Episode 1795 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About How The J6 Hearings Clear Trump's Path To The White House
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Psychiatric drugs and school shootings?
Washington Examiner opposes Trump 2024
J6, no indictments or indictments that go nowhere?
Words mean different things now?
Cory Booker's NO sugar summer campaign
Does Michael Moore get invited to parties?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I have a little technical problem with my lighting system today, but I think you can deal with it.
Just turn down your light on your side.
It'll work. Believe me. And suppose you want to take this up to a level that has never been experienced in the history of civilization.
You can do that. Yes, you can.
I have faith in you. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker gel, a sty, and a canteen jug or a flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that's going to make everything better.
Do you feel it? It's already starting.
It's a simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah. That's good.
That's so good. Well, how many of you caught my surprise Man Cave Locals Only Subscribers livestream last night, in which I taught men how to please their women using some tricks that only hypnotists know?
Only hypnotists know.
And that's why you wish you were a member of the locals community, because the people who saw that have a much happier life today.
All right. So somebody mentioned that the Patriot Front looks like a Best Buy employee strike during a pandemic.
Think about it.
Think about the Patriot Front.
They're wearing the khakis and the blue shirts, and they're wearing the masks.
It looks exactly like a Best Buy employee strike during a pandemic.
That's not really probably the image they wanted to.
Tom, that's not true.
There are many more variables than that.
So I'm being challenged here because I'm a recent divorcee, and therefore what would I know about pleasing women?
Okay.
Well, I don't know if you know this, but divorces have more than one variable.
I don't know if you knew that.
But it turns out that sexual satisfaction is one of many variables.
One of many variables.
Anyway, more importantly, Finland has discovered how to make a battery out of sand.
Hello, we have plenty of sand.
Now you can make a battery out of sand.
And the way you do it is you use the sand to store heat.
So the Finns have a working, the world's first fully working sand battery, which can store green power for months.
Essentially, it just stores heat.
And then you release the heat in the winter when you need it.
But doesn't it seem to you that you could also make a, what's it called, a sterling engine where you take advantage of the heat differential?
That would work too, right?
Just use the heat differential.
So probably there are two ways you could make energy out of that.
They're using one of them. But think about that.
Suppose all of your winter heating problems were solved by pumping the heat that you have too much of in the summer into the sand.
It feels like we can make that work, doesn't it?
Because the sand is cheap and it doesn't seem to be any special sand.
You could use a thermocouple, too.
Okay. I don't know what that means exactly, but...
But we have a lot of engineers watching this, and I'm sure you know what it means.
So the big news is there's somebody who shot a bunch of people.
I'm opposed to giving publicity to people who are mass shooters.
How many of you would like me to skip this story in the comments?
Just totally skip it.
I have some comments to make, but they're not terribly important.
Skip it. All right, locals people say skip it.
Boom. You just solved one of the biggest problems in the world.
Do you see what happened?
You just asked me to skip the story because you know it's better for the world.
And now I'm going to do it because you asked me.
So I suppose CNN did that.
What if CNN literally did what I just did?
Say, look, we're going to ask our users, we think this is a public interest story, But honestly, we don't know if we're making the world better by reporting it.
So we're going to ask you, would you like to see reporting on this kind of topic, or should we just hit the facts, hit it once, and move on?
What would the public say?
I think the public would say just what you're saying.
If you just give the public the story, they'll consume it, because it's what's on TV. But if you ask them, would you like to see us cover this extensively or just give you the facts, pretty much, I'll bet you almost everybody, maybe 95%, would say, you know, let's just not cover it.
I like the fact.
I need to know it happened.
That's important. But just, that's it.
So maybe you just solved it.
You may have solved it.
Because there's thoughts that this one may have been an attention seeker.
That's all I'm going to say. I'm also going to say that his last name, I'm not going to mention it, but it is suggestive that he would do this.
The fact that somebody's last name is suggestive of his future just blows my mind because it feels like the simulation stopped winking and now it's just putting it right in your face.
Look, I've been winking at you forever that this is a simulation.
Now I'm just going to put it right in your face.
Right in your face. See if you notice.
