Episode 1685 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The Fake News. There's Lots Of It
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Branding Pete Davidson
Jussie Smollett released from jail
Chris Cuomo's case against CNN
Ukraine war fake news stories
Biden calls Putin a "war criminal"
The looming nuclear question
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, ladies and gentlemen, if I were prepared and my printer were working, I would be looking at my notes right now.
But despite my best efforts to make that printer produce something, it does not.
Did I say the sound is bad?
Chuck that printer.
Yes, I might. - Good.
Let's see what's going on. Whoa!
Hold on.
Hold on.
Okay.
Sometimes you just have to scare them.
Is it my imagination or did that work?
No.
I think it's starting to print.
I'm watching this with great excitement because there's a really good chance if this doesn't print, I'm going to smash it on the tile floor.
I'm going to smash it on the tile floor.
So this is kind of exciting.
If this doesn't print, how much would you like to see me raise it above my head and smash it on my floor on camera?
I did it with my last printer.
I'll do it with as many printers as it takes.
Uh-oh! Let's see what message it has.
This will determine if it lives or dies.
You know, if I were inventing a printer...
I would invent it so it told me when it was on the paper, just before I smashed it on the ground.
Oh, looks like we'll have a show today.
Could happen.
Hold on.
My God.
Could I be less organized?
Could I be? Let's pretend none of this has ever happened.
Rewind. Rewind.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.
Now, it was close.
We almost had a situation here.
But apparently my printer doesn't tell me when it's out of paper the first time.
You've got to beat it up a little bit, and then it reveals its secrets.
I just shook that printer and made it work.
You saw that with your own eyes, right?
Did you all see that?
I just picked it up and shook it and scared it.
It started giving me information.
Anyway, if you'd like your day to be great, all you need is a cup of mango, a glass of tank, a chalice, a canteen, a jug, a flask of a vessel of any kind, fill it with your feet, a little bit.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the subtlety.
It's sips now.
It happens now.
Go.
Now everything's better.
Apparently I was a little under-caffeinated.
Problem solved.
Well, let's talk about all of the things, mostly fake news today.
Pete Davidson, who, as you know, is dating Kim Kardashian, much to the displeasure of Kanye.
And Kanye has now mocked Pete Davidson to the point where Pete Davidson got a tattoo.
I guess he got some tattoos with Kim Kardashian's name on them.
But also he branded her name on his skin.
He branded. He actually branded himself with her name.
Now, I'm not sure that this was Kanye's plan.
Kanye's pretty smart.
I feel like Kanye pushed him until he branded himself.
Am I wrong? Because if you're trying to get back at Kanye, here's a way not to do it.
Put Kanye's wife's name on your body with a brand, and then change girlfriends probably any day now.
The fun part will be Pete Davidson explaining the brand on his body to his next girlfriend.
Kanye, if you're watching this, I don't know if you can stop laughing.
Because I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Kim Kardashian is not going to marry Pete Davidson.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
I think they're not getting married.
And so, there's a good chance that Pete Davidson is going to be making love to his future love, and she's going to say, you know what bothers me?
You didn't get my name branded on you.
And Pete Davidson will now have to brand...
Every woman he wants to have a relationship with, he's going to have to get a brand on him.
He's going to look like a cow they use to practice branding.
Now, I wonder what kind of a sex cult he's in, because if there's one thing that the news has taught us, if somebody voluntarily gets a brand, they are in a sex cult.
Am I right? So I think that Kim Kardashian should probably go to jail for many years, just like the founder of NXIVM, who had his little subgroup there who branded each other.
Same thing. Must be a sex cult.
I think Kim Kardashian probably needs to go to jail for many years for running a sex cult and convincing Pete Davidson to put a brand on him.
Oh, oh, wait!
Wait. Pete Davidson is male.
Am I right? He's male.
So if a man decides to voluntarily brand himself, that's not coercion.
Do you know why? Because he's a man.
He's a man. But if a woman gets a brand voluntarily, she's a member of a cult, she couldn't possibly have had any free will, And she's been forced to do this against her will.
Why? Because she's a woman.
The logic is inescapable.
