Episode 1681 Scott Adams: Facts Don't Matter. It Only Matters How Much We Hated You Before You Spoke
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Iran rocket attack in Iraq on somebody?
Glenn Greenwald called an "apologist"?
We've stopped discussing facts
Bill Maher questions Putin's Ukraine timing
CNN Richard Galant on civilian bombing
Speculating on Ukraine war Instigators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Welcome to the greatest thing that's ever happened.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
It hasn't even happened yet. It's already the greatest thing that's ever happened.
And would you like to participate in one of the greatest things that's ever happened?
Of course you would.
And all you'd need would be a cup or a mug or a glasses.
A tank or chalice, a dine, a canteen, drink the glass, a vessel.
Are we having trouble with sound done?
Yes, we are. Let's fix this.
Boom! Boom, I'll bet the sound is better now, isn't it?
I should plug things in every now and then.
All right, unplug back in, so we should be good.
But if you...
I'm gonna have to do it again.
Gonna have to do that. Thanks, Paul, by the way.
All you need is a cup of mugger glass, a tank of chalice, a canteen drink, a glass of best of all your kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day.
Sorry, I was distracted by a meme on locals.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Ooh, yeah.
That's good stuff. You know, every now and then I use my iPad that I use for YouTube.
I use it to watch a show.
And I have to unplug the connection to do it.
And I tell myself when I do it, you know what?
I'll tell you one thing I'm not going to forget.
I'm not going to forget to plug in this cable Because I'm going to see a cable sitting right in front of me that's not attached to anything.
And how could you look at a cable right in front of you that's not attached to anything and say, I better not do anything?
Well, that happened to me today.
All right, big news. The federal government's starting some kind of wildfire mitigation commission.
And they're looking for experts to tell them what to do because they don't know how to mitigate wildfires.
This doesn't seem like a big thing to you.
But if you live in California, it's a pretty big thing.
We actually have what I call the smoke season.
We used to have two seasons in California.
There used to be the rain season and then the not rain season.
And that was basically it. One was a little colder and a little rainy, but otherwise everything was about the same.
But now in the summer, for like a two- or three-month period, you can't go outside.
It's just so smoky from all the wildfires.
So it's a big deal.
I hope they get this right.
I always had the idea of sending all the homeless people to live in the forest.
Give them actual shelter and bathrooms and some things they need.
But let the homeless people clean up the forest to remove the brush.
Just go out there every day, remove some brush.
Except, you know, I thought this would be a brilliant idea.
They need a place to stay, ideally not in an apartment building where other people would be concerned about their drug use or whatever.
Let them live in the forest and do foresty things and just do something useful.
It actually sounds like an idyllic life, doesn't it?
Live in the forest, do drugs, and just clean up some brush once in a while.
Well, here's a surprising story, and I've been waiting to hear about this.
So we've got all this violence in Ukraine, Russia's invasion, and were you wondering the same thing I was wondering, which is, what does Pope Francis think about the violence?
Because just the other day I was thinking to myself, I wonder if the Pope is in favor of violence in this case.
You know, he's fairly consistent against violence, but I was wondering, I wonder if he'd make an exception and be in favor of violence for once.
But, no, it turns out he made a statement, and the Pope is opposed to violence in Ukraine.
So you can stop wondering...
The Pope has made a firm statement, and I guess he's remained inconsistent.
So once again, he's against violence.
25 years ago, I did a joke about permanent news, probably 30 years ago, about permanent news, and the joke was that the permanent news was that the Pope has announced he's opposed to the violence.
Just every time.
Every time. Hey, the Pope.
He's still opposed to violence.
Well, I think it's good that he reminds us that.
Speaking of fake news, there was a lot of concern yesterday that Iran had allegedly sent some cruise missiles into some American consulate or some kind of American facility in Erbil in Iraq.
And that maybe it was payback for something that somebody got killed or something.
And today the State Department issued a statement that said there is no damage or casualties at any U.S. government facility in Erbil.
So I guess it didn't happen.
So all those reports yesterday about some kind of American diplomatic consulate or something being blown to crap by Iran never really happened, according to the State Department.
Never happened. Wait a minute.
Let me see the specificity of this statement.
Let me read it again.
No damage or casualties at any U.S. government facility.
U.S. government facility.
