anti-aircraft or jamming to take on a drone.
But, if we had missiles...
That could be guided onto an incoming transport.
Let's say you had a spotter.
This is a real thing, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong. If you have special forces, and they have a visual sight of an incoming convoy, doesn't the special forces just put a laser tag on whatever they want to blow up, and then a missile arrives from some distant place, and it follows the laser pointer to the exact target?
Now, wouldn't it be really hard to shoot that missile down?
It would be a lot harder than shooting down a drone, right?
Am I right about that?
So I don't know what technology we have for blowing up anti-aircraft stuff on the ground, but I would guess if you could see it, that's all you need.
If you have modern equipment...
And you have a visual sight on it as it comes in.
Isn't it gone? I mean, it's pretty much gone if you can see it, right?
And then once that's gone, I feel like you can just pick them off.
So how many drones does these high-end drones, how many of them does Ukraine manage?
I looked that up.
Somebody said 10. I saw an article that said 20.
You know what the real answer is?
How would we know? Would we really know?
And if they had 20 on Saturday, how many did they have on Sunday?
Because they fly, right?
I mean, I don't know how hard it is to deliver a drone to a war zone, given that they fly.
But Ukraine seems to have lost five drones.
Somebody says, you know, everything's fog of war, so we don't believe it.
An Apache helicopter would work.
Would work for what?
Yeah. So, all the videos about Russia losing are in Telegram, but that would also suggest they're not real.
Because if they were real, they would jump from telegram to the regular news pretty quickly, because the regular news would love to show that story of Russia losing.
So there's something not tracking here.
Well, there's a lot not tracking.
So here's my hypothesis.
In addition to all the stingers, what about one of those anti-tank weapons?
If you had the high ground...
And you could see a military convoy coming by.
Couldn't you recognize and destroy the anti-aircraft stuff pretty easily?
I don't know. So I'm guessing that the Ukrainians just have better equipment than we think, or they're using it better.
And I don't know.
I think we may have reached a point in history where as long as a country has access to unlimited technology from the outside, nobody can conquer and hold them.
And I think maybe having a border with friendly countries is all you need.
That as long as you have a border with a friendly country, and there are other countries that are willing to support you financially by sending you unlimited military stuff, then nobody can hold the country.
Because it would just be too hard.
Because if you could put in one person's hand, Enough firepower to take out a building, which largely we have now.
If one person with a handheld weapon can take out a whole building or a tank, I don't know how you can hold the country.
All right, Russia's stock market closed.
The ruble is plummeting.
Sanctions are on.
The Russia's nuclear...
I'm sorry, central bank is going to be stalled in a variety of ways.
And I guess Putin's response to that was to put his nuclear arsenal on some kind of high alert.
Now, I don't believe we have responded or anybody's responded because that looks like just posturing.
Looks like posturing.
We hope. But here's the question.
I'm still seeing the two world reporting.
One is that the sanctions are too weak and Putin will just ignore them.
And the other is the sanctions are devastating.
Why don't we know that?
Don't you think that would be like a basic thing to know about this story?
Maybe the most basic thing.
The most basic thing about the story is are the sanctions really going to make a difference?
Like, are they the type that would make a difference?
And apparently we don't even know that.
Apparently we don't even know that.
Yeah, so SWIFT has kicked in as at least a partial problem there.
Some people say, hey, crippling, 80% of Russia's banks will plunge them into economic despair.
And then other people are saying, well, Putin only needs 20% of the banks and he can do whatever he wants.
But I don't think that's true either.
Yeah, we're still buying Russian oil, which is just the weirdest thing.
But I suppose if they're willing to sell it to us at a good price, we should buy it.
None of them is real.
Well, none of the information is real, I'm sure.
Germany says it's going to keep its nuclear plants longer, partly in response to feeling vulnerable in their energy supply.
So why did it take so long for Germany to decide to extend its nuclear power plants?
Well, it turns out we have a new little report about Russia.
Apparently the Russian energy giant Gazprom And this is reported by Zion Lights.
She's saying, and apparently Dominique Rene reports, I don't know who that is, that we found that Gazprom-funded environmental NGOs, non-government organizations, that provide ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power.
In other words, the competitor to nuclear power, the Russian competitor...
Had been funding disinformation to get people to get out of nuclear, because nuclear was actually the better solution.
So, thank you, Russia.
And do you remember when there was this guy, I can't remember his name, maybe you can remember, he had orange hair, he was the president for a while, and he called China, he said that climate change was a Chinese hoax, And it turned out to be a Russian hoax.
Like, actually, literally a Russian hoax.
