Episode 1728 Scott Adams: The Ministry Of Truth, Musk's New CEO Moves, Amber Turd And More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Newspaper group censors Black Dilbert character
Aaron Rupar STILL pushing "drinking bleach" HOAX
Elon Musk's new CEO moves
Biden's partisan Ministry of Truth?
Amber Heard behaviors
Ukraine/Russia tipping point
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Now, it may be that you haven't won any actual competitions, but that's only because you haven't tried.
Imagine if you tried.
Wow. The things you could do.
And I don't think that I'm going out on a limb here by saying you're better looking than ever.
And today we're going to have an amazing live stream or recorded session, as you prefer.
And all you need to take this to the next level, to the dopamine level that, well, people only dreamed about.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
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.
It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh.
Woo. I felt I was starting to get some cooties.
And that just cleared it all up.
I have some news about a study.
It says that drinking coffee can cure COVID. Cures COVID. There was only one person in the study group.
That was me. And I've never had COVID. So...
Guess we got some proof there.
Well, here's a real story.
There was a truck that was loaded with a lot of copies of Roget's Tessaurus.
And do you know why I said there was a truck that was filled with copies of Roget's Tessaurus?
Because I don't know the plural of Tessaurus.
So I'm going to do the same thing that this tweet did.
I don't want to say tesauri, because it feels like that's what it should be.
And I don't want to say tesauruses, because that just sounds like something's going on with your mouth, like you're eating candy.
When they drop in the road.
Tesauruses. Tesauruses.
So that doesn't even sound like it's a word.
So let's just say there were thousands of copies of Roget.
Anyway, here's the tweet.
A truck loaded with thousands of copies of Rogat's tesaurus spilled its load, leaving New York witnesses...
Oh, in New York.
Witnesses were stunned, startled, aghast, stupefied, confused, shocked, rattled, paralyzed, days, bewildered, surprised, dumbfounded, flabbergasted, confounded, astonished, and numbed.
Excellent tweet from a user named Duck.
Good work, Duck.
Uh... But was it Tesorai?
I think it was.
Well, I told you that I was going to introduce a regular black character in the Dilbert universe.
Now, of course, there have been characters of color in the Dilbert universe before, but within the main cluster of the regulars, there was Ashok, who was born in India, but that was it.
And I always wanted to make the cast look more like the readers.
And so I added this new black character.
I think it's next week that it runs, starting Monday, I believe.
And it's Dave, whose name will be Dave.
And, of course, the hard thing about having a black character, if you're a white author, is how do you do it respectfully?
But also comically, because those two things don't fit.
How can you be respectful at the same time as being humorous?
You kind of can't do it, really.
So you have to find some kind of a personality characteristic that you can give your character that will keep you on that, let's say, dangerous fence but without falling off.
Now, this is something that I would not have dared to do earlier in my career, because the odds of me getting cancelled for this, pretty good.
What evidence do I have that there's a good chance I'll be getting cancelled for trying to make my comic strip more diverse in a respectful way?
Yes, I will get cancelled for that.
Already, a substantial newspaper chain has said they won't run the comic.
So it's already been censored, I guess you'd say, by private industry, not by government.
But yeah, one newspaper chain.
Now, you may not notice it because it's a chain that owns mostly smaller newspapers.
But I don't know if that will be the last newspaper chain that cancels this one.
So, we'll see.
Now, the approach I took was to have the Dilbert characters and Dilbert's boss deal with the new character the way real people would deal with the situation.
So it's just that.
That's all it is. So it's pretty innocent.
There's nothing there that...
I would say I didn't put anything there that I thought would even be cancelable.
You know, because it has to run in newspapers, so it's not going to be that provocative.
We'll see. This will be a good test case.
If it turns out that I get cancelled because of this, I don't mind going down that way.
That would be sort of a good way to retire.
I'm at that point in my career where if somebody offered me enough money to buy Dilbert, the IP, I would say, well, if it's enough, I would retire tomorrow.
But I won't stop doing this.
But I can easily stop doing the comic.
Alright. Did you see the video of Jim Acosta trying to accost?
What are the odds of that?
That his name is Jim Acosta and part of his job is accosting people.
Is that a coincidence?
That's weird. But he was accosting.
He was Jim Acosting.
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And he was asking her why did she...
Say something in a tweet.