What would U.S. government facility mean in Iraq?
Would that mean that the U.S. government owned the real estate?
What if we rent...
Yeah, what if it's in Iraq and we lease it?
What if we're leasing land?
Would that be a case of a U.S. government facility?
Or would that be an Iraqi facility that is temporarily housing some Americans doing things?
Well, I don't know.
But as Mike Sudevich pointed out to this statement, at this point you just have to shake your head and laugh because you can't believe anything.
Anything. I don't know.
Did something get blown up?
Maybe. Was it something we owned?
I don't know. Is it something we leased?
Maybe. Did any Americans actually get hurt?
Who knows? Would we know?
Maybe. Maybe we wouldn't.
So another situation of who knows what happened.
Well, have you noticed this?
That we have completely stopped caring about topics, and we only care about people.
For example, Glenn Greenwald is trending, not because of his opinion.
It's because he has the opinion.
That's the news.
The news is not what his opinion is.
The news is, well, is he defending Russia?
No, let's not worry about him and his personality, or what he has or has not done in the past.
Is his opinion valid?
Because if you're calling him an apologist, or anybody else, you're probably experiencing cognitive dissonance.
And I think apologist is the new tell for cognitive dissonance.
Because when you're calling somebody an apologist, it allows you to completely ignore your argument or your point.
You just dismiss the person as well.
Why would we even listen to those arguments?
That person's an apologist.
An apologist. An apologist for Putin.
So it's my view that anybody who uses the word apologist as a description for someone else is experiencing cognitive dissonance and that you should ignore them completely.
Here are some other examples of the personality being more important than the fact.
So we're arguing over Glenn Greenwald, not because of his opinion, but because of him.
Same thing with Jimmy Dore.
I'm seeing a bunch of criticism about Jimmy Dore on the internet.
You can read a lot of criticism about Jimmy Dore, but you know what you won't see?
The reason. The reason.
What part of his opinion did he get wrong?
No, he's just an apologist.
That's what the critics are saying.
No, he's just pro-Putin.
He's just an apologist.
To which I say, can you give me an example?
Would I have the same opinion?
If you told me what he said, would I say that's apologia or whatever you want to say?
Or is that just a fact?
If Jimmy Dore said, and I don't know if he did, but suppose he said that there are some neo-Nazis on the Ukraine side, Would that be an apologist for Putin?
Or would that just be an accurate fact?
One of many. Certainly not the fact that makes the decision, but one of many.
Here's some more. When we talk about Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, or Bill Gates, are we ever talking about their opinions?
Not exactly, right?
We're talking about them.
Your opinion about Bill Gates' opinions...
is only about Bill Gates.
It's not even about what he says.
I mean, we imagine it's about what he says, but it's not.
It's entirely about Bill Gates, how you feel about him.
By the way, Joe Rogan had some very funny insights about Bill Gates being a person to tell us how to handle our health, when Bill Gates is maybe not the picture of health.
Now, Joe Rogan said it in a more humorous and cutting way.
So you should see his version.
It's funnier. But that's not a bad point.
You've got to wonder why somebody who's lecturing you about health is in bad health.
You've got to wonder. So am I wrong that we've completely left the field of arguing about the facts?
We don't even do it anymore.
I mean, I think even the trucker thing in Canada turned out to be about truckers and about Trudeau.
I'm not even sure anybody cared about the details after some point.
Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but we have to watch out for the fact that only the personality is what we're talking about, because it feels like it.
Speaking of personalities, I don't understand this.
But apparently there was some Wall Street Journal, well, at least Wall Street Journal did a poll, and said that if Trump and Biden ran today, it would be a tie, 45% to 45%.
Do you believe that?
Because it seems to me that we also have reports that a generic Republican would just destroy a generic Democrat.
Is Trump the exception?
No. Is Trump the only Republican who can't destroy every Democrat in the next race?
Because he might be.
He might be the only exception.
Because he's the one person that people put so much weight on his personality that they kind of can ignore his policies.
So he might be the only person who can't beat Biden, which would be weird.
But I have a hard time believing Biden's really going to run, but maybe.
You never know. So here are some things that are shifting lately.
We talked about Trevor Noah saying that if Trump had been president, Saudi Arabia would have taken his call, which most of us probably agree with that, don't you?