All right, well, I will say one thing generally about shooters without talking about this particular one.
Jack Bosabek tweeted that, here's a fact, that at least 37 school shootings and or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
Now, 37, unfortunately, is not the full list of school violence.
So first of all, I don't know what percentage it is.
But let's say it's a lot, whatever percentage it is.
It's just too much.
Do you think that this connection, that so many of these school shooters were on psychiatric drugs, do you think that means that the psychiatric drugs are an indication?
In other words, that the drugs cause the violence?
Because a lot of these drugs have warnings on them about Suicide and, you know, irregular behavior that might be a side effect.
So what do you think? Do you think the fact that so many of the shooters were taking these drugs or just getting off them, do you think that's a problem?
I see absolutely yes.
I see some no's.
Interesting. We're looking at the same facts and yet you're interpreting them differently.
All right, let me help you out.
Let me help you out. Here's some related news.
Let's see if this helps.
This is a fact.
The vast majority of people who get cancer diagnosis, in other words, the doctor says you do have cancer, it's been confirmed, those people are far more likely to die of cancer than the people who did not get a diagnosis, one way or the other.
Now, Does that prove that the diagnosis is what kills you?
Because almost everybody who got a diagnosis of cancer died of cancer.
Those people who were never diagnosed with cancer were much less likely to die of cancer.
So it's the diagnosis that causes the death, right?
Not the cancer. Does that make sense?
Because it happened before the death.
So if there's something that happens before the death on a regular basis, it's like, we always see this before this guy dies.
This must be the cause of the death.
Right? Or, or, or, it's the most obvious thing in the world, that you're more likely to die of cancer if you have cancer.
Maybe. You're more likely to Have cancer if you're one of the people who have a confirmed diagnosis.
So let me ask you this.
Who is more likely to get a psychiatric drug from a doctor?
What type of person, generally speaking, is more likely to get a high-powered psychiatric drug?
Could it be somebody who looks like they need it?
Probably people who look like they need it.
Now, if you were to look at the class of people who look like they need a strong psychiatric drug, and you compare that group of people with or without the drug, actually in their body, you compare the people who look like they should be on a strong psychiatric drug, according to doctors, to the group that no doctor thinks should be on a strong psychiatric drug, which of those two groups would you guess is more likely to become a mass shooter?
Now let me be super clear here.
I have a lot of suspicions about these drugs.
And I'm really, really curious if they are causing any problems.
Because they might be.
So if you think I'm ruling out the fact that the drugs might be the source problem for a lot of these, I'm not.
I'm not even ruling that out a little bit.
Because as a hypothesis, it's very strong.
But if you think that you know anything by looking at the rate of people who are shooters and also on these drugs or getting off of them, that doesn't tell you anything.
So that statistic of how many people are on these drugs tells you nothing.
It just tells you that it's a class of people that you would probably diagnose a drug to, too, if you were a doctor.
So, let's keep that straight.
Here's something that's really interesting.
So the Washington Examiner, which you probably all know is a conservative publication, their editorial board just came out strongly against Trump running for re-election.
And they basically think you could get some Trump policies without the Trump baggage, if you will.
So that's pretty...
And they use the Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony as sort of the trigger to say that Trump is done because of the Hutchinson testimony.
Now, whether or not Hutchinson was telling the truth, and apparently we'll learn more about that.
There's some more witnesses coming.
Whether or not she told the truth, I'm not sure that that would be the reason that Trump shouldn't run.
And then I've heard other people say, well, whether or not there was a crime, there's a pattern of behavior that clearly is disqualifying.
To which I say, haven't you made a big assumption?
Everything depends on whether the election was actually rigged or not, but also separately, but also related.
It could be separately or it could be related.
What did Trump believe?
If he genuinely believed the election had been rigged, everything he did makes sense.
And if it had turned out that we had found some rigging in like 24 hours and Trump had been proved right and the election was reversed, what would you think of all the things that he reportedly had done?
Take the artificial, not true scenario.
I'm not saying this is true.
Just play it through in your head.
Imagine if the election had been rigged, Trump had been right, then everything he's accused of, he did.
Let's just say he did it all.