And it doesn't even matter what the content is, because the story is not about the content.
So he makes an accusation, then she pushes back.
And she basically says, if you're saying that you'd like me to answer for what I said in a tweet, show me the tweet.
I want to see the exact words of the full tweet, and then I'll respond to it.
And he tries to just essentially explain the tweet again.
She says, no, no.
And basically she goes right after him for his fake news approach.
And she goes, no, you're going to show me the actual tweet, the full tweet, or else we're not going to talk about it.
And he fumbles around with his phone.
All right, all right, I'll just show you the tweet.
And then he comes up with an article about the tweet.
And she says, no, no, not an article about the tweet.
No. The tweet.
The full tweet. Nothing cut out.
The entire tweet. Just read it to me, and then I'll answer your question.
He couldn't do it.
Because when he did find the tweet, it very clearly didn't say what he was asking her to respond to.
It very clearly was a, you know, she hedged something just the way you would want something hedged.
And to watch her bust him...
Like, so clearly to show how...
Yeah, just...
I mean, really, the story was supposed to be about her poorly answering the question, right?
That was supposed to be the story.
The story was that the way he asked the question is the story.
And then her response would be, no comment, or that's what you expect in these kinds of interviews.
But instead, she basically just pushed him up against a wall, made him prove to the world that he was shooting blanks, and that he was just full of shit.
And then she moved on.
And I have to say, I had not really been following her much at all, and I know she said a bunch of provocative things that, if I looked into them, I probably would not agree with.
I don't even know what she said, but horrible, provocative things, I'm told.
So let's just assume I wouldn't agree with that stuff, whatever it is.
I just don't know what it is.
But I have to admit, I kind of get it now.
Like I was trying to understand why she was popular at all.
You know, because I try to understand that about everybody.
Like, why is this person more popular?
And then I saw that.
And what it was, it was pure power.
She actually just knows how to wield power.
Now, is that...
Is that good? Well, it depends if you agree with her.
If you don't agree with her, I guess that's bad.
But to watch her just dissect this guy while the cameras were rolling was actually a treat.
I enjoyed it in a way that I'm not proud of, right?
A little dopamine hit. And I thought, wow, she actually does have the goods.
I can see how she got elected, even though I don't align with her views, I'm pretty sure.
All right. Can you believe that we're still talking about the drinking bleach hoax?
And Aaron Rupar brought that up again, so he was talking about it again on Twitter.
But this time, enough people have been trained about how to respond to that hoax that you all have links.
So people started sending in links to the company that was actually injecting a disinfectant into the lungs.
The injection method was like a ventilator.
It goes down the trachea.
And the disinfectant was UV light.
Exactly what Trump said.
It was injected into the lungs.
In this case, they were injecting it into the trachea, but the talk was about extending it.
So there was talk about extending it, and Trump was talking...
Hypothetically, like he was speculating, could you, in theory, inject it into the lungs?
Because it was already being injected into a trachea, so, you know, a little bit of a tweak, and maybe you can get some kind of a device all the way into the lungs.
So that was actually being talked about.
And so what happens when...
I think we're good to go.
With a source, and I even tweeted at him a Wall Street Journal article by, I think it was the president or one of the founders of that technology, who said that he knew that the president was talking about their technology.
So it's the guy's actual company, and he confirms that, yes, they can inject light down into the, at least into the trachea, and that, yes, that's what the president was talking about.
He recognized it immediately.
Now, I recognized it immediately, too, because I'd been tweeting about that very technology, you know, right before.
And right before the president talked about it.
So we know exactly where it came from, the idea.
It came from that technology.
It was being trialed at Cedar Sinai.
I don't think it worked out, by the way, but it was being trialed.
And... So what would happen if you were confronted with this completely unambiguous evidence?
Well, at first, Aaron Rupar went with the...
He said, injected is the key word.
Basically, big difference, he said injected.
So he was trying to make the case that it couldn't be talking about light if he would use the word injected.
But then you look at the technology and you see that it's literally injected.
And I guess the YouTube videos that this company had up on YouTube were taken down.
Do you know why?
I don't think they do.
Because it was an actual trial.
It was a legitimate trial to try to...
The only reason I can think that it was taken down is that it would make the hoax be more obvious.
Because if you could just link to the video, people would say, oh, that does look exactly like injecting a disinfectant that happens to be UV light.