So Saudi Arabia just didn't take the call with Biden because they're mad at him for whatever.
But even Trevor Noah says, you know, they would have taken Trump's call.
Add to that...
Bill Maher, he's got two opinions which seemed weird together.
So these are both opinions he expressed on Friday.
He asked, and this is reasonable, he said, why didn't Putin invade Ukraine when Trump was president?
Because wasn't Trump supposed to be all Putin-loving enabler?
So Bill Maher quite reasonably says, if Trump was such an enabler, why did the invasion happen under Biden and not Trump?
It's a good question, right?
Now, I give credit to Bill Maher for asking this question.
And Trevor Noah as well.
Just the fact that they can even float the question, I think it shows some kind of movement in a good direction.
But at the same time, Bill Maher mocked Trump for saying that the problem in Ukraine was all caused by a rigged election.
He sort of mocked it because Trump always goes back to his talking point about the election.
Except, if you've already accepted that there might be a reason that Putin didn't invade under Trump...
Trump's answer that the election is the problem in Ukraine is exactly right under that assumption, if you believe that the election was rigged, right?
So I'm not making that assumption.
I'm saying that's Trump's assumption.
So his answer is spot on, and it agrees at least with Bill Maher's question, if not his opinion.
And the question is, why didn't Putin invade when Trump was president?
And Trump agrees. If he'd been president, it wouldn't have happened.
So you're seeing Bill Maher and Trump actually completely agreeing, but they can't quite get there, so they have to act like they're disagreeing.
I think Bill Maher has to act like he's disagreeing with Trump, even when he's not exactly disagreeing.
So he played both sides there a little bit.
How about Beto O'Rourke said in public, I guess this week, that critical race theory should not be taught in schools.
Did you ever think you'd see that?
So I think the Democrats, maybe, just maybe, are starting to see that the polls are not going their way.
So do you think those three things are forming a pattern or no?
So here are the three things.
The three things would be Trevor Noah saying Trump would have done better on at least the phone call.
Bill Maher saying, you know, why didn't Putin invade under Trump?
And now Beto O'Rourke saying critical race theory should not be taught in schools.
Now, he might be word-thinking there a little bit, and maybe he's saying...
That the high-level, college-level critical race theory should not be taught, but I don't know that he's against the ideas of it.
So this might be a little bit of fake news.
What do you think? Does this look like fake news?
Because it might be that the only thing he's disagreeing with is that a high-level college philosophy course should not be taught in grade school.
But maybe the concepts, which are simpler...
You know, don't discriminate, blah, blah.
Maybe they should. So I'm not sure that this is a real story.
But somebody says, yes, it's fake.
Yeah, I think it's a framing story, a little bit.
But I do wonder if there's going to be any movement toward Trump was right.
All right, here's something quite interesting on CNN, an opinion piece by Richard Gallant.
And he points out that the Russian bombing of the civilians in Ukraine might not work out because we have some historical precedent.
You always have to be careful about looking to history for your patterns because nothing really is the same as it was then.
But... It is useful context.
So in 2011, three American researchers, this is what Richard Gallant writes in CNN, three American researchers revealed an eye-opening finding about the U.S. bombing campaign in Vietnam War.
And they found that the more bombs that were dropped on South Vietnamese hamlets in 1969, the likelier the Viet Cong insurgents were to end up controlling the territory afterwards.
So it's almost as if the more you bomb the civilians, the more likely they're going to resist you stronger and it's not going to work the way you want.
Then two years later, this other historian, Richard Overy, what a last name, Overy, he did a study and he concluded that the targeted bombing of European cities in World War II was also a military failure.
So there are two examples in which bombing civilians in modern, I guess that would be modern times if you count World War II, worked the opposite of the way it was supposed to.
Now, I'm not sure that we should believe either of those studies.
Would you believe a study like this?
Because when I saw this first one about Vietnam and said, you know, they bombed these hamlets and they were more likely to become Viet Cong strongholds, isn't that the reason they were bombing them?
Don't they have cause and effect backwards?
Why would you bomb something that was irrelevant?
Aren't you only going to bomb something that you think the enemy has a stronghold in?
I'm not sure I believe any of this, but it's worth asking if there's any...
I asked the same question.
I said, is there military evidence to suggest that bombing civilians works?