How would you interpret his actions if he had been right?
Hero. Hero.
If you had heard that he took the wheel out of the hands of the Secret Service agent, And strangled him to make him drive, maybe, let's say, succeeded, and allowed him to drive to the protest, and then the protesters succeeded in delaying the vote,
and then, improbably, because I don't think this would be the case, but improbably, just do the thought experiment, suppose they found a problem, and it actually reversed the race, and everybody got to look at it, and they said, oh, shit! He was guessing, but he guessed right.
His instinct was right. Because Trump was guessing, right?
He wasn't acting on data.
He was saying, this looks wrong, smells wrong, there's something wrong here.
Now, if he was completely wrong, that's disqualifying.
Because he's wrong on something so important, and he didn't back down on it.
That's pretty big. So I would say if somebody were of that opinion, that he was acting in what he thought was the truth, but he was just wrong, and he acted that way, yeah, I can see how that would be disqualifying, even if there's no crime.
If he thought he actually lost the election and was trying to hold power anyway, well, that's clearly disqualifying, but there's literally zero evidence of that.
None. None. There's not even an allegation of that.
There's nothing to support that hypothesis.
Nothing. And this is a pretty big hearing, so you'd expect something.
But here's what's going to happen.
In the process of demonizing Trump, I wonder if DeSantis is getting a free pass that he definitely would not get if he were the unambiguous frontrunner for the nomination, right?
Because the Democrats would be going after DeSantis hard if they thought he was the main guy.
But because Trump still exists as a potential risk, they have to use their energy on him, and then they run out of energy.
So Trump is an energy monster, and one thing that might be happening, I don't think so, because this doesn't seem compatible with Trump's personality, but one thing you can't rule out is that Trump and DeSantis already have a deal.
Think about it. You can't rule out that DeSantis and Trump have a deal.
And the deal is that Trump is going to look like he's going to run until he doesn't.
That could be the deal.
Because that would protect DeSantis from most of the attacks until things get serious.
And that could help. And it would also keep Trump in the news.
It would make him powerful enough as a media personality to help DeSantis, etc.
And do you think that Trump could take credit If DeSantis ended up doing some Trump-like policies and got elected with Trump's help, I think he could.
And I think it would actually be quite supportable if Trump took credit for helping DeSantis get into the job and finish the job, so to speak.
So, yeah, I would agree with people who say there's no chance that Trump won't run.
I feel like his personality requires that.
And maybe that's okay.
I mean, maybe it's okay that that's his personality.
Because that's who I wanted to win the first time.
I wanted Trump the fighter to be elected president in 2016.
And that's what I got.
If you didn't want a fighter, I'm sorry.
But the people who voted for him or supported him, I didn't vote, but the people who supported him wanted somebody who would just fight.
They just wanted a...
An MMA competitor, and they got one.
So do you think you can turn that off?
If you got exactly what you wanted, don't think he's going to turn it off.
Like, there's no off button on whatever Trump is.
If Trump had an off button, you wouldn't trust it, would you?
Right? If he could just turn it off and just not be Trump for a while, you wouldn't trust him because you wouldn't know exactly what you have.
Wait, is he just going to turn that off?
He never turns it off.
Which in a weird way makes him easier to trust because you know exactly what he's going to do.
In every situation, he's going to fight.
Every time. He's going to make his case.
He's going to push it as hard as he can.
He's going to bend the rules if they need to be bent.
He might even break a rule if he needs to.
But, you know, he's a fighter.
So, good or bad, don't elect a fighter if you don't want stuff to get punched.
There's going to be collateral damage.
I've always referred to Trump, even before he got elected, I think I started saying that, that he would be an expensive president.
Worth the price, but very expensive.
And, in fact, he was very expensive, I think.
So... We're also hearing the Adam Schiff and I think, was it McCain?
Who was it?
McCain? Who said that there might be criminal referrals for Trump.
I'm sorry, Cheney.
Blah. Not McCain.
Cheney. So what do you think?
Yeah, Representative Liz Cheney.
So she says there could be criminal referrals for Trump.
And Adam Schiff thinks so too.
What would that be for?