Yeah, I think that's exactly an example of the censorship that Elon Musk talks about.
So it's kind of amazing.
So after the injected part was debunked and after the fact that it was obviously he was talking about light, that got debunked by just showing the full transcript instead of the edited part.
You could tell that Trump was always talking about light.
Aaron Rupar just goes silent.
And you have to wonder what's going on.
Did he get his mind changed?
Or... Or does the brain not allow you to see that final piece of evidence, the part that would have changed the mind?
Does the brain just prevent you from changing your mind?
Cognitive dissonance. And so I'm actually genuinely curious.
If I could talk to him in person, and I'd say, okay, so now that you've been down this well, and you know exactly that he always talked about light, he said light, he never said bleach, he said injected, but that's actually what was being discussed, Now that you've walked him down that, what would he say? Now, do you believe that he knew all along and he's just lying?
Because he doesn't really act like it.
He doesn't really act like he's lying.
He acts like he believes that the president actually said that.
But, you know, it could be an act.
I can't really read people's minds.
So I'm actually curious.
Does he still actually believe...
That the president suggested injecting a disinfectant, like a liquid disinfectant.
And then when other people in the comments hear the debunk, which is devastatingly completely 100% effective debunk, they say, well, that can't be true because the president said he was just being sarcastic.
Why would he do that?
To which I say, well, how did it work out the first time he talked about it?
It didn't work out.
Why would he do the same thing that didn't work out twice?
So he mentioned something that was a real technology that should have been fine.
It should have actually shown that he was ahead of the journalists because he would have known something they didn't know at that time.
So it should have worked out fine.
It should have been a case of him knowing something people didn't know.
Instead, it turned out to this big embarrassing thing.
So I would imagine he would not want to do exactly what he did before, because you know what the journalists would say?
Even if he said, no, I was talking about light technology, they would say he's doubling down.
That's what they'd say. They wouldn't say, oh, he's talking about this real technology.
No, they'd say he's doubling down on injecting bleach.
There's no way to win. So if he knew there was no way to win, and I think that would have been the right instinct, he could have just said, ah, I was just joking, to just try to make it go away.
So there's a perfectly reasonable reason he would try to make it go away, because there's no way to win.
As long as the media was going to say anything they wanted, the best he could do is just make less of it.
Just say, ah, I was kidding. Make it go away.
That's not the way I would have handled it, probably.
I think I would have made a run at defending it.
But, who knows?
That's why I'm not president.
Good observation from Twitter user Jason Andrews, who notes that Elon Musk's recent tweeting, now that he is going to own the company, it looks like, is what I used to call the, or still do, the new CEO move.
So the new CEO move is whatever the new CEO does in the first weeks because that defines who they are.
Your first impression tells everybody who you are, and then that lasts, so you don't always have to be an outrageous version of that person.
You could just set an example, do something a little theatrical that says who you are, and then that defines you for the rest of your term.
And it does look like Musk is either intentionally or not, but it's working out that way, he's doing the new CEO move with his tweets.
Because he's very clearly laying out His free speech position.
He's very clearly laying out that he's never going to take things that don't matter seriously.
Like he just laughs at things that are like dumb criticisms and stuff.
So the fact that he thinks it's funny that people are criticizing him in such a poor way, he's actually raiding their criticisms.
I think he gave...
He said he would give the Washington Post criticisms of him a bad review on Yelp.
It just wasn't done very well.
And he just laughs at the whole thing while he goes ahead and changes the world.
And I thought, yeah, that's exactly what's going on.
And if I were to add something to that, Here's what I would add.
So right now he's getting some heat for being too aligned with the political right.
But he says he's not.
He says he's where he always was, but the left moved left, and then there's a big debate on Twitter.
Did that really happen, or did the right move right and the left move left?
You know, everybody's got their opinions.
I'm not sure I care too much about that.
I think it's fair that they're We hear from more extreme people on the left and the right.
So that part's true.
But here's what I would do if I were the new CEO. If I were the Musk, and, well, I don't think he'll be CEO, but let's say owner, I would do this.
I would say in public what the biggest hoaxes were on the left and the right.
I would just explain them.
Because if he says it, people will listen.
If I say it, they just don't have to follow me on Twitter.
They just block me.
But if he says it, they just sort of have to listen.
Because you can't not listen to him.
He's got the trumpet magic now.
