Episode 1807 Scott Adams: Who Is Trying To Brainwash You This Week And Largely Succeeding
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Monetized leadership of political movements
NPR's Disinformation Reporting Team
J6 HOAX update
Police access to citizen Ring camera systems
Ukraine war and HIMARS
Alan Feuer's NYT Ray Epps article
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And welcome to the highlight of your life and civilization itself.
Sort of a bright, glowing spot in this big universe of darkness.
But, where you are, things are looking up.
Things are looking up. And all you need to take it to another level is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tank, a chalice, a canteen, a jug, a glass, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
You're right, Dennis. That Scott Adams is one bad dude.
True. Fact check.
True. And now, will you join me for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better in the entire world?
It's called the simultaneous sip, and nothing's ever been better ago.
Ah. Ahem.
I would like to start with a checklist for the golden age.
Are you ready? I think I might put this on paper, thinking about it.
I was thinking about all the things which have somewhat subtly turned positive while we're in this environment of everything going to shit.
And you can lose sight of anything that's maybe getting better because our focus is always on the latest disaster.
Number one, there have been no major forest fires in California this year.
Now, knock on wood, right?
But I believe that's because of the helicopter rapid response team.
I think we're actually getting on the fires faster.
In other words, we adjust it.
We found a way to make a difference.
We're not talking about it, right?
Why is nobody talking about...
California on fire. It could be luck.
It could be luck. It could be weather.
It could be chance. Right?
But I feel like maybe we got on top of it.
Or at least there's substantial improvement.
How about climate change and nuclear energy, which is really the only solution to it?
All positive. All positive.
Everything in the nuclear energy field went from super negative, I don't know, five years ago, to super positive.
So you've got your climate change, your nuclear energy.
Now in the short run, we've got a lot of challenges with power, etc.
Now, let me ask you about, let's talk about inflation.
Energy prices seem to have maybe stabilized and dropped a little, too soon to be happy.
But it looks like inflation, at least on the energy part, the biggest part, looks like it might have slowed down.
And then the energy cost, if it slows down, will ripple through the rest of the product stuff.
We might have seen something closer to the top of inflation.
I guess some of the core stuff is still going to be higher for a few months.
But that should get pulled back.
That should get pulled back.
Now let's take China.
I just saw another article.
It's hard to speculate what's happening in China, right?
We don't know. But it looks like China's in an actual recession already, if you read the tea leaves.
They don't report that, but it looks like they might be.
And it looks like China, as the growing power that we have to worry about, may have taken quite a hit.
Because I think their manufacturing base will be, I would say, drained forever.
I don't think people are going back.
So in terms of how we deal with China, even though it's hard for our supply chains and stuff, I believe we're probably moving our pharma back.
Because if anything scared us straight, I would imagine Big Pharma has plenty of money.
Am I right? Does Big Pharma have money?
Of course. They've got all they need.
So they can move their plants back to wherever they need to get it out of China.
So I believe that our position in the world relative to China is better.
What do you think? I mean, you could easily be wrong.
We could all be wrong about this stuff.
But even though we both took a hit, I believe the United States will take less of a hit going forward.
About Russia. Our two biggest competitors in the world, Russia and China.
I feel like Russia is taking a step backwards relative to the United States.
At the same time, the United States is not doing terrific.
But relatively, I think we opened a gap.
So I would say that the United States has improved its position, maybe, maybe, with Russia and China, its two biggest competitors.
I think we'll get past inflation.
What about that risk of nuclear war with Russia?
I haven't worried about it lately, have you?
I feel like we're past it.
And I feel like there's some kind of a stalemate situation happening there that's expensive.
But I feel like the end point of Ukraine is looking a little more clear.
Looks like a stalemate where Russia will control what they control and Ukraine will complain about it forever.
How about AI? Now, AI is either going to be the greatest thing or the worst thing, but it's going to change everything.
You know, whatever you think about the change that AI will bring, you have no idea.
There's nothing that will be the same.
After virtual reality and AR hit, AI, if you combine AI and virtual reality, what life looks like in 10 years is completely unpredictable.
There's just no way to know what's going to go.
I mean, it's going to be really interesting.
But it might be better.
There's a whole segment of the world that literally can't find happiness because the resources don't exist.