Men have free will and women don't, according to everything that I've been told in the last few years.
Am I right? Woman gets a brand, she must be in a cult.
Man gets a brand, oh, he just wanted to get a brand.
It's pretty sexist.
Pretty sexist.
Here's some more fake news.
There's a woman who is going to be opening with Steely Dan, or opening for Steely Dan this summer, named Amy Mann.
And she believes she was dropped from the show because she's a woman.
And she believes, without evidence, that Steely Dan thought their audience wouldn't like a female singer-songwriter.
To which I say, what?
What? Now, it would be one thing if somebody actually said that, but nobody actually said that.
Do you think that in the year 2022, the Steely Dan, or anybody, would say, you know, I don't think an audience is going to watch a woman sing.
That would be crazy.
No, the simulation has given us another entertainment here, and her name is Amy Mann.
She's actually aiming to be a man, according to her name, but she was dropped because she thinks it's because she was a female singer-songwriter.
No, that looks like fake news.
Just to stir things up, did you see that Dave Rubin and his partner slash husband, I'm not sure what the proper terms are, are having two babies.
Two babies, both with surrogates.
Different surrogates, and I think different sperm and egg.
I think they... I'm just guessing.
If you could have two babies at about the same time, you'd probably have one baby from one father and the other from the other.
I just assume. I don't know if that's the case.
But this is really pushing the science.
Each their own sperm and...
Oh, same egg donor.
Really? Same egg donor, somebody said?
Interesting. Okay. Well, I saw some conservatives vomiting in their mouth when they saw this news and saying, Dave Rubin, how can you call yourself a conservative?
Do you know how Dave Rubin can call himself a conservative?
He doesn't. He says he's a liberal every time anybody asks.
Every time. Every time.
100% of the time.
He says he's a liberal.
And then he acts like a liberal and people say, how can you call yourself a conservative?
No, that didn't happen.
But apparently people believe that Dave Rubin and his husband are violating some kind of Christianity biblical rule.
To which I say, let me check my Bible for the part about There's surrogacy, science, and test-tooth babies.
And what God said about that doesn't seem to be here.
It seems that the Bible was silent on surrogacy.
So how do we know what the Bible wanted or what God wanted?
Isn't that a human interpretation?
I mean, I realize the Bible has to be interpreted, but...
If God didn't say anything about it, whatsoever, how do you know what he's thinking?
I mean, it's bad enough when we're...
Who's giving me the snore over here?
You actually pay for a subscription and then yell, snore at me?
How about we get rid of you?
Jesus. So we will get rid of you.
Oh, God, my interface doesn't let me do that.
All right, I guess you'll just have to say that same word over and over again.
Yeah. Okay, so Dave Rubin's making things interesting again.
How about that Florida law that I've been refusing to talk about for really good reasons?
So here's the Florida law.
About teaching gender orientation stuff in school.
And it says, this is the actual language in the law, that before grade three, no sexual orientation lessons that are not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate can be taught.
To which I say, this is the most bullshit law I've ever seen in my life.
What a bullshit law.
Forget about... Conservative, liberal, forget about gender, forget about everything.
Who the fuck wants a law that says that the lesson has to be appropriate?
Who gets to decide what's appropriate?
Don't make laws about something being age-appropriate.
That's not a standard.
You can't make a standard that's subjective.
Really?
We just lost the sound?
Did we lose the sound?
Thank you.
No, I think we're okay. Oh, somebody's playing a prank.
It's a pretty good one. All right.
That's a pretty good prank. All right.
So here's what I say.
Forget about what you think about teaching children.
You can't make a law like this.
You can't make a law like this.
Right? You can't make a law that says something has to be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate without any standard for who decides what that is.
And I would imagine it would be different for different people.
Right? Imagine if you were a kid and you grew up in a household Where, you know, something non-traditional was going on.
Maybe you should see it sooner.
Because it would be relevant to your actual life.
So I just have a real problem with the law that's this vague.
You just can't have vague laws.
I mean, maybe you do need some kind of law, but not this one.
So I would vote against this based on vagueness and having nothing to do with the issue itself.