If he talks, everybody's going to hear it.
So anything he says can break that bubble, and almost nobody else can.
He has a unique bubble-bursting position in the world right now that gives him all kinds of power.
It's sort of like the Jim Manchin thing.
Is it Jim? What is Manchin's first name?
Senator Manchin. It's like the Manchin thing.
Joe, I'm sorry, Joe Manchin.
Joe Manchin. It's like that.
I don't think Joe Manchin woke up and said, oh, I want to be the swing vote and then I'll control everything, but that's how it worked out.
And I don't think Elon Musk woke up and said, oh, I'm going to be the one person in the world who can be heard by the left and the right.
But he is. I don't think that was a plan at all.
I think it was just purely accidental.
He was just sort of being himself.
And he suddenly finds himself the only person who can pierce both bubbles.
And so it would be fun to see him do it.
Have him pierce both bubbles.
Because that would really tell you who he is.
If he's really for free speech, and he's against misinformation, then I think he should give us a little free speech, his own, and tell us what he thinks was a hoax and what wasn't.
But it's got to be on both sides.
And I was wondering, okay, I'm so in my own bubble.
This is a brain check for ourselves.
So do what I'm doing right now if you like this way of maintaining maybe any semblance of rational thought.
Just consider how much of a bubble you might be in.
Because I'm doing that right now.
And here's where I hit the wall of my bubble, and I didn't realize I was running really hard into a wall until I hit it.
So I started making a mental list of all the hoaxes on the left.
I'm like, all right, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax.
And you can come up with eight to ten hoaxes that are gigantic.
Laptop, Russia collusion.
You can just go on and on with all those hoaxes.
But then I said, all right, all right, but just to be fair, clearly there are just as many on the other side.
So I started to make my list of outright hoaxes.
Now, we're not talking about lies.
We're not talking about lies or just being wrong.
I'm talking about something that was clearly a hoax.
Something that even the people reporting it, they knew it wasn't true.
Or at least some of them.
And I started to make my list, and I couldn't really think of anything recently.
You can think of things, but you have to go back to, like, weapons of mass destruction, and, you know, Pizzagate's sort of a special case.
That's not exactly a Republican thing.
But... But help me out here.
What would be, let's say since the beginning of Trump's rise, what would be, from the beginning of Trump on, what would be some examples of hoaxes, like major fake news that lived for a long time, that was something perpetrated by the right?
QAnon. Hmm?
I don't know. QAnon feels like just a subgroup.
It doesn't really feel like that's the right, does it?
Do you think of Q being associated with the right?
I mean, they are.
But it feels a lot more like it's a subgroup.
Oh, okay.
There's one. The Dominion voting machines and the Venezuelan Venezuelan dictator.
Okay, that's a good one. Obama birth certificate, that's old.
I'm looking for something that sort of happened from the beginning of the Trump 2015-2016 era.
Yeah, so the Kraken is a good example.
We got that one. I guess we could throw Q in there, but Q is so many things, like so many topics.
That one's a little, it's a weird one.
Oh, yeah. Pizzagate was during...
Okay. All right.
I'll give you Pizzagate.
The wall?
Well, I mean, you'd have to be more specific about the wall.
All right.
So...
There you have it. So here's what I would recommend.
I would love to hear somebody ask Elon Musk what he thought of.
Maybe show up with a list.
Because he'll probably do a bunch of podcasts, don't you think?
You know, the high-impact podcasts.
And by the way, Elon Musk, if you're listening to this live stream, why wouldn't you?
Duh. I invite you.
To do an interview.
I'm not sure I would do that.
I'll find you somehow. I'll bring my iPad.
We'll work it out. Anyway, we can talk about the simulation.
So that's what I do. I'd love to see him debunk the left and the right, and then you know where he stands.
Because here's the thing. If somebody is willing to put up $44 billion, I guess it's credit, but you know what I mean.
If somebody's willing to go this far into the Twitter thing because of free speech, don't you think he has a point of view of what things besides the Hunter's laptop, which he's already talked about, don't you think he has a mental list of what things were fake news?
Wouldn't you like to hear that list?
Because what if he thinks things that are true were fake?
That'd be scary, right?
So what if he told you what he believed was true and false, and you listened to it and you said, uh, is he believing a lot of things that aren't true?
Because that would be scary as hell.
Or how about the opposite?