There are people who can't find a mate, which is sort of important for happiness.
I think people will just, you know, take a drug, put on the VR helmet, and go into their other life, and that other life will be fully satisfying.
Even if in the other life they're in love with an AI, you know, an NPC or something, driven by an AI. It'll be a relationship.
And it'll be somebody that's not, you know, treating them poorly.
So I think that for, I don't know, 60 to 80% of the public, they would be better off with an AI partner, eventually.
Everybody who disagrees with that, 100% of the people who disagree with that statement are thinking of current technology, which couldn't come close to that.
But future technology, and it's not that far in the future, In the future, there will be a better version of a human for your enjoyment than any human could ever compete with.
It won't even be close. In the long run, it won't even be close.
It'll take a while for the crossover.
We're not there. People, still better than robots.
Still better. But that gap is just closing like crazy.
There's no question where it's going.
I mean, it can only go one direction.
Can they do plumbing and electrical?
Probably. Probably.
Alright. I made a claim on Twitter.
I got a slight adjustment tube by Paul Graham.
If you don't know Paul Graham, you can Google him, but he's one of the high-value accounts.
You know, tech founder, generally considered one of the smart people in California or Silicon Valley, or I'm not sure where he lives now.
But anyway, the point of that is he's real smart.
So when he says stuff, you should pay attention.
And I had said, provocatively, that the most valuable words for success are be useful.
That if you didn't know anything else about anything else, and you're just like, well, how do I be successful?
Just focus on being useful.
And the more useful you are, the better off you'll be, right?
More is better, but be useful.
If you focus on that, things will go well.
Now, a lot of people agreed.
Paul Graham added this twist.
He said that if it's business, that's effectively making what people want.
So... Basically, if you're in a business, being useful translates to making products that people want.
And here's the part that gets interesting.
I'm not sure that's exactly right.
It's like close.
Feels like an 80% sort of situation.
And here's why I think there's a difference, but help me think this through.
This is like preliminary thinking.
In my opinion, if you focus on what the customer wants, you can get a good result.
If you focus on making yourself useful, I think you could also get a good result.
If you focus on making yourself useful via the process of making a product that somebody wants, Well then, I think Paul Graham's point makes a lot of sense.
Like, the being useful and giving them something they want ends up being pretty much the same thing.
But here's where I disagree a little bit, and I'm not sure if my thinking is clear on this yet.
I feel like what you focus on makes a difference.
Even if you say, well, you know, the outcome is going to look about the same, I don't know.
I think what you focus on makes a difference for the gray areas, of which you would expect many.
I think if you focus on being useful, you're always going to win.
But if you focus on giving people what they want, sometimes they don't know what they want.
You know what I mean? Being useful is a little bit more objective.
Okay, this is useful or not.
This is more useful than that.
You can usually kind of suss that out.
What is more useful than something else?
But I don't know if you can deal with what people want.
People's wants are not necessarily tethered to what they need or what's good for them or they even know how it's going to turn out.
They've got short-term wants that are in conflict with their long-term needs, right?
So I feel as if focusing on anybody's wants is going to give you some problems sometimes.
The difference is mind-reading, maybe.
All right. Apparently there's a class action suit against the candy Skittles because there's some ingredient in there, titanium dioxide, that I think in Europe it's already banned and there's some indication that it might not be good for you.
But when I saw this, I thought, you know, I don't have too much of a thought about Skittles because I have a rule.
I don't eat things which don't seem to have any food in them.
So, that's just my rule.
If you're putting something in your mouth and digesting it, and it doesn't have any food-related quality that you can determine, well, I feel like you're really asking for trouble there.
Probably just food and medicine is the only thing you should put in your mouth.
Okay, you've got a dirty mind.
Go ahead, make your dirty jokes.
Okay, we're done. But otherwise, the only thing you should put in your mouth is food and medicine and dirty stuff.
And naughty stuff.
But this brings me to my macro point.
Our food supply, maybe it's more the United States or the industrialized countries, but let me tell you something that's really, really obvious in America.
I want to see if there's anybody who will disagree with the following statement.
Our food supply is poison.
You just look around.
People, just look around.
Just go to the mall and just look around.
And you tell me our food supply is not fucking poisoned.
It's obvious.
It's obvious.
And somehow the food industry got away with blaming us.