What would that be for?
Yeah, what crime? Have you even heard of an alleged crime?
I've not heard of an alleged crime.
How are they talking about an indictment for something that's not even discussed?
Have I missed the entire allegation?
Have I watched the January 6th thing all this time?
And not noticed that there's a crime involved?
Because I haven't seen one.
Are they going to try him for assault of a Secret Service agent?
Do you think that's going to get indicted?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
You really think he grabbed somebody by the neck while they were driving?
Really? So this is where you put the really in there.
So the President of the United States actually grabbed the neck of the Secret Service agent while the agent was driving?
Really? Really?
Really? And we didn't hear about it until now.
Like, nobody mentioned that until now.
Really? Really?
No. No, that didn't happen.
Now, I don't know if anybody will testify it did happen, But let me tell you with all confidence, that didn't happen.
Now, can I be 100% sure?
No, you can't be 100% sure Trump didn't grab the neck of a Secret Service agent while he was driving his car.
No, you can be fucking 100% sure.
There are very few things you can be 100% sure about.
This is one of them.
If this doesn't jump right out as one of those few rare exceptions where you can say, you know, I'm not going to give this a 99%.
This one, this one I'm going to give 100%.
All right.
So that's fun, watching that.
One of the unintended consequences of this January 6th thing is I believe there will be no indictments that come out of it for Trump.
Does everybody agree? I see no indictments, meaning there'll be no grand jury who says, yes, there's something to follow up on.
So if there are no indictments, or let's say there's an indictment and then it turns into nothing, which would be almost the same, have the January 6th people not cleared Trump of all wrongdoing by their process?
Would it not be the same as the courts looking at the allegations of the 2020 election being rigged, and then the courts looked at the evidence and said, we don't see that evidence, or we don't have standing, and so there's no ruling of any chicanery.
And so the Democrats have interpreted what the courts said about the election as if the courts are not finding a problem, the courts have proven that the problems don't exist.
That's illogical, but that is their frame.
So, using the same frame that the Democrats have established, if the January 6th people either don't refer anything or there are no indictments to come out of it, could you not say that the legal system has then, by refusing to take any cases or none have been presented, could you say at that point that the legal system has cleared Trump of all wrongdoing?
Because if it's not illegal, it's not wrong.
It's just politics.
If it's not illegal, you might hate it, it might be distasteful, it wouldn't be what you did, it might be immoral.
But if it's not illegal, it's just politics.
All right. Well, impeachment's not a legal process.
Well, I suppose it's legal, but it's not in the legal system.
All right. Surely the Democrats have succeeded in convincing some Democrats that the existence of the hearing itself means that Trump is guilty of bad things.
Just as the Russia collusion Mueller investigation probably convinced at least half of all Democrats that Russia collusion actually happened.
Even though the report said, well, we didn't see any.
Right? Just the fact that it existed as an investigation, half of all Democrats think they found something, even though the report says we didn't find anything.
KSA is not there, but we didn't find anything.
All right. So one of the weird things is that this whole thing might rehabilitate Trump, because if Trump is smart and knows how to use a story, and he is smart, and he does know how to use a story, Here's what Trump could do that would absolutely just destroy the narrative against him.
He could say, let's agree that the courts found that there was no fraud in the 2020 election.
Let's also agree that the January 6th hearings and the courts have found no crimes on my behalf.
So let's leave 2020 behind us, focus on 2024, and let's agree that the courts found no rigging of the election and the courts found no wrongdoing on my part.
It's a tie.
Let's go have an election.
Imagine it. Imagine Trump releasing on 2020 and saying, it's the past.
Now we're going to talk about the future.
And what else is the past is the protests and the stuff that happened.
You can disavow the violence, I'm sure he has, and just move on.
Now, who knows if Trump could ever do that?
I think no. That feels like that would be too much to ask of him, given his personality.
I don't think he lets go of anything.
Which also is why he's popular.
He just doesn't let go of anything.
So, but if he did, imagine.
Imagine if he did. Imagine if he said what you're thinking.
We have questions about 2020, but let's focus on the future.
We have an election to win. It would be really powerful.