All right. China says its COVID cases are reducing.
I'm going to call that fake news.
What do you think? Do you think China is experiencing a reduction in cases of Omicron?
How? Do you think their lockdowns are that good?
What's this? Does not look like a troll.
Well, trolling makes you a troll.
So I guess the mainstream media has decided that calling our inflation a Putin price hike is good branding.
And even Chuck Todd said that.
And Andrea Mitchell agreed that Putin's price hike was a great way to message the issue.
What do you think about that?
Do you think it's a Putin price hike?
It's actually pretty good persuasion.
I mean, it's only persuading one side, but that's usually all anybody does anymore.
So if Democrats believe it, and it looks like they do, because the Democrats are not terribly good at economics, then it works.
So as persuasion, it probably works.
Probably pretty good, I've got to say.
If I'm just being objective about his technique, it's probably pretty good.
Now, it's not true, of course.
That's a separate question. So there was an energy independence bill that was blocked in a related story.
So the House Democrats blocked a bill that was aimed at saying we wouldn't buy any Russian oil and we would become energy independent.
And the House Democrats blocked it.
So they're calling the price hike a Putin price hike while they're blocking...
Independent drilling and energy in this country.
Or at least the expansion of it.
So now the Democrat messaging, pulling these two together, this is what the Democrats are telling the country, collectively.
Right? They're saying that Putin is the main cause of higher energy prices.
Would you agree? That's what Biden is saying.
And the mainstream media are repeating it.
So they're buying into Putin as the main cause of higher energy prices.
At the same time, the Democrats are saying that we should not increase our domestic energy production.
Do you know why? Apparently, it's because Russian fossil fuels do not contribute to climate change, but American ones do.
Now, I'm reading that into it, but it's the only thing that you could conclude.
Because... You're going to use the same amount of energy no matter where you buy it from, right?
So if you buy it from Russia, we have problems.
If you buy it from the United States, we have fewer problems.
But in both cases, the climate change is exactly the same.
So the Democrats don't even have a message that makes sense on paper.
You couldn't even write down their message.
If you wrote it down, you'd say, well, did you leave out a word or something?
Like, it wouldn't even make sense if you looked at it.
That the problem is Putin's energy hike, but we don't want to develop more energy ourselves because of climate change, even though we know it doesn't have any effect on climate change, because we'll just buy the other energy.
Am I wrong? I need a fact check on this, because to me, it looks obvious that they're saying two opposite things, or two things that are incompatible anyway, right?
That's what I've seen. I mean, it seems so obvious that I wondered if I was seeing it wrong.
Like, my head was just shaking.
I was like, am I looking at this right?
And I wonder, how do Democrats ever win another election?
And, of course, I asked that on Twitter, and everybody said, they'll rig that election.
Maybe they will. Well, Jussie Smollett was ordered released from jail after serving less than a week of a five-month sentence.
Why? Because he's pending appeal.
And I guess it's not that uncommon to let people out when you're pending appeal.
Is that true? Is he being treated special?
The way the news on the right is treating it is that he's being treated special.
But I'm not sure that it is special anymore.
Because these days, everybody's getting out on bail, right?
And if you're awaiting an appeal, you can be out on bail if it's a non-violent crime.
Um... Now, as many of you are correctly noting, the January 6th people did not seem to get that consideration.
But, I'm no lawyer, but I'll bet there is something different about the January 6th situation.
Isn't there? Because if there's not anything different, well then I do have a problem with it.
Now, there could be different jurisdictions, it could be just that.
Do you think it's just race?
I don't know. It looks more like connections.
But I guess here's the general question.
If we didn't look at the January 6th people, and that does look like a political hit, if you didn't count the January 6th, which is a special case, is it unusual that somebody with Smollett's crime, which stands alone, I don't think he has a criminal record, it wasn't violent? Why not?
I'm not sure I have a problem with him having bailed you.
Isn't he exactly the guy who gets bail?
Because they're not saying that he's out of jail.
They're just saying it's pending the appeal.
If the appeal doesn't work, he goes back to jail.
I would think that that would be a standard for everybody.