How about there are things that you are positive or true, and Elon Musk says, now I looked into that, there's no way that's true.
And you're going to say to yourself, wait, what?
I was positive that was true.
What's that going to do to you?
It would be awesome, just to see what happens.
There's a graph going around Twitter about Democrats versus Republicans and trusting scientists, or trusting the scientific community.
And it showed that right around 2016, what was happening about then?
Democrats zoomed up in how much they trust the scientific community at the same time that the Republicans went to the Lowest levels of how much they've trusted the scientific community.
So there's this giant gap that just formed about the time that Trump was elected.
So, how do you explain that?
What would be, could you put it in like one sentence?
How do you explain it?
Russia? No, not Russia.
Because I'm not talking about experts, I'm talking about the scientific community.
Yeah, somebody says it's not restricted to just the scientific community.
So I would say that mainly what happened is that the way the scientific community treated Trump and the way the fake news treated all of it was such that the Democrats were brainwashed by their own media To think that the science was always right, because that could mean that Trump was more wrong.
So they had to build up science to make that contrast with those ignorant Trump supporters.
I think that's all that happened.
So when I tell you that the news assigns opinions, there it is.
Did you wonder if that was hyperbole?
I've been saying for years that people don't form opinions.
The opinions are assigned.
They're assigned by the news.
The news tells you, okay, you're a Democrat, here's what you think.
They don't say it directly, but pretty directly.
I mean, you can't miss what they're saying.
So, yeah, there's a genetic component here, but mostly people are just being fed their opinions.
And that's just the starkest example.
As soon as the news told people the scientific community was more awesome than they'd ever imagined, they believed it.
And when the people watching other news were told that the experts were all lying, they believed that.
So they were both assigned their individual opinions.
Now, is one of them right?
Yes. One of them is more right than the other, meaning that somebody...
We either should be trusting them more...
Or should be trusting them less, but I doubt it's exactly the same.
I feel like, you know, there should be a lot more or a lot less, but it'd be hard to argue that it should just stay the same.
Well, you've heard about this new disinformation board that the Biden administration is going to have, and I have to agree with Dana Perino, who said this on The Five.
Did they not ask anybody for an opinion before they rolled this out?
Was there not one person who leaned a little bit to the right who could have told them that the disinformation board would be instantly, instantly and universally labeled the new ministry of truth from 1984?
How did they not see that coming?
It was the most obvious thing that could have happened, right?
And I don't think it was like...
It's not like one person thought of it and said, hey, hey, this is reminding me of that obscure book, 1984, and that new Ministry of Truth thing.
And I... I mean, seriously, probably a million people had exactly the same idea when they saw Ministry of Truth.
Oh, my God, it's finally here.
I had no idea that things had gotten so bad.
And when I saw this story, the thing that I kept shaking my head over is, is this real?
I'm trying to imagine how the meeting went.
You can't even wrap your head around, this is actually real.
Actually? Really?
And as other people have asked, how's this going to work?
What exactly do they do?
Are they going to fact check us?
Because that's not going to work.
Because they're partisans.
So what is it?
How is it going to work? A lot of people are giving a lot of grief to the person who was hired to be the head of this disinformation board.
Because apparently she has been, let's say, associated with some disinformation herself, as well as bad singing.
No, actually she sings pretty well, but apparently she likes singing show tunes with political words.
So she's definitely not one to be embarrassed.
She apparently handles embarrassment well, because she's quite a ham.
I like that part about her, actually.
But I don't think she's going to last because of all the bad press she's getting.
But there is a report that the Biden administration is going to hire someone else to replace her already.
They're looking at Amber Turd to be the new Minister of Truth.
And one of the spokespeople explained it this way, quote, if America is going to shit the bed, we wanted someone with experience.
So Amber Turd would be kind of perfect for that.
So we'll see if that happens.
Or is it fake news?
You never know. You never know.
Well, speaking of Amber Turd, the liar and blackmailer, according to what we hear in the media, according to the trial, she sought a plush payoff from Johnny Depp in an exchange for basically not blackmailing him.
No, well, actually it just was blackmail.
In exchange for not going public with their troubles.
Now, let me ask you this.
How in the world does she ever get work again after this?
Like, what director would say, I think I'll take a chance on this.
I don't see any problem.
I mean, there probably are other actresses.
Are there not other women who can pull off a leading role or something?