Think about that. The food business is getting away with blaming us for being unhealthy because we ate the wrong food.
I don't think so.
If you're selling crack to children, I don't think it's the children's fault if they get addicted, is it?
If you sell crack to children, it's your fucking fault.
It's not the children's fault.
And in this analogy, we adults are the children.
We don't know any better. You give me a fucking french fry, I'm going to put it in my mouth.
Do I know that eating french fries is not my optimal health-related thing?
Oh, I do. I do.
But if you put a basket of fries in front of me, do you know what I'm going to say in about a second and a half?
Well, one basket of fries isn't going to hurt me.
I'm going to rationalize it in a heartbeat, because they're really delicious.
We don't have a chance.
This food is engineered to overwhelm our whatever you think is your willpower, which is an illusion.
So you're operating against something that's scientifically designed to beat you.
If you're fighting every day against, let's say, an enemy who is scientifically designed to beat you every time, well, don't be surprised if you lose, because it was scientifically designed to beat you every time.
That's the sugar-fat-salt combination.
If you manipulate the sugar-fat-salt, which is the name of a book you should read, it's addictive.
There's a reason you can't eat more than one potato chip.
That's real. I really can't eat one.
I've tried. Have you ever tried to eat one potato chip?
If you're all alone and you keep the potato chips in your room and you're still hungry?
You just can't do it.
I would say that if you were to rank me against other human beings in terms of willpower, I think I'd be pretty high up there.
I would say my track record of life suggests that I can put off pleasure for a long time to get some larger gain.
I have pretty high emotional intelligence as objectively measured.
But I can't resist a second potato chip.
That's crazy. I would just talk myself into it in a heartbeat.
So I think we have to come to some kind of a...
I don't know, realization or awareness, our food supply is killing us.
It's not even close to adequate.
It's not even close. It's not even in the general zip code of fucking food.
Have you ever met somebody who ate clean?
Like, really clean?
Now, you think you have, because you have a friend who's a vegan or something like that.
No, not even close. The difference between eating clean, like really eating clean, no additives, no preservatives, all that stuff.
If you meet one of those people, they're not like you, are they?
They're not like you.
Their bodies and their health is really different.
And it's very noticeable.
You know, I once... Briefly dated a woman who was just the cleanest eater and didn't use any unnatural shampoos or didn't even put things on externally.
And it was so obvious That that human being was operating at a different level of health.
It was just really obvious.
And I don't think she started as the healthiest person in the world.
I think it's what she eats.
I think it's just that.
Now, I couldn't do what she did.
It was just too extreme. It was just really extreme.
But no question it worked.
No question it worked. All political movements of any scale are fake.
In terms of protests, you know, like big movements, whether it's your antifas or your January 6 events or your fine people marches or your antifa, I think they're all fake.
And here's what I mean.
I don't mean that the individuals who are marching don't have sincere feelings.
They do. But they wouldn't be there Except that some artificial entity funded it and organized it, right?
Now, here's the thinking.
You can imagine a time in the 70s, I don't know if it's true, but you can imagine a time when maybe spontaneous, large-scale protests did happen.
Maybe. But probably not even then.
And here's the reason. It's that the organizers have too much to gain, right?
They can monetize it.
If it's possible to monetize leadership of an organization, well, you're done here.
Follow the money. What's going to happen if it's possible, just if it's possible, to monetize leadership of a political movement?
Somebody's going to buy it.
There's somebody who's going to buy your loyalty.
Because they can. It's for sale.
You can monetize it.
Now, Without going into a long argument, here's the short version.
If you follow the money, it has to be, in the long run, that all major organized political movements are all artificial.
In other words, somebody just funded them to look like a grassroots movement, but it's the organizers that are getting everybody spun up.
In the long run, they all become owned by a bad entity, because they're all for sale.
Ultimately. In the short run, maybe not.
In the short run, you can imagine people spontaneously running into the street to protest something.
And I think maybe the abortion situation on day one was probably just organic, right?
On day one, probably people just said, oh, shit, and they just got up and made a sign and walked outside.
But, wait a little while, Whoever has the most money and influence will eventually get to whoever the organic leaders are and say, you know, you're doing well as an organic leader, but you're not making any money, you're not feeding your family.
How about I give you a bunch of money, make you much more effective?