Isn't it? Does anybody know?
Are there lawyers here?
I feel like the standard would be the first ever crime, non-violent, unlikely to be repeated.
It's not exactly the kind of crime you do twice.
It's not like if you were a burglar, you might do it again, or if you were violent, you might do it again.
Who is going to run another MAGA hoax?
It's not really a crime you're going to do again.
So I would think in that case you would get bail.
I'm completely in favor of him getting bail.
I'm not in favor of the January 6th people being held, but I don't have a problem with him getting bail.
To me, that seems like exactly the case you should get bail.
You know, I'm not minimizing the crime.
He still goes back to jail if his appeal fails.
All right, the Chris Cuomo thing with CNN is really interesting.
When you watched, back when Chris Cuomo was still employed at CNN, and you would watch the handoffs and the chatter between Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo, if you could stand it, did that ever look real to you?
To me, that looked so amazingly fake.
The whole time it was happening, I never bought that they were really friends.
It looked like it was for the camera.
That's what it looked like.
Now, I think they did hang out.
They probably did hang out personally, but I just never really...
I didn't feel the chemistry, did you?
And it has nothing to do with black or white.
I just didn't feel any chemistry between those two people.
I don't know. But Chris Cuomo is asking for $125 million, and his argument is that you can't violate a standard that doesn't exist.
Meaning CNN didn't have a standard.
Or if they did, everybody was violating it routinely, including the boss.
Because apparently the allegation is that Zucker himself and Golust, I guess that would be Zucker's girlfriend at the time, if I got that right...
Was that the one he admitted having...
I don't want to get that wrong.
Had also advised Governor Cuomo.
Zucker had also encouraged him to interview his brother.
Here's my thing.
If your conflict of interest is overt and everybody can see it, I don't have a problem with it.
Do you? I've always been offended by the notion that somebody would not let a brother give advice to a brother because one of the brothers had a news job.
I'm not buying that at all.
Your job doesn't override your family connection.
Ever. And so there's really...
There's no reason that that should have been a problem.
Now, given the fact that Cuomo overtly, you know, joked with his brother on TV. Is there anybody who would watch that and not know that it was a biased brother-on-brother interview?
I mean, I feel like we're sophisticated enough to know people don't throw their brother under the bus on live TV. That doesn't happen.
So... 25%, somebody said.
So I'm actually, weirdly, on Chris Cuomo's side on this.
Because I think he makes a case that the standard was not recognized, and whatever his alleged indiscretions were about advising his brother, it definitely was not outside the norm for the business.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Given what you saw, and given that it was all overt, I mean, you knew what Chris Cuomo's job was, you knew what his brother's job was, you knew that they talked to each other in public.
Of course they talked in private.
Of course. Like, I don't know.
To me, this is a non-story, and I think Chris Cuomo has a pretty good argument here.
He gives the example of Don Lemon being friends with Jussie Smollett, of course.
I mean, that had to be a source of bias.
And there are some other examples, etc.
Yeah, I'm going to go with Chris Cuomo on this.
Did you hear about the Mariupol Theater that was bombed in Ukraine?
And there were allegedly many civilians hiding inside from the bombs.
I'm going to call that fake news.
How many of you believe that the Mariupol Theater in Ukraine was bombed, causing hundreds of deaths?
Some believe it? I believe it was bombed.
I believe there were deaths. I don't believe there were that many people or that many deaths, because we're not seeing pictures, right?
Wouldn't we see pictures of just...
Piles of bodies. Now, I know it's in rubble, but still, you'd see a lot more pictures.
Nobody said hundreds?
There were hundreds of people inside, and they were talking about maybe their survivors, so I'm guessing that there were hundreds.
Hundreds of alleged deaths.
Well, I'm just going to say that there may have been a horrible thing that happened.
I'm not going to doubt that.
My guess, though, is that this has been propagandized Beyond whatever the original bad behavior was.
So I don't believe anything about the Mary Pole Theater, except that maybe somebody died.
I think Ukraine is winning the war, as I've been saying.
And I think they actually will win it.
I think they're going to win it outright.
They're just going to win the war.