So, it makes you wonder.
Now, I've said that Amber Turd is not like somebody who's got some personality problems.
She's probably in this category of the borderline personality disorder, vulnerable, narcissist, hysterical, whatever.
There's a bunch of words for it. But...
These people are monsters.
They will do anything to anybody.
They have no conscience whatsoever.
And the speculation from the experts is that they're not born that way, but that there's some kind of early trauma, some kind of trauma that turned them into essentially monsters.
And I'm just going to go on record as doubting that to be true.
I do not believe that the people who fall into these categories, the amber turd-like people, I don't believe that trauma is what caused them to be like that.
I do believe they had trauma, in many cases, because almost everybody did.
Have you met somebody who didn't have any trauma?
I haven't. So the first thing is, doesn't everybody have trauma?
Now, if you say, but it's a special kind, I say, yeah, even that special kind, the sexual abuse of all kinds, every category thereof, but unfortunately, isn't that two out of three women or four out of five?
There's some scary, outrageous number of ordinary women who have had insanely bad experiences.
In that domain. But they don't all turn into this kind of person.
And here's what I think.
I think the early trauma story is actually just another lie by the people who only lie.
So the people who have this personality checklist, the amber turd checklist, if I call it that, they are liars.
And so what if all the people who are liars and accuse other people...
And part of their checklist of behaviours is blaming other people for whatever they're accused of.
So they're always blamers of other people.
Don't you think that they went in and talked to their psychiatrist at one point and said, yeah, I did all these terrible things.
Why am I like this?
And the psychiatrist said, well...
Tell me about your early life.
And then they tell them about abuse, because there almost always is some.
And then the psychiatrist says, hmm, every time I talk to somebody with this personality type, they've got this abuse.
Very strong correlation.
So it's probably the abuse that's causing them to be like that.
I don't think so. I don't think so.
I'm not buying any of that.
I think that they are like that, and that...
It's nice to have an excuse, a way to blame it on somebody else.
So to me it looks like just more of who they are.
Everything they do is doing horrible things and blaming other people for it.
That's all they do. All day long they're doing horrible things and blaming other people for it.
This is just another one of those.
That's all it is.
And to imagine that you've discovered some great correlation when it's basically something that's happened unfortunately to just about every female.
And do you think that people are more likely to do this if they're attractive?
Do you think people are more likely to get away with the amber turd-like behavior if they're attractive?
Yes. Yes.
Yes. Now here, this will get me cancelled, but I think you can handle it.
If they are attractive, are they more likely to have been victimized by men at some point in their past?
Yes. So there's your correlation.
Your correlation is that attractive people tend to be more amber turd-like because they can get away with it.
Nobody else could get away with it.
This is my big dog, small dog breeding example.
Have you noticed that small dogs don't behave?
Like, that's a thing. It's hard to train a small dog relative to a big dog.
Do you know why? Why is it easy to train a big dog but hard to train a small dog?
Because if a big dog misbehaves, you kill it.
You don't let it breed.
You're not going to let some big-ass dangerous dog create more big-ass dangerous dogs.
So probably throughout history, if you had a big dog and it was a problem, you killed it.
Right? So big dogs have probably been bred to be human-friendly.
Where small dogs didn't really need it.
Right? Small dog bites your ankle, you're like, ah.
I mean, you wouldn't even think...
Not to let it breed. And you wouldn't think to kill it.
You'd think, ah. Right?
So, in the same way, I think that these narcissists are kind of bred.
Because if you were a man and you acted the way Amber Turd acted, I think you'd be in jail already, right?
Am I wrong? A man would be in jail for doing half of the stuff that she's done.
So I think you get the attractive ones are the ones who seem to be drawn to this, but it's only because they can get away with it.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
All right, here's another story that doesn't sound real.
I swear to God, this next thing is not a joke.
If you haven't heard this story yet, you're going to swear I'm making this up.
The FDA on Monday Approved remdesivir for children 28 days and older.
Does that sound real?
Like, do I even need to get into the details of that?
Like, I'm not the one who tells you that remdesivir is either good or bad, but I do know the pandemic's over.
And I do know that young kids weren't at much risk before, and they're certainly not now.
And I do know that remdesivir was at one point approved-ish and then less approved, because there were some dangers, there were some questions about the efficacy versus the risk.
How in the world did this get approved?