In the sense that Russia, you know, Russia's a Russia-owned energy giant, was literally trying to disinform the public to change the course of civilization away from nuclear.
Which probably is going to be one of the biggest problems that ever happened on the planet Earth.
According to the climate people.
All right, so thanks for that.
This story, of course, the next story I saw in Fox News.
So you're going to have to give it a grain of salt for the bias, because when they talk about their competitors, it's always interesting and it's funny.
But remember, it's somebody reporting on their competitor, so they're going to paint them in a bad light.
But... I guess Tom Cotton, I didn't see it, but Tom Cotton was on ABC News with Stephanopoulos.
And Stephanopoulos apparently, reportedly, was getting frustrated because he couldn't make Tom Cotton insult Trump.
To which I say...
Why was Trump really even the topic?
Now, we get that he made some decisions.
He said good things about Putin.
But Cotton was refusing, just saying, you know, you should have Trump on if you want to talk to him.
And Tom Cotton just focused on the actual real issues.
And... Apparently that was a terrible thing because ABC only wanted to use the opportunity of this event that has nothing to do with Trump to make it an anti-Trump story.
And they're still trying to torture the fact that Trump plays to Putin's ego and calls him smart.
They're trying to make that into a story negative about Trump.
When in fact...
He's the smartest person in the game.
Because you should absolutely tell Putin he's smart.
While you're arming Ukraine, and while you're doing everything you can to minimize his impact, you should totally call him smart.
Because you take away one ego reason for him to act irrationally.
You want Putin to act rationally, so don't give him a reason to act irrationally.
Don't make it personal.
Trump is just a better negotiator.
Do you know what? Here's some advice for Tom Cotton.
You should say, I don't know, Trump is a salesperson.
Does a salesperson usually insult the buyer?
And then just be done. And if he asks the question again, well, but do you think it was wise to praise Putin like that?
I would just say the same answer again.
Trump is a salesperson.
He tells you he's a salesperson.
He tells you what he's selling.
He even tells you how he's selling it.
He does it right in front of you, transparently.
He's selling something to Putin.
Do you want your salesperson to insult the customer or to sell the way sales has worked since the beginning of time?
Where you praise the customer, you tell them they're making excellent choices, and then you work with them to persuade them in the direction you want.
Which one works?
I think the next politician who's asked to answer for Trump just needs to go high ground and just slap the shit out of whoever's asking the question.
I mean, you know, with words, not with slapping.
Am I right? It's the easiest defense you could ever have.
Trump's a salesperson.
Is he supposed to insult the customer?
Well, how would you do it?
How would you plan it, Stephanopoulos?
What's your plan? Insult the guy you're negotiating with?
When has that ever worked?
In the history of all negotiations from the beginning of time, when has that ever worked?
Your idea. So why don't you defend why you think it's a problem, To negotiate exactly the way it has always worked since the beginning of time.
So, Stephanopoulos, do you have access to some kind of new research that says the thing that has always worked, everywhere in every context, won't work in this one case?
I mean, he should have turned it around and just crushed him.
Because the opportunity was there.
I think I would have done it.
All right. Did I see in the comments, somebody said the ruble's down 30%?
Does it matter? I don't know.
We're seeing Bitcoin being part of the story.
Bitcoin, part of the story.
So I guess people are donating.
I heard it was a million dollars so far to Ukraine, which is really not enough to make a difference in anything.
But it does show that crypto might be a necessary tool against despots.
Meaning that if the people in Ukraine think it's money, well, it's money.
If they treat it like money, it's money.
So Russia is using crypto.
Everybody's using crypto at this point, I think.
Russian interest rates went from 9.5% to 20%.
Now, I imagine that Putin is telling the public it's temporary.
Have we heard anything like that where we are?
Yeah, it's temporary. He's going to go all Biden on that.
It's transient. It's totally transient.
Don't get all worried about this transient stuff.
Yep, transitory inflation.
That's what he's going to say. All right.
There's really nothing else happening except the war, am I right?
Red Cross needs donations for Poland, somebody says.
No videos of Russia sucking.
Well, there's no...
I'm just really puzzled by the lack of video.
Yes, and does it seem that COVID was cured by war?
No.
So we're not hearing about Durham, we're not hearing...
I don't think the war is a diversion from those things.
Yeah, the trucker convoy, we're not hearing about anything.
New York City is lifting Vax passports, March 7th.
Now, I saw a headline about schools no longer needing masks, either now or very soon, but that's not true, is it?
That was fake news, right?
Because my local school still has masks, as far as I know.