We know it depopulates, but if you looked at the long run, is the history that it works?
I don't know. It works to depopulate.
And if that's all you're trying to do to get an advantage, I suppose it works in that limited sense.
I don't think it works.
You bomb while you can't reach with troops.
That seems like the only thing that makes sense.
I don't think you bomb to break will.
So I don't trust anything that's coming out of Ukraine.
How many of you saw the viral photo of what was alleged, but probably not, a Russian soldier chained to a pole and froze to death because they didn't want him to desert, so they chained him to a pole and he froze to death.
It looks like that's pure Ukrainian propaganda, and it might even be a dead Ukrainian soldier.
It doesn't even look like it's a Russian soldier.
And if the soldier had a weapon, like a gun, didn't the soldier have a weapon?
You're telling me that the soldier wouldn't try to just shoot the chain?
Did they leave him there without a gun?
I don't know. But I wouldn't believe anything coming out of Ukraine.
Well, there's now the number of COVID cases in China is up to 3,400 new cases, the highest since February 2020, and local transmission in provinces is starting to ramp up.
So what would be the outcome of a major outbreak of COVID at this point in China?
It would be a supply chain problem, wouldn't it?
This would be our fourth, if it happens, our fourth global supply chain challenge in like two years.
To which I say, that doesn't feel like a coincidence anymore, does it?
It just feels...
Like we're a simulation, and somebody is testing supply chain pressures.
It looks like we're testing the supply chain, that we're just a simulation.
We're running a bunch of simulations to say, okay, would this break the supply chain?
No? Okay, how about this?
Would this break the supply chain?
So far, we're doing okay.
All right. Rasmussen reported that election integrity is now the number three issue with voters.
So the top three issues per Rasmussen are inflation, violent crime, and election integrity.
Let me see.
Who would you expect to get elected if the top three issues were inflation, violent crime, and election integrity?
How would a Democrat ever be elected unless they ran against Trump and people just didn't like Trump for some reason?
Amazing. It just doesn't seem to me like anybody would ever vote for a Democrat if these are the top three issues with voters.
These top three issues are so overwhelmingly positive for Republicans, I just...
You know, if the Democrats sweep, I'm going to have a real question about election integrity.
Are you? All right.
I saw another article by Francis Fukuyama.
In a publication called American Purpose, who is actually openly asking about, should we be thinking about Russia literally losing on the battlefield?
And I still think that's going to be a thing.
I think I did have the number of Russian tanks completely wrong.
I told you in December I saw a report that there were 1,200 Russian tanks, but then I saw Andrey Speckhouse correct that to maybe 12,000, 12,000-something.
So it would be 12,000-something tanks, 17,000-something anti-tank missiles in-country, and I think that number probably is low.
You thought they were out of fuel.
I still think they're running out of fuel.
So yelling my own opinion at me that I still hold in all caps did not get you as much as you hoped.
Oh, 12,000 including reserves.
12,000 for the whole nation of Russia?
Huh. That was Russia's gas supply, yeah.
So here's what I think.
I think that the ground forces of Russia are being degraded to the point where they won't be an effective ground force in the north.
And if Putin loses in the north, it's not going to matter as much if he wins in the south, because it's going to look really bad.
Now, we're already seeing in the news experts saying, you know who you really have to worry about?
Or who Putin has to worry about is his own intelligence people turning on him.
Don't you think we're doing that intentionally?
To get Putin worried about his own inner...
Because apparently he's...
Reportedly he's arrested his head of intel for bad intel.
But I doubt it.
I think that's also propaganda.
Do you think that Putin has actually fired generals and put his own intelligence head under house arrest?
No. I think no.
I mean, the news is saying it, but I think no.
Yeah, that feels like propaganda to me.
Firing generals is how we won World War II, though.
Yeah, I see what you're saying.
All right, here's a source of Russian tanks.
Battle tanks, 2800?
What? Okay, it's too confusing.
Give me the summary.
All right. I think my take is going to remain the contrarian take.
Let me ask you this.
If you took the contrarian view of every single thing that's been in the news, how often would you be right versus if you took the standard view and then you waited long enough...
Who would be right more often?
The standard view, and let's say the last five years, would the standard view have been more right or more wrong than the generic view?