I don't think he'll do it, though.
Now, of course, I asked the question on Twitter, like, what crime does anybody think that Trump is guilty of?
And the best example I got was that he used the word find when he talked to Ratzenberger, Secretary of State of Georgia.
You only need to find X thousand of votes.
Now, if your entire political view depends on using a different definition for a common word, the word find...
You don't really have much of an argument, do you?
Well, let me say this.
When Trump says he wants to make America great again, what I think the word great means is racist.
And you say, wait a minute, great is just sort of a common, generic word.
You can't take a common, generic word and then suddenly decide it's some horrible, weird thing.
That can't be your politics.
Yeah, they can. They just turned rigged...
If they can turn great into racist, they can turn find into lie.
I want you to find these votes.
And then all the smart people in the Democrats say, I think when he says find the votes, what he really means is lie that they're really there and they're not.
That's what his mafia talk means.
I just want you to find the votes.
Or when Trump says he wants to make America great again, he just means great.
Maybe. Or when he says, I want you to find the votes, he wants you to find some evidence of rigging or some of the votes against him were illegal.
Just go find the problem and then fix it.
So if your best argument is that you don't know the definition of a common word, let me try this argument on you.
See if it works. Because I'm just extending the argument that if you don't know what the common word find or great actually mean, you can just pretend they mean other things and accuse people of it.
So I think you should all mail me $1,000.
And here's my argument.
You should all mail me $1,000.
The argument goes like this.
The word grapefruit means you're all guilty.
Logic. The word grapefruit, I'm redefining it to mean that you owe me $1,000.
And so grapefruit exists.
Grapefruit is a word.
The word means you owe me $1,000, so therefore grapefruit.
Send me a check. That's the Democrats' argument.
I've taken a common word.
I'm going to give it a meaning that could never have possibly been associated with that word.
Greatness equals racism?
What? Find equals lie.
What? That's not what those words mean.
So if you could just make up a word and then assign a bad meaning to it, you could make anything true, which is what the Democrats are trying to do.
Yeah, being on time is white supremacy.
Yeah, just words mean different things now.
Are you punctual?
Racist. Yeah, punctuality means racism.
So, what else is going on?
Cory Booker said this.
He tweeted that it starts end of day July 4th to Labor Day.
Will you join me? Go without added sugar for those days and let's see how it goes and what we learn about ourselves and our food system.
Sign up and find out more.
So, Cory Booker is going after our diet knowledge, I guess.
And says we should test it.
Test it on your own body.
Voluntarily. See what happens.
Now I saw Aviva Frye commented.
Because I had agreed with Cory Booker and I'd supported his tweet.
And Viva said, don't worry about the crime-ridden hellholes of Democrat-run cities, people.
McDonald's is the real threat to society.
Stunning and brave. So Viva is mocking Cory Booker for picking the wrong priorities.
Do you think he picked the wrong priorities?
If you do it by the math, he picked the right priorities, didn't he?
I would say that the risk of our diet and our lack of understanding how to eat right is a much bigger problem than the Democrat-run murder rates and crime rates.
I don't even think it's close.
If you did the math, am I wrong about that?
That if you took all the emotion out of it and just did the math, there are way more people dying and being tortured to death by their own weight, I would think.
So I did the unpopular thing, which is a fully endorsed Cory Booker's approach here.
So much so that if he keeps acting like this, I could support him for president.
How many subscribers did I just lose?
Let me say it again.
This is a really smart guy.
Hold on. Let me give you my argument.
Let me give you my argument.
Hold on. Let me give you my argument.
It goes like this. What he's presented is something that you could easily test, and it addresses the highest priority.
If you give me a president who says, you know, I'll tell you what, I'm not even going to tell you in advance what my policies will be, because you don't need to know.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to test in any small way that I can anything that can be tested.
We'll see if one state wants to do something different with guns.
We'll see if one group wants to test something with diet.
Maybe one group wants to do masks and one does not, if that ever comes up again.
But I'm going to be the president who tests things, and if it doesn't test out, we don't do it, and if it does test out, we do it.
Or maybe we do it.
So, you're telling me I wouldn't support that president?