They say, yeah, you're on my side.
I mean, there's no downside, right?
I just get more money and I do the same thing.
But people who give you money own you.
No matter what your original motivation was, as soon as you start taking money, you've got a boss.
So basically, every leader who might be organic in the beginning ends up getting owned by somebody who has enough money to do that.
So I can't see any situation in which a large-scale protest on either side, for any reason, would ever be organic in the long run.
I just can't see it.
So from this point on, I assume all large protests are fake.
A little bit. Doesn't mean the people.
The people might be very sincere.
But in terms of what got them all there, probably always fake from now on.
I don't think we live in a world in which it can't rapidly go fake because it followed the money.
The money will always be there.
There's always going to be somebody on that side.
Even if there's nobody in the United States who wants this protest.
There's always China. There's always another country that wants some trouble here.
So you can always get it funded.
NPR has launched what they call a disinformation reporting team.
So a group of people who will tell you what's true and what isn't.
Here is what I invented today.
I call it the Adams Law of Fact-Checkers.
The Adams Law of Fact-Checkers.
It goes like this.
All fact-checking organizations are liars by omission, and it isn't fixable.
All fact-check organizations are liars by omission.
That's their job.
The job is to lie by omission.
If you don't know, that's the real mission.
So the job of a fact-checker is to say, well, obviously there are too many things in the world.
You can't look at every fact and try to check it, right?
So you have to pick ones. What happens when the fact-checkers pick the facts to fact-check?
Well, they're not going to pick the one that's bad for their team.
So they just lie by omission.
They simply leave out a fact check, because it would be inconvenient to have one, and then when you look for the fact check, it goes, well, nothing there.
So, and if you've read any of the fact checks so far, the ones that are obviously fake fact checks, and you know which ones I mean, right?
You've seen it yourself. There are ones that are just obviously fake fact checks.
You can tell what they left out.
You just look at it and go, well...
You know, you've left out, like, a main variable.
You haven't even ruled on it.
Like, you've just ignored a main variable.
That's a lie. If your fact-checking ignores what is obviously a major variable in the decision, that's a lie by omission.
So in the long run, I don't think they can go in any other direction.
So all political organizations become, you know, corrupted eventually.
By money. And all fact-checkers eventually become liars by omission.
Now, I don't think that they usually lie directly.
There might be a case of that.
But I think that would be rare.
You don't see the fact-checkers say, oh, this happened on this date when it didn't.
The fact-checking tends to be right.
But they lie by leaving out other facts.
If there's a fact on the other side, just don't mention it.
There you go. So do you think that the fact-checkers could ever act independently?
It's not even designed to do that.
Do you think that they look for the most independent fact-checkers to form the...
Do you think NPR said, you know, we are a left-leaning organization, but for fact-checking, that's exactly the kind of bias you want to get rid of.
So rather than just maybe promoting our obviously left-leaning people into a job of trust and fact-checking, we're going to scour the world and find people who are famous for being able to disagree with their own team.
That's the people you want with your fact-checkers.
Because that's people who have a track record that says, I don't care if my team says this is true.
It's just not true. And then they hire those people who could go against the grain because that's who you could trust.
No. Nothing like that's happening.
They're hiring leftists.
And what do you think the leftists would do if they got a situation in which, let's say, hypothetically, let's say there was a left-leaning person who legitimately wanted to do fact-checking.
And let's say this left-leaning person said, you know, I'm going to seriously try to be objective here.
I know I'm left-leaning. But I'm being hired to be objective.
I'm going to be objective. And let's say some facts came to that person that showed that the fine people hoax was a hoax.
And maybe it's the first time they heard it.
Do you think a left-leaning person working for NPR, even if they believed it true and discovered that the fine people hoax was in fact a hoax, you know, the hoax part is just that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, which we know didn't happen because of the video.
But imagine if you had an impulse to debunk that.
Could you do it? No.
No. You couldn't do it.
And not keep your job.
Do you think even if somebody thought they had the facts, do you think they could debunk a major left talking point and then keep their job?
Not a chance. Not a chance.
They wouldn't even be able to go to a party.
Imagine going to a party after you debunked the left's whatever biggest talking point.
Couldn't do it. It would be like Alan Dershowitz being expelled from polite company.