What do you expect from the State of the Union?
Is that tomorrow? When is the State of the Union?
Tomorrow? Or is it today?
Tomorrow? Well, I would agree with what I saw in the news, that Biden is probably rewriting the State of the Union, and he might rewrite it right up to the moment of the speech itself.
Because I think events in Ukraine are going to have to be mentioned In their most current form.
And who knows?
In 24 hours, who knows?
well yeah somebody's writing it yeah gold is Is gold still going up?
I've never understood gold as a store of value.
I've never owned gold.
Because, you know, I get that it would have made sense.
You know, in retrospect, wouldn't it have been nice if I had 5% gold or something?
But I've never understood it because gold is the one thing that could go to a very low price very quickly.
I realize it has industrial use and jewelry use and that.
But once you get past its actual industrial application...
I just wouldn't put money in something that's that sensitive.
Now, that said, I do have a small amount of crypto in my portfolio.
But that's diversification.
And some of it was accidental.
Gold has a limited supply, does it?
I don't know, does it? All right.
Gold usually has tungsten inside.
And we need that for what?
Some technology? You are uninformed.
Well, yes, I realize that gold is technically exactly limited.
Okay, I get your point.
But remember we thought oil was limited, and then fracking was invented?
Right? If you think that gold is limited forever...
I would say, I don't know, what if somebody invents a new way to find it?
Or a new way to extract it?
What if somebody invents a way to create it?
You think we could never get to the point where we could artificially create gold?
I don't know. Maybe we can't, but if we're doing fusion, I've got a feeling we could make some artificial minerals at some point.
So it does seem to me that there could be a technical advance that would make Gold worthless at some point.
I don't know about asteroids.
Yeah, fillings for teeth.
Except I don't think you... Do you want a gold?
I don't know if you want gold.
So Maya is saying that the MSM's narrative is Ukraine is a helpless victim, hence no videos of Russia losing.
Okay.
So, you know, I don't know who's a Ukrainian troll or a Russian troll, but anybody who has some confidence that they know what's happening in these cities, I'm going to assume is a troll.
Is that fair? Anybody who has confident, current predictions about what's happening in Kiev or Kharkiv.
I would say I wouldn't believe anything that somebody said about those places at the moment.
You know, maybe in 48 hours we'll know what happened two days ago, but I wouldn't believe anybody who says they know what's happening right now.
None of that sounds real.
All right. The fence in D.C. is being put back up.
I wonder what that's about. Or maybe the State of the Union?
The ruble has been renamed the rubble.
Oh, no, there's a...
Wow.
The ruble is rubble.
I'm sure somebody's thought of that one before, but I like it.
Convoy. So the trucker convoy is heading to D.C. Is that worth doing?
I don't even know what mandates are left.
Do American... What mandates are left?
I don't even know what they're fighting at this point in the United States.
It's a trap. Yeah, I would...
I can't say I'm necessarily in favor of a U.S. trucker convoy.
I'm not against it.
I would be uninformed.
But I don't know what they're... What are they trying to get that isn't going to happen on its own anyway?
Yeah, I don't know what that's about.
So, Babak Tagovie has good videos, you say?
Alright, that's all I've got for today, so I won't babble anymore.
And I will let you go.
And shall we talk again tomorrow?
Anybody? Yeah.
Kaelin says, Jesus, Scott has absolutely no idea of what's going on.
Kaelin. You may have heard that sometimes I say harsh things about people who make comments of this nature.
Very much of the nature of the comment you're making.
In the past, I do have a history of going off on people who say things like that.
Because, first of all, you fucking idiot...
That's what I'm saying.
So in order to disagree with me when I say I don't know what's going on there, for you to say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you don't know what's going on there, may I do a short skit involving you, fucking idiot, and me? I'll first play the part of me.
It's a fog of war. I wouldn't believe anything about anything that's coming out of there.
In fact, I don't think anybody should trust any of the information coming out of there.
And now, let me do you, fucking idiot.
Well, Scott, I don't think you know what's happening over there.
Now, back to me.
Yes, fucking idiot.
That's exactly what I just fucking said, you dickhead piece of shit.
Well, Scott, I think maybe you should do your own research.
Okay, you're agreeing with me really, really hard here that I don't know what's going on, and I don't know how to say it in a way that's different and will get through to your thick skull, which is apparently entirely skull material and no brain whatsoever on the inside.
I guess you don't know what's happening in Korky.
Okay. Okay.
All right. That's all I got for you today.
Thank you for the comments.
And by the way, I don't know if you caught on to this, but I don't know what's happening over there in Ukraine.