And we're seeing small signs of that.
Now, here's the setup. If I told you in advance this is the competition, you've got...
On one side, you've got Ukrainian patriots, apparently well-trained.
You've got... They're using American-slash-NATO weaponry, so the best weapons.
They've got the home field advantage, and their enemy is being put on crippling economic sanctions.
So that's what they've got going for them.
But the Russians, of course, have tons of bombs that they can deliver from a distance.
But they also have Russian conscripts, Russian equipment.
They're playing an away game on somebody else's territory, and they have now a totally dysfunctional economy, or they will soon.
Who wins? Who wins with that setup?
Now... Smart people say Russia wins because they can just keep bombing until they win.
They just have to want to, right?
Basically, they just have to want to win.
But do you think that Putin could survive if he just levels Ukraine?
I don't think so.
So if you think he can do it physically, you're right.
I agree with you.
From a physical logistics perspective, he could level Ukraine.
But I don't think he can do it and win.
And that's the point, right?
Winning is the point. So I don't think that path is available.
While yes, it's technically true he could do it, it's not really an available path because it goes directly to failure and the whole point is to win.
Your facts and basic premise are wrong.
Perhaps a gentleman yelling at me in all capital letters Could quickly mention some of the assumptions that I have wrong.
Use your words.
Use your words. Gelman amnesia.
Use your words. All capital letters and vague statements don't mean anything.
But I am listening. I'm watching.
So if you give me an assumption that I got wrong, I will take that.
Okay, now it's just a troll.
Listen to other sources, in all caps.
All right, we'll put user in timeout.
Timeout. Russian sources.
All right, so here are some of the things which we're hearing of which I don't think any of them are necessarily true.
Allegedly, there was a two-day battle in a Ukrainian city called Vaznesenk in which the Ukrainians actually just defeated the Russian invaders outright.
They just killed tons of them and repelled them.
And, you know, the 100 bodies and stuff.
So do you believe that?
Do you believe that the Russian military and the Ukrainian military met head-to-head and the Ukrainian military just spanked them hard?
I believe it could be true.
Meaning that any given group of Russian military might be stronger or weaker.
And any given group of Ukrainian defenders might be stronger or weaker.
So it could be a case of the strongest Ukrainian fighters with a weak, you know, bad strategy, Russian advance.
I can say it could be true.
It could be true. But I wouldn't automatically think it's true.
There's another story, again, from three independent sources.
What is the credibility of three independent sources that are not named?
None. So I'm going to give you a story that has no credibility whatsoever.
Just something I saw from a...
Let's say a source on Twitter that one of the generals has been detained for reasons unknown by the security service.
So this would be yet another example of somebody detained by the intelligence services.
What time is it?
I'm not sure if I believe this story because you can't really verify it, can you?
And isn't this one of those stories that is exactly what the Ukrainians would want you to believe?
I'm being accused of making vague statements so that I can't be wrong.
all.
I don't know. I think I make pretty specific statements.
Ukraine will win.
Is that vague? And they will win because they have better weapons.
So I gave you a reason and a specific outcome.
Yeah, I think I do both.
But the ones you should pay attention to are the specific ones.
I would agree with that. Well, over in Great Britain, there's a kleptocracy unit that they think Putin has millions of pounds of personal wealth stashed in London, and they're going to try to figure out where it is and capture it, I guess. So now Putin's wealth that he has presumably stashed in places around the world, I assume he's diversified where he put it, but the countries may start looking for it.
Maybe they will find it. I don't know.
I would guess he's pretty good at hiding.
It's probably in Bitcoin by now.
All right. So I don't believe any of that stuff.
So the United States agreed to give a bunch of drones to Ukraine, but the number is unspecified.
So we're giving them an unspecified number of U.S.-made drones.
Now, we're giving them both the big drones...
That can carry munitions and then come back to base, but apparently we're also looking at giving them these little Switchblade drones, which are smaller drones that can hover over an area for 30 minutes, and then when it finds something it wants to kill, it just does a suicide dive and it kills it.
Yeah, Switchblade is the name of the drones.