And even if the numbers support it, like...
It just doesn't sound real.
You know what it sounds like?
It sounds like either we're in a simulation and this is how we're finding out because the reality is just so stupid that you just say, okay, okay, I know this has got to be a prank.
This is either a scripted situation or the code is glitching because maybe there's a Some kind of capacity problem, so they're just reusing dumb ideas or something.
But, I mean, this doesn't even look real.
Am I wrong? Like, when you hear this story, remdesivir for little kids?
Now? I guess.
I'm not seeing much agreement, so maybe you don't agree with that.
All right, Rasmussen had a poll talking about Musk taking over Twitter.
Here's a key number.
43% of those surveyed said they're more likely to use Twitter now that Musk owns it, while only 19% said they're less likely.
Did Elon Musk just make one of the best investments ever?
That the only thing he needed to...
Increase the number of users substantially was to be the owner, and then tweet a bunch of stuff about free speech, and then suddenly, massively, people would come onto the platform?
Is that all it took?
Did he literally just tweet himself another half a trillion dollars?
I feel like he did.
I feel like he just tweeted himself up another...
Well, he paid $44 billion.
I think it'll double in value.
By the way, I currently own Twitter until the sale goes in, I guess.
I own some stock. So I guess that doesn't matter at this point, because whatever happens to my stock is independent of anything I say or do.
But, wow. 62% of American adults, also according to Rasmussen, believe Musk's purchase will make Twitter better.
Okay. And only 13% think Musk's purchase of Twitter will make it worse.
Well, 12% don't think it'll make much difference.
Let's say 13%.
So the people who think it would be better, if you take them out, see, that would leave the people who don't know if it would be better or think it would be worse.
So let's say 13% think it would be worse.
12% think it won't make much difference.
So if you were to add the 13 and the 12, that's...
13 and 12, it's 25, 25%.
So about 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%.
Exactly the number to get everything wrong on every poll.
Of course, I don't tell you the ones where the 25% thing doesn't work, but it's so funny how often it does.
If you're just catching up to this, I always make fun of the fact that 25% of the people answering any poll will get obviously the wrong answer.
Just like obviously the wrong answer.
And here it is. How in the world is Elon Musk going to make Twitter worse?
And how in the world is it not going to be...
How in the world would it stay the same?
You'd really have to be uninformed to think it's going to stay the same or get worse.
Like... The only way I can imagine that is if the internal sabotage is so great that there's nothing left for Elon to take over.
Meanwhile, the GDP fell 1.4%.
That's not good.
Not good. I think it's almost time for me to recontact my liberal friend, who I just couldn't stand speaking to during the entire Trump administration, because he finally got the ideal candidate he wanted.
He got his Joe Biden, and he got what he wanted.
Higher crime, higher taxes, higher inflation, falling gross domestic product, possible nuclear war with Russia...
So, a debacle getting out of Afghanistan.
So he got what he wanted, and I'm thinking, is he almost primed that I could have a conversation with him about the pro and con of Trump versus Biden?
Do you think he's ready?
No. No, of course he's not.
I'm just kidding. Of course he's not.
Not even close. Well, Trump got on Truth Social, so it's his own network.
But everybody was waiting for him to tweet, and he did.
And his first tweet was, all in caps, I'm back, and then hashtag, Covfefe.
Now, and that thrilled his people, and I guess that's part of what drove Truth Social high up on the list, because you knew Trump was going to tweet pretty soon.
So I have now tweeted on Truth.
I have thousands of followers following me already, and so we'll see what happens with that.
I have to say the interface is pretty good.
The Truth interface, pretty clean, pretty smooth.
Actually, it's a good job.
I mean, it's obviously a derivative of Twitter, but in a good way.
It's smooth and it works.
So that's on the Apple, still waiting for the Android version.
All right. Here's another tipping point potential for Ukraine and Russia.
So I've told you that the Russia-Ukraine thing is going to be a war of tipping points.
But we don't know which one will tip because there are so many tipping points that are near, such as which military runs out of food.
They're both close to something that looks like they could run out of food.
There's one run out first.
That could be a tipping point.
Same with ammunition, same with fuel.
If any of them ran out of any of those three things, food, fuel, ammunition, then that's a tipping point and it's over.
How about number of drones or number of tanks?
There's some number of drones that will kill some number of tanks that that too would be a tipping point.