Now, sometimes we underestimate the generic view, you know, the classic view, because most of the world said Russia was going to invade Ukraine, right?
And then they did. So I would say the classic view was correct.
The contrarian view, of which I don't know anybody but me, who had, was that he was bluffing.
Now, the contrarian view turned out to be completely wrong.
He invaded. Now, the reason I thought he wouldn't It's because it was obviously a suicide mission.
But apparently, the story is, and I don't think you can trust this story, that the only reason he made such a bad mistake is that his intelligence people gave him bad information.
I wouldn't have made that mistake, and I didn't listen to any intelligence people.
I just said, it's 2022, and Ukraine is going to be armed with all the modern equipment NATO can give it.
It's probably a bad idea to attack.
That was my opinion.
I didn't need any deep dive to come up with that.
And indeed, it's looking like a pretty bad idea.
Oh, Greenwald and Matt Taibbi said he wouldn't?
They both said that?
I wonder if they were using the same logic, which is that it's obviously a stupid idea.
But he did it. Now, if he pulls it off, then I guess I suppose it looks brilliant in hindsight.
But at the moment, it's looking like a terrible thing.
The U.S. and NATO manipulated this whole thing.
Yeah, there's a lot we don't know about this Ukraine situation, if you know what I mean.
Number one, we don't know what Ukraine has been used for by people in the United States and the government.
I feel as if we've been using Ukraine for a number of illicit things, and maybe we'll never know what they were.
I also think that it's not crazy to think that Russia was lured into the attack intentionally.
That's not crazy.
Or at least that it was one possibility that we didn't hate.
In other words, we weren't trying to stop it from happening because we thought, well, if he does attack, it's going to be bad for Russia, and maybe somebody thought that was a good idea.
Yeah, and the question is, why has the State Department always been so interested in Ukraine?
Why is Ukraine, this poor little country, so important to America?
It's not obvious, is it?
Like there's something going on there that we don't know about.
Yeah, it looks like somebody wanted a war.
It does look like that.
Is it just oil and gas?
I don't know. All right, here's a question for you.
Let's say 30% of the world's wheat disappeared.
What would happen? Would poor people starve because rich people pay more for the wheat so there's none available?
Or would the rich people stop eating bread?
Which would happen? If you said to me, Scott, there's a worldwide shortage of wheat, would you mind cutting back on wheat because it's not that healthy for you anyway?
And you could go a few months without bread.
You could go a year without bread.
Because you've got plenty of carbs.
Just eat less wheat.
Scott, would you do that to help starving people across the world?
To which I would say, sure.
Yeah, I could do that easily.
I could cut bread out.
I mean, I like bread.
So I'd miss it.
But if it's a war thing, yeah, of course.
I could cut out bread. But would I? And would anybody ever ask me to?
I don't think anybody would ask me, because it's a free country.
And I don't know if it would work if anybody asked.
I don't think most of you would cut out bread.
I think you'd let people starve.
Switch to corn and rice.
So, yes, grow your own bread.
Damn it. Donnie says you lost 50 pounds by cutting out wheat.
That's pretty much my weight loss technique.
I've... Two weight loss techniques.
Zelensky starred in a TV show about a school teacher who becomes president of the Ukraine.
The owner of the TV network financed his real-life election campaign.
Yeah, Zelensky does look like a...
He looks like a creation, doesn't he?
Because he is. So, you know, two presidents who were Both came out of reality TV. Or this one, not reality TV. He also won the Ukraine Dancing with the Stars show.
I don't know. I don't trust anything about Zelensky.
Does anybody agree with me?
I don't trust Zelensky at all.
At all. Because I don't know who's running him exactly.
Is he just a CIA guy?
Here's another comment for $5.
Yeah, Ukraine is a hotbed of corruption.
Money laundering, traffic, yeah.
All right, I don't have much to say today, so unless you have any questions for me, I'm going to keep it short since you're all tired from the time change.
Remember, move your clocks if you forgot to do it last night.
Oh, here's some information on...
Oh, here we go.
Russian stuff.
So Russia has, in the active forces, 2,800 battle tanks, but in the reserves, over 16,000.
Huh. But then they have lots of infantry and armored personnel carriers.
So they've got 18,000 armored personnel carriers if you count the reserves.