And I don't know how many of those we can make, but couldn't they win the whole war with those?
Somebody says you're falling for the fake news.
Now, what's the fake news?
Because I don't know the numbers.
And I'm guessing that...
Oh, if you're saying I'm falling for the fake news because I think they'll win, that's not what I'm basing on.
So I'm not basing my opinion that they'll win on the fake news.
I read it to you because it's what's happening.
But my opinion is based on logic, not the news.
And the logic is that our weapons are going to be really good.
We haven't seen them used by trained people in a situation like this.
And I thought if you give them enough anti-tank, anti-aircraft, enough drones, that Ukraine wins.
So it's really just the one with the better hardware wins and the home court advantage, basically.
How much training do you need for drones, and what is the range?
Well, even the small switchblades have a several-mile range, so you can be pretty far away from your target.
And I don't think it takes a ton of training, because all they have to do is fly it and then aim it.
It can't be that much, at least for the little ones.
The big ones would be more, of course, I assume.
All right. I'm not so sure that we need to give airplanes to Ukraine.
I mean, I'm not against it, but I think that if we could give them Buku drones, they'd be better off, or at least as well off.
So if we can give them unlimited drones without triggering World War III, I'm not sure there's a reason to give them planes.
All right. Here's a...
Here's how to make a hoax.
If you're going to play a hoax on somebody, you want to start with something they already think is true, and then you add some details to it and they're going to believe the details, because you're grafting it on top of something that you're primed to believe.
So this is what Putin is doing.
He's using that technique.
It's something we're primed to believe, But probably isn't true.
So he's saying that Putin has claimed that the US has a network of secret bio-warfare labs in Ukraine dedicated to weaponizing pathogens and coronaviruses.
Now, to me it seems unlikely that's true, but it's a really good persuasion play because he knows that American public is primed to believe that we have weaponized virus labs all over in bad places.
So it's really good technique.
If you just come up with something that wasn't already connected to a belief, you just say, ah, it's not true.
But when you connect it to something you already thought was true, then it just brings a whole weight to it.
So that's really good technique.
Biden has called Putin a war criminal.
Also good technique.
Because if you call somebody a war criminal, what does that say about the future?
Because that's what it's about. It's not really about the past, even though that's the war crimes were the past and probably some more in the future.
But it's about making sure that he's dead as a leader.
When the President of the United States says that the President of Russia is a war criminal, and he says it clearly and wants to make sure you've heard it clearly, which is what Biden did, he's saying we'll never work with him again.
That's what I hear. Do you hear that?
I think he's saying, we'll never work with you again, never invite you to a G anything, and the rest of the world probably won't either.
I feel as though that's part of the decapitation strike that is being planned on Putin.
It's part of the move to get his own people to take him out, basically.
If you just say, you know, we're not going to deal with a war criminal, Now, could Putin just as easily call any United States president a war criminal?
Probably. So all that matters is whether Biden can make his stick.
And were you already predisposed to thinking that Putin was a war criminal?
Yes, you were. So again, Biden's persuasion uses the same technique.
He's telling you something that you were already ready to believe.
He just filled in the blank for you.
He said, yes, sure now. So I watched Putin's speech again, this time with translation.
And I've got to say, he looks mentally unstable to me.
Now, I've told you that I'm going to be...
You can't trust me to be unbiased about Ukraine.
I might be trying to persuade too much.
But... I'll always promise you that if I say this, it's always true.
If I tell you, I'm telling you the truth, like in direct sentence, the following thing I say is my real opinion.
I'm never going to lie to you about that, right?
If I just say it directly, like look in your digital eye and say, I'm not lying about this, you can trust it.
I don't think I've ever told that kind of lie in my whole life.
I mean, everybody's told a lie of omission.
But if I tell you directly, it's true.
I don't know how to lie like that.
But in my opinion, he looks mentally unstable.
Now, it could be just the pressure of the situation.
It doesn't mean he's organically or has a sickness of any kind.
He looked like someone who knew he'd lost.
And when I say lost, I mean lost Russia.
Lost his job, lost his standing, lost everything.
He just looked like somebody who's completely destroyed mentally.