How many tanks could Russia lose before they say, okay, we just can't do anything here?
If they lost 25%, that's probably not enough.
But suppose they lost 50% of all their tanks.
Is there any number that would make them say, okay, okay.
It seems that we can't keep any tanks anywhere near the front.
They just blow up.
Because those darn drones or whatever it is the Ukrainians are using.
So there are a number of things that could be the tipping point.
Ukraine running out of shoulder-mounted missiles.
If Ukraine runs out of shoulder-mounted missiles, or they run out of drones, it's probably over.
And I've got to think that they're always close to that point of not having enough of them or running out.
So here's another one that I had not considered.
Apparently Russia is still selling plenty of fuel, albeit at a great discount.
But even at a great discount, they're still making a lot of money.
So Russia's economy is doing surprisingly well.
But here's a new wrinkle.
In order for Russia to trade their oil, to sell it, they need to go in between people.
You know, the brokers, basically, who are the middlemen, middle people, the middle they, who make sure that the Russian oil finds the right market.
And they also handle the sketchy stuff.
So there's some brokers in this market who kind of specialize on the dangerous countries and the dangerous providers.
But even they have decided to back out even before sanctions would have caused them to do it anyway.
So now they're not going to have middle people to sell their oil.
Now, as was pointed out to me, Gregory Markles on Twitter, that as long as Russia has oil, And there are tankers, and there are countries who want that oil.
Probably you don't need that middleman as much as maybe you thought you did.
But I ask you this.
How much would the lack of these traders or middle people have to degrade the Russian oil trade before there was a tipping point?
Because remember, nobody thinks that Russia's oil exports will go to zero.
Nobody thinks that.
But suppose it went down 10%.
I think that they could probably hold on, right?
Suppose it went down 20%.
Could Russia stay in business and still fund their military and be, you know, solvent if...
If their oil export went down 20%?
I don't know. Somewhere there's a tipping point.
Is it 40%?
My just economic, let's say, general knowledge says that if their exports went down 40%, just because the efficiency of these traders was lost, Because that could make a big difference.
They may be doing things like guaranteeing that contracts get fulfilled and that sort of thing.
If you take out those guarantees, it's just like a free-for-all.
So, I don't know.
Does the process even work at all when you take out the people who are guaranteeing both sides of the transaction?
I'm guessing. I'm guessing that it gives you some assurance that the transaction can happen to have these middle people.
So, This one might be one to watch.
Might be one to watch.
So I do think there's a tipping point.
What do you think about the fact that the U.S., by giving $33 billion in aid or whatever it is to Ukraine, that's the current move by the administration, how does Putin not take that as war?
And how has it not been war up to now?
We're in this weird pretend situation where we pretend the U.S. and Russia are not already a war in a practical way, a proxy war.
To me, it's just mind-boggling that we can keep up that pretense.
We might as well just say we're at war, but we don't want to go nuclear.
So we're just going to push each other and see who can push the farthest, push the most without going nuclear.
So none of that's good.
But is it weird that we're not more worried about a nuclear war?
Or is it that we still think that Putin is rational and Even if he's made some bad decisions, he's still rational.
And there's no way that would be rational, to go nuclear.
I can't imagine.
Because he has a path now to survive, but if he goes nuclear, I can't imagine he would have a path to survive.
All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, is a conclusion of my poorly prepared remarks.
I think you would agree...
This has been a highlight of your day, a highlight of possibly human endeavors since the beginning of time.
I don't want to go out on a limb.
It might be hyperbole. It might not be.
I don't know. It might not be.
But if you think that this is the best experience you've ever had and you're on YouTube, hit that subscribe button because I never tell you to do that.
Alright, I will tell you a joke.
I wasn't going to do this, but I saw it in the comments.
Amber Turd, given that she was complaining about Johnny Depp, is part of the Meepoo movement.
Yes, the Meepoo movement.
I did not make that one up.
I read it in the comments.
And I hope that will be done.
with these bad jokes.
One of your best.
I think this was one of my best live streams.
Thank you for noticing.
I was going to tell you if you didn't know.
And I'm going to give you one hypnotic suggestion before you leave.
Are you ready? Now you have to do this willingly because it doesn't work unless you like the suggestion.
In other words, it has to be compatible with something you wanted anyway.
You ready? You're going to have a really good weekend.