So if you've got 17,000 Stingers and 18,000 troop carriers, it seems like you could get rid of a lot of troops per anti-tank weapon.
I assume they would work on a troop carrier.
When will she go full Putin?
I don't know. I don't feel like China would make this mistake.
China's just more conservative in a good way, in a good way that works for them.
People keep forgetting artillery.
The trouble is, artillery isn't going to let you conquer and keep something.
My next book, still working on it.
Yeah, I don't think China is going to sacrifice itself for Russia, for sure.
That's not going to happen.
All right. I believe I've said everything that's useful to say, and now I'm just riffing.
And although some of you are hoping that I would last long enough for you to complete your workout, I say to you that you are strong enough to complete this workout, even without Coffee with Scott Adams.
Even without. And is there anything I forgot today?
Any topics I should have talked about?
Somebody wants a daylight savings time sip, and I think that that is called for.
Daylight savings time?
Well, at least in the United States.
Daylight savings time sip.
Because I don't know about you, but I'm a little underslept today.
Go. Yeah, that's good.
Well, I think you'd agree that this is the best thing that's ever happened to you in the history of your life.
And... We don't serve peanuts on this flight.
Okay, I got it. Bill Maher on Ben Shapiro's show, is that going to happen?
Or are you just saying you wish it would happen?
Trump on Rogan, that doesn't seem to be confirmed, does it?
I saw that Trump cleverly was praising Joe Rogan.
He said he shouldn't apologize, but he thought Rogan would be better to host a presidential debate than Chris Wallace.
To which I say, I would watch that.
Let me be serious.
I think that an independent podcaster should host a debate.
Whether it's Joe Rogan, that's a separate question, but I think an independent podcaster should host a presidential debate.
Or at the very least, the presidential candidates should make a real effort to appear on the major podcasts.
I'll tell you something that I learned promoting books.
If you go on ABC Good Morning America and promote your book, do you know how many you'll sell?
None. None.
I would watch my Amazon rank when I would do publicity hits, and I'd go on like a major network TV, big hit, they mention the book, nothing.
Literally nothing. No change at all.
You go on Joe Rogan's show, or you go on Tim Ferriss, James Altucher.
You go on a major podcast, and boop, as soon as it comes out, you see your numbers start to spike.
So I would assume that the politicians have seen the same thing by now.
And if whoever runs for president works the podcast network, because it's so easy to do, you don't even have to be there.
You could just, you know, Zoom and knock out five of them in one day.
And they would get massive traffic.
And the podcast format does allow you to change minds.
Do you agree with that?
I would say that regular news, the way it's formatted with, you know, 30 seconds of pundits yelling at each other, never changes anybody's minds.
But I do believe...
That a conversation between a candidate and a smart podcaster, an independent, would actually change minds.
I think some people would watch the program and say, you know, I hadn't thought about it that way.
And it has something to do with who listens to podcasts versus who watches network TV, right?
The people who go to an independent podcast, they're actually looking to have their opinion changed.
Do you think that's too far?
I would say the people who watch network news are looking for a confirmation of their opinion.
People who listen to podcasters also might be listening for confirmation.
But far more, it would attract people who are willing to change their mind and able.
Both willing and able, which is rare.
Yeah. I think if you're looking for alternative points of view, you're spring-loaded to have your mind changed, and you'd be okay with that.
So, this could be the year that the politicians realize what every person who sells books already realizes, that network news is just a confirmation bias engine, and podcasting is really the only tool out there for changing anybody's mind, I think. Would you agree?
It's the only tool to change a mind at the moment.
Is there anybody who's...
Well, let's test it now.
Is there anybody watching this on YouTube or Locals who have had their mind changed on anything, on any topic, by watching this podcast?
Now, watch the comments.
On Locals, it's just a stream of yeses.
On YouTube, also some yeses.
Talking about podcasts, specifically.
And live streams, same thing.
Look at all the yeses.
Now, I assume that people who are not answering are probably no's, so I'm not saying that it's a majority yes.
But how many people would answer that yes for watching CNN? How many people watch CNN and say, yeah, you know, CNN changed my mind.
I used to be pro this, but now I'm anti that.
I'll bet not. I'll bet not.
Because they're really careful about keeping their topics what their audience already thinks.
They're not trying to change their minds.