Now, yeah, he dropped his baby face, that's right.
He used to have this weirdly incongruous face that made you like him.
Like, he always had this likable smile about him, even though, presumably, he's always been a monster.
But he dropped the likable smile.
Now, it could be he just has a war face on.
Maybe. But he looks puffy and maybe drugged.
Maybe drugged.
There's something going on that's not just he's 69.
I'm positive. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet...
Whatever. I'm positive.
I don't know what it is.
Could be drugs. Could be illness.
Could be just the stress of the situation.
But he's not all there.
Now, I don't think that means he's going to launch a nuke.
I'm not on that worry bandwagon.
But I don't think he's functioning at his best.
It wouldn't surprise me, especially since what he talked about was the...
I think he was talking about the oligarchs and some who don't even live in Russia who may be moving against him a little bit.
So I think that Putin is afraid of his own oligarchs.
He is afraid of COVID. He thinks he lost the war.
He might be afraid of his own generals at this point if he's detaining them.
He is in a world of trouble.
So my prediction is that Ukraine will win outright and that going on offensive and with these new weapons, I think they're going to get it done.
Daniel Dale, who does the fact-checking for CNN, did a fact-check that is friendly to a conservative.
I don't know how many times he's done that, but I'll give him credit for doing it this time.
So there's a viral tweet saying that Marjorie Taylor Greene...
She refused to applaud Zelensky.
And that's false.
Because if you looked at the entire tape, you would see that she applauded him four times.
But one of those times she was reaching for her phone or something.
And that's the part that was the viral tweet.
And Daniel Dale says, she was a pretty tepid clapper, but full footage shows she clapped four times, blah, blah.
So, I found this interesting.
Daniel Dale gave a full-throated fact check to this, and fact check that Marjorie Taylor Greene did not make a mistake.
Interesting. So, you know, it's also not a...
She's not running for office or anything, so...
It's not the biggest thing in the world.
Let's see. I believe I've touched all of my points.
After I'm done with the livestream today, I'm going to do a little micro-lesson for the people on Locals, how to improve their life.
I don't know what to do next to improve it.
And I should be able to post that before noon, I think, today.
Russian subcommanders get their launch orders directly from Putin.
Okay.
Interesting. Do you think that a subcommander would launch a nuke if that subcommander had any information about the outside world?
Do they? All right, here's the question.
Would a subcommander who's actually, you know, in the sub, do they have access to the outside world, like the Internet?
Would they have any idea what's going on in the real world?
In the movies, they don't.
They do when they surface, as somebody says.
So I just wonder if a subcommander would obey that order.
So somebody says yes, and they were a submariner.
So the submarine does know what's happening in the outside world all the time, right?
Yeah, I can't see them launching a nuke, even if ordered.
They do drills to make sure nuke controllers don't worry about the outside world.
They are trained and checked. Interesting.
So you're saying that they're trained not to use their own judgment about the outside world.
That doesn't surprise me.
They get the news from Russian sources.
But you know, before you launch a nuke, I feel like you'd probably check.
Major psychological testing?
Yeah, but they're still human.
I don't know.
I don't think it's zero risk, but I think it's really low.
Must read the substory in the Cuba crisis.
Well, I don't think the Cuban crisis has any relevance to today because of technology.
The U.S. does the same training to see if they will launch when ordered in the U.S.
If not, they're removed.
Eddie says, you don't have time to check.
You get the order and proceed to correct depth.
I don't know. I guess I'm skeptical.
I hear what you're saying. I hear that they would design the system to get rid of that risk.
But I don't know that they would.
I don't know that they would.
Tim Pool getting spotted again.
Why does he keep getting swatted?
They haven't found anything yet.
Why would they swat him like five times or something?
Russia subs used to need three officers in agreement to fire, somebody says.
Where is the nuclear football?
all Did the crew of the Enola Gay question orders?
No, but they also knew it was World War II. So I think in World War II, nobody questioned an order to drop a bomb of any kind.
Oh, there was a bomb threat, not a SWAT. He has a compound?
All right. How to use your talent stack to demonstrate that you are capable of major career changes.