This is the first Democrat I've seen...
Who clearly articulated a system that totally will work.
A system. The system is this.
Voluntary. Right?
He organizes it, but it's voluntary.
You do it, and then you see how it worked out.
And if you liked it, you keep doing it.
Or maybe you learned something.
You tell me you don't like that.
You give me a candidate for president who talks like this, talks like this.
That's the important part. He talks like this.
He says, if I can test it, let's test it, and we're going to go after the top priorities first.
Let me ask you, I don't know the answer to this question, but what do you think Cory Booker's opinion on public schools and school choices?
Does anybody know? I have no idea.
What is Cory Booker's opinion on school choice?
Because this will tell you if he's real.
Um... What?
What is it? So you say he's a teachers' union tool?
So let me say this.
If Cory Booker supports the teachers' unions, and the teachers' unions are anti-school choice, Somebody says he's pro-charter schools.
Here's what I think. I think that someone who talks like this, who knows what an A-B test is and how to test it, would say, and this is speculation, because I honestly don't know anything about his school choice opinion, but I believe his opinion would probably be Try it.
See what happens. Am I wrong?
Do you think that Cory Booker would be opposed to what I'm saying right now?
Well, we can't be sure if school choice or some specific kind will work, but why shouldn't we try it?
Try it small. See what happens.
Now, would you have a problem with that?
Now, I think somebody said DeSantis would do that, and if he does, that's great.
How would you try it? You try it with one school or one district and see how they do.
So, don't get panicked.
There's not much chance I'll be backing Cory Booker for president, so don't get too worked up about it.
But I'm telling you that if somebody ever came to me with a systems approach and ran for president, I wouldn't care what party they were in.
First and see if it works approach.
Because then you don't have to worry.
They have proposals that clearly Because they don't think through the human incentive part.
But if you test it, you don't have to worry about they thought it through.
It worked. Or it didn't work.
All right. Let me compare that to Michael Moore, who does everything wrong.
Here's what he's tweeted.
Until women's rights have been fully reinstated and their equal rights are enshrined in our Constitution.
Equal rights? Well, I don't know.
Is it legal for a man to have an abortion?
I feel like it is equal, because neither a man nor a woman can act differently when it comes to the child in their body.
Oh, maybe men don't have children in their body.
But is that really not treating people equally?
If there were only some types of people who would even commit the crime, alleged crime, in the first place, don't we always treat people who can do crimes differently than people who can't?
I don't know.
And he says, this is his threat, until women have equal rights, He's talking about Roe vs. Wade.
He goes, I will not shut up about this, he wrote.
Quote, if you invite me to dinner, that's all I'm going to talk about.
Have me over to your party, and it's going to be Dobbs, Dobbs, and more Dobbs, meaning Roe vs.
Wade. And I won't stop until Roe is reinstated, and 51% of Congress is female.
And I'm thinking to myself, If Michael Moore was already not the last person you'd ever invite to your party, even if you're a Democrat, if you know what I mean, he's given us one more reason not to invite him to his party.
And when I read this, I wonder if maybe the problem is nobody invites him to anywhere.
I feel like he's come up with the perfect cover story for why he doesn't get invited to anything.
And I'm going to support Michael Moore by doing the same thing he's doing.
Until women have equal rights, I am going to stop dunking basketballs.
No more. And I hope you hear this clearly.
I will never...
As long as women do not have equal rights with men, you will never see me run toward a basketball hoop, take air, probably from about the foul line area, leap through the air with my legs seeming running on the air, stuff that ball down the hoop.
I'm not going to do that even once.
And I love that.
I mean, that's so much fun.
I won't do that even once until women have equal rights and 51% of Congress is female.
That is my promise to you.
Michael Moore will not be invited to a party and I will not dunk a basketball until the world is a fair place.
And that is final.
That's final. All right.
I'm sacrificing for the cause.
For the cause. You hear Trump is running again.
That's what everybody hears.
Isn't that pretty much the same as an infantile temper tantrum?
No, I think Michael Moore is playing it right because he only has one chance to get laid in this world.
And every guy's got to, you know, make his play.