So by their design, fact-checker organizations can't work if they come out of organizations that have a bias.
Or even if you just live in the world, you can't be unbiased about fact-checking.
Alright, so another robot that is getting close to looking like people.
Nobody has yet solved for making a robot actually look like a person, but they're getting closer and closer.
What happens when you can't tell the difference?
Because that feels like that's going to happen, at least on video, right?
If you did a Zoom call to a robot, someday you won't know the difference.
And how would you know the difference?
And I have this Suggestion.
That the way you can spot a robot in the future is the same way you can spot an NPC today.
If, in fact, NPCs exist.
Which it appears they do.
It appears they do. Doesn't mean they do.
And that is that NPCs and robots won't have stories.
They won't have stories.
So, yesterday I was doing a little video from my Man Cave livestream, and I was challenging people to prompt me to tell a story.
And so there were things like, what was your most embarrassing moment, or, you know, what was the moment that you realized this or that?
And for each of those, I had a story.
I go, oh, well, let me tell you the story, how I felt, and blah, blah, blah, the surprise ending.
And I have lots of stories.
But there are definitely people who can't tell you a story about anything that happened to them.
And I think robots, in the short run, a robot won't be able to tell you a story.
If you talk to a robot about what's happening at the moment, well, maybe you can't tell the difference.
But if you say to the robot, hey, can you tell me a story about the best thing you ever got for your birthday?
You're done. Now, could you program a robot to fool you about its own biography?
Like maybe it steals from somebody else's backstory?
Probably. So you could definitely get a robot to fool you.
But that leads me to my next observation.
We really need a law that if something is AI or a robot, it's got to be labeled.
We do truth and labeling.
You've got to label those robots.
If you come at me with a robot pretending to be human and I can't tell the difference, you and I have a problem.
Don't send your robot at me and try to make me think it's human.
If you do that, you and I have a problem.
You have done something to me that's immoral and unethical.
You have made me think that a robot was a human being and then maybe I interacted with it or made decisions based on it.
No bueno. That needs to be flat illegal.
And the voice as well.
We need to have a law that says AI voices cannot be modulated outside a certain parameter.
In other words, we can't let AI be persuasive.
Not by voice.
You can't let AI... Persuade you with a human-like voice.
That's got to be illegal.
And we've got to do it now.
Because the first AI with a human voice that's persuasive and maybe even can modulate the voice and change it, that is too dangerous.
And we know it's dangerous.
You don't have to wonder about it.
Is there anybody here who would doubt the The proposition that an AI that sounded like a human, enough that you couldn't tell, and also could change its voice quality to be more persuasive or less persuasive, you don't want that shit loose in the world.
You do not want that loose in the world, believe me.
It's bad enough that I'm loose in the world.
This is my favorite category of things to say.
One of my categories is things which cannot be communicated.
They're easy concepts, but for whatever reason you can't tell somebody.
Like the boy who cried wolf.
The boy who cried wolf cannot communicate that there's an actual wolf.
He can say the words, but it can't be communicated because you already believe that he lies about wolves.
So there's no way to get from here to there.
But here's what I like to say, sort of in that genre.
If anybody knew what I could actually do...
I would be murdered. It would be too dangerous to have me loose in society.
But the only reason that I'm completely safe is that nobody has any idea.
Nobody has any idea what I can accomplish through persuasion.
If you did, I'd be in jail.
Because it would be like having a nuclear bomb wandering around without government control.
That's sort of what I am.
But I will always be free because nobody will ever believe what I could actually do.
Now, what I could do might be only a fraction of what an AI could do eventually.
Persuasion-wise, because it would have all the tools instantly.
It could quickly check those tools against the individual.
Basically, everything I do in the slow human way is programmable and better.
In fact, the AI will be better at detecting your microchanges than even I am, and I'm trained to do it.
One of the big skills of a hypnotist It's not what you say, but it's observing how what you said influenced the person.
And there's a look that people present, and hypnotists can tell you this, when they're in a certain mode, right?
When their mind has entered, I don't know, like a maintenance mode or something, you can see it.
Now, it's easy to recognize if you have experience.
It would be impossible to recognize if you didn't.
But an AI could do it right away.
You would just have to give it, okay, here's ten pictures of people in that mode, that mental mode.