So... Have I made my case?
I think I have, right? You saw in the comments themselves that podcasts do change opinions.
And I don't think it's some magic that I bring to the podcast.
I think that, you know, I think if Tim Pool asked his audience, they would say the same thing.
Do you think? Joe Rogan?
I'll bet his audience would say the same thing.
Now, I try harder to change minds than they do.
I don't think they're trying to change your mind.
I think they're presenting entertainment.
I actually am trying to change your mind in a lot of cases.
Not every case. In the case of vaccinations, I didn't want to change your mind.
I just wanted to present it in a way you could make your own decision.
That's why the Dems want rogue and gone.
on, you might be right.
Yeah, and it has something to do with being able to explain something in detail and have some back and forth that this model allows for.
Alright.
Now, how many of you would like to see me moderate a presidential debate?
Thank you.
Serious question. Because I could probably do it.
I could probably pull it off.
You know, if it's on Zoom, if it's just on Zoom, I could probably do it.
Well, I think people are answering from the entertainment perspective.
I feel like I could do the best job...
All right, let me back up before I say this.
I pride myself...
No, even that's wrong.
I tried to make it to that point.
I won't say I pride myself.
All right, I'm not even going to finish that point.
All right.
I will finish the point.
In my opinion, I would be the best combination of asking good questions and being entertaining.
Because you have to be entertaining to get the audience.
But you should ask good questions because it's also a public service.
If you're talking to presidential candidates, your brain should be in public service mode, not in entertainment mode.
Right? If you're a good person at all, you should be in purely public service mode by the time you're talking to legitimate candidates for the presidency.
But I'm pretty sure I could do a good job and also be entertaining just because I'd ask interesting questions.
I also think that if I interviewed any candidate for president one-on-one, that I could get inside their head faster than almost anybody.
And when I say inside their head, I mean get them in a politician mode and get them into human mode.
I think I could do that faster than just about anybody could do that.
And again, it's just technique.
I'm not saying I have magic powers that I was born with.
I'm saying that anybody who studied certain techniques of persuasion, communication, etc., would be good at it.
That's all. Head trip.
I think if I made it my mission in life to host a presidential debate, I think I could do it.
I think I could pull it off.
Because I do think there's enough appetite for it.
There would be enough of an audience for it.
You know, you wouldn't have to worry about enough people watching.
There'd be plenty of people watching.
Jordan Peterson too, you say.
Jordan Peterson.
Good luck convincing the candidates.
Well, do you think I could convince Trump?
Who thinks I couldn't convince Trump to do a podcast with me?
I could convince Trump.
It'd be great for him.
Because what I would do for both candidates is let them show them in their best light.
I would be challenging, but I would also let them really show themselves in their best light.
That's the point of it, really. I'd be tough...
But I'm not trying to destroy anybody.
So do you think Trump could, let's say, thrive in that environment?
Of course he could. Of course he could.
And Trump knows me because he met me, so he would know.
He'd have a sense of me.
I don't think he'd be afraid of anything bad happening.
Now, whether the Democrat candidate would do it...
Who do you think the Democrat candidate is going to be, by the way?
Give me your best bet.
Democrat candidate for president.
I don't think Hillary.
I don't think Beto.
I don't think Kamala.
Not Michelle.
Klobuchar, Buttigieg.
I don't know.
I don't know if any of them are really...
I really have a chance.
Smollett, AOC, Newsom.
All right, well, let's pick Governor Newsom.
Would Governor Newsom agree to a debate that I moderated?
I don't know. Good question.
I'm a Californian, so maybe I'd have, like, a little bit of edge.
You know, so here's the thing.
I would not agree to host a presidential debate unless I was dead serious about giving them both equal treatment.
Like, I'd have to be dead serious about that.
But, you know, of course people would assume I didn't after they watched it, because that's the way it works.
But I'd be serious about it, whether I pulled it off or not.
All right. Um...
Why do I think Michelle Obama isn't now?
I don't think anybody's ready to elect somebody who doesn't have actual government service.
Because remember when people were saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton?
They said that before she was a senator or before she was Secretary of State.
She had to go through the work to become a presidential candidate.
Why would I want to?
Yeah, why would she want to?
That's a good question. I think it would be all bad for the Obamas if Michelle ran.