And his play is that he's such a champion of women that you're going to need more Michael Moores.
So maybe you should mate with him because he will protect you more than you'll protect yourself.
That's right. Michael Moore is making an argument that Michael Moore deserves sex.
And he'll do anything to get it, including not going to your parties.
And to me, this is more salient than a lot of you because I was planning a party.
And I was going to invite Michael Moore, and then he said that, and I'm like, oh, what a boring party guest.
He'd be like, Dobbs, Dobbs, and more Dobbs.
That's all he's going to talk about.
No, he's not invited to my party.
He's off the guest list.
Off, I say.
He'd be better off watching my live streams.
That is exactly right.
All right. Is there any way that Trump could lose the election?
I think he'd have to do it to himself.
Now, how many of you...
Let's do a straw poll here of my viewers.
This will be interesting, because the people who choose to watch my live streams almost certainly supported Trump in 2016.
So here's my question, and you can answer it with just one of two names.
Who do you support?
Not who do you think will win.
Not who do you think will win.
Who would you prefer?
It's not a prediction. It's your preference.
Who would you prefer as the Republican candidate, DeSantis or Trump?
Let's assume both of them are possible.
Go. All right.
I'm seeing some Pompeos getting there.
Quite a mix. Mostly DeSantis on the locals' platform.
Over on here, I'm seeing more DeSantis than Trump.
Far more... Well, I don't know.
A lot of Trumps. Pretty good mix.
Looks like 60-40.
60-40 for DeSantis?
Am I right? If you're just watching the votes go by, it feels like that.
Something like that. Yeah.
And I wonder to what extent this is a reflection of the voters in general.
Because my audience is unique.
Alright. Well, there we go.
I believe I have presented you with the best live stream you've ever seen.
Highlight of civilization. I know you agree.
And that's why you'll be back tomorrow.
And... Would anybody disagree?
Right. It was the best live stream you've ever seen in the history of civilization.
I know. It was.
There's your social proof right there.
All right. And now.
And now. The closing step as requested by somebody on the Locals platform where everybody is special.
Go. It was only 35 minutes, but...
That's all I had. Was it only 35 minutes?
I completely lose sense of time when I do these.
When I go an hour and a half, I'm completely unaware of it.
I have no idea.
It was the best 35 minutes you've ever seen.
What's your thoughts on Rasmussen references to cheating in the election?
I'm pulling back from retweeting that stuff.
And here's the thing I'm trying to understand.
So the Rasmussen poll has a Twitter account.
And the Twitter account for Rasmussen is, even very recently, retweeting what they would call evidence of voter irregularities in some key places.
Now, I read the allegations, and I don't recognize them from the news.
I don't recognize them from Fox News.
I don't recognize them from any news.
And I'm asking myself why.
Because there are two things that don't make sense.
One is that the Rasmussen people are paying attention, right?
They're not making stuff up.
They're reporting things that are reported by somebody, and at least they're raising a flag.
We don't know what's true yet.
But the Rasmussen Twitter account is pretty far out there In, let's say, edgy discussion about the 2020 election.
Now, they haven't said anything that would get them banned because they're passing along information and just sort of commenting wryly on it.
But why are we not seeing the same reports that Rasmussen is tweeting?
Why are they not in the news, even the right-leaning news?
Is it because they're not proving out?
Is it because even when the news sources for the right look into these allegations, they're not standing up?
Because that's what it looks like.
It looks like neither the left nor the right are finding them credible.
But... But...
Remember, Fox News is already in a lawsuit about something that some of its hosts said about the election.
And I don't know how well they're going to do, but I think they've got some risk.
I do think they have some risk there, legal risk.
So we'll see how that turns out.
Anything more cringe than Nate Silver fortune-telling in Meet the Press?
I didn't see that. Fox is the party of the union party.
Yeah, you know, I use Fox as just my proxy for news on the right, but I haven't seen any other news on the right making big stories about the same claims that Rasmussen tweets.
So, I don't know.
It could be just a different risk profile.
It could be that Rasmussen, as long as they don't get booted off the platform, that's their honest opinion, and it happens to be maybe more edgy than other people's.
The Delta Tunnel.
I don't know anything about that.
All right.
How many people enjoyed my reading of the Declaration of Independence?
You did?
Oh, good. Interesting.
I feel like that should be read out loud every year.
What do you think? You know, it doesn't have to be me.
Maybe I'll do it every year. Maybe that'll be my tradition.
Because I've never enjoyed writing as much as I enjoy the Declaration of Independence.
There's something about the quality of the writing that I think actually made the revolution succeed.
I mean, I think it's that strong.
And I don't think there's a single author to that, right?
Jefferson was one of the authors.
Do we know exactly who wrote the good sentences?
I know Jefferson was a primary, but he wasn't the only author, right?
Madison? Somebody says Madison.
But you can see genius in it, right?
John Page? Locke?
I guess there were a lot of...
But would you agree...
That whoever wrote it or edited, you can see genius in it.
Like it just comes through.
Do you see it? I mean, is it my imagination?
No, no. But the actual, just the way they form sentences just screams, screams genius.
And not because they're complicated, but because you understand exactly what they're saying.
And they use...
What are bad sentences?
Well, a bad sentence would be generally one that's too long.
But did you see the size of the sentence?
The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence is the longest, most variables you've ever seen in a sentence.
And when you get to the end of it, you still know what it meant.
It's amazing. You still knew what they said.
That's hard. They were products of the Enlightenment.
Do you ever wonder if they were literally smarter than we are now?
I mean, the smartest person in 2020, too, would be somebody you couldn't even talk to.
You wouldn't even recognize them.
They would just be smarter than you are, and that's all you knew.
But in those days, the older days, the smartest people sort of shined.
So it does make me wonder if people like Jefferson and Madison were actually just special.
And maybe just way smarter than other people.
And that's all there was to it.
Yeah, no tech distractions.
That's part of it. Not smarter, just more motivated.
Have you ever put yourself in the minds of the founders of the United States?
Do you know what their odds of dying were, or what they thought their odds of dying were, when they decided to stage a revolution?
And remember, these are people who were doing okay, right?
These are people who had their plantations and their slaves, and, you know, they were doing fine.
They were the ones who were going to make money in this world.
And all they had to do was, you know, bow to the king in England, and they would do fine.
And they decided that they would risk being tortured and killed, almost certainly tortured, being tortured and killed To get this thing done, largely for other people.
I don't think it made that much difference to them.
And George Washington not only joined in, but he risked everything.
He risked everything.
His life, everything.
And then they won.
But then here's the question on top of it.
If we've established that they were literally geniuses, maybe they knew they'd win.
Because the whole point of being a genius is you don't know how they think.
If you could think the way they think, well, then you'd be the genius too.
But you don't know how they think.
Do you think that Jefferson and Madison and Washington sat in a room, I don't know if they were ever in the same room, but do you think some of them sat in the same room and said, you know, I may be crazy, but I think we could win this thing.
And here's why. Did that ever happen?
Maybe. It might be that they were so smart, they knew they could win.
So don't rule that out.
That bothered you about January 6th.
What did? Your fourth-grade grandmother signed up when you were 15.
You lied and said you were 16.
So I guess you could be 16 in the Revolutionary Army, and somebody was 15 and lied to get in.
My goodness. Yeah, Jefferson and Adams died within minutes of each other on the Fourth of July.
True story. Well, I don't know if it's true.
I suspect it's not true.
That whole thing about, I guess, Jefferson died, but Adams didn't know it.
And then when Adams was about to die, he said, Jefferson still lives.
Something like that. But I don't feel like, given that our news today is all fake, what are the odds that that was true?
Well, you say it's true, but were you there?
You texted. They both hung on just to make the date.
I don't know. Can you do that?
Andrew Jackson fought when he was 14.
He never mentioned Buttigieg anymore.
I don't think Buttigieg is relevant to anything, is he?
Because all the transportation problems, you know, like he's out of transportation, so you say he should be doing something.
But correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing he can do.
Buttigieg doesn't have any tools, does he?
He can't make the oil companies go do something.
I don't think he can do anything.
All right. All right, that's all for now on YouTube.