Here's ten people not.
Done. The AI would be able to spot it every day after that.
I'm simplifying, but that's the basic idea.
Alright, so yes, let's get some laws about robots and AI pretending to be people.
That needs to be stopped right away.
Because the first one is going to be like a nuclear weapon.
You've got to stop it right away.
Do you know how many social media followers the first robot that's indistinguishable from a human would have?
Many as it wanted. As many as it wanted.
Alright, let's do the January 6th hoax update.
I can't call the January 6th thing like anything but a hoax anymore because I feel at this point it's just so fucking obvious.
Somebody says for $9.99 for Super Chat, it's funny because the chat influences Scott more than he influences the chat.
It's definitely a two-way street.
You definitely influence me.
I didn't know.
You often fill in contacts, but you do actually fact check.
Yeah, I'm definitely influenced factually, but the The nature of the technology is that maybe I guess I'm like group peer influence or something like that.
But generally speaking, this is not an influential platform in two directions.
It's influential in my direction because you can see me and hear me, but I've just got text to look at.
So that handicaps you quite a bit compared to the persuasion that I can apply.
But anyway... So here's the thing that was bothering me yesterday.
So we heard a report that one of the January 6th protesters is going to get maybe 15 years for a list of charges that didn't look to me like a 15-year sentence.
But I guess there are all these...
What do they call them?
Will you put on top of the charges?
They're like... Stimulants to the charge.
There are extras. What's the word?
Enhancements. Yeah, so the judge can add these, quote, enhancements to the sentence and say, oh, because of this or that, it's extra bad.
Now, here's the problem.
In order for the Democrats to sell the January 6th hoax, there's one thing that has to happen.
Really long jail terms for at least some of the protesters.
Am I right? They really can't sell the hoax unless these people go to jail for a long time.
These people should be freed immediately.
They should be freed immediately, irrespective of the crimes they committed.
Let me say it again. And I would say this if they were Democrats, right?
This is not team play?
Well, it is team play.
It's team America. This is America.
In America, we do not, we do not, we do not, in America, if we want to stay America, like if you really want to be America, we do not set our length of sentence Based on what the Democrats need politically.
We do not. This is happening right in front of you.
Right in front of you, it's very obvious that these are going to be long sentences, because if they were dismissed, what would the January 6th hearings look like if, while they were happening, the people accused were getting dismissed without charges?
What would that look like?
It would look like the January 6th thing was bullshit.
Because it is. Mostly.
I mean, you know, let me say the obvious thing in case there's any NPCs watching.
This is just for the NPCs, right?
The smart people, you can ignore this.
The real humans. But the NPCs are going to say, well, what you're ignoring, the actual violence of the people.
No, I'm not. No, I'm not.
There's nobody in the world who thinks actually violent people should not be dealt with by the legal process.
Nobody. So the NPCs, if you're watching, oh, you're forgetting the violence.
No, I'm not. No, I'm not.
But we're not America if we can watch, without acting, American citizens who did make some mistakes...
I'm not going to whitewash any of their actions.
That's up to them. Their actions are just for them to deal with.
Here's what I have to deal with.
America. My problem is America.
And America is a little bit broken right now.
And it's broken right in front of us.
And what do we do?
What do Americans do when something's broken and it's right fucking in front of you?
You fix it. There's only one way to fix this.
You've got to vote the Democrats out.
Because at least you can pardon people or whatever the hell you're going to do.
If there were no other...
Well, actually, let me make a stand.
I'm going to make a stand right now.
No matter who the Republican...
Well, it could be even the Democrat.
But no matter which candidate says, I'm going to pardon all the January 6th protesters, has my support.
And I'll even change my opinion.
If Trump runs and says, I'll just do that one thing, he has my full support.
I don't think he should be running, because he's too old.
I don't think anybody should run at that age.
But if he runs...
And if he says, you know, I got all these other ideas, but I'll tell you one thing I'm going to do, is I'm going to fix this problem of people being sentenced based on Democrat political needs.
I'm just going to fix that.
And this is so important that I could be a single issue voter over this.
I could also be a single issue voter over...
Fentanyl. If a candidate said, I got some other policies, you might like them, you might not, but I'm going to drop a drone on the cartels.
Every time fentanyl comes into this country, I'm going to make one.
For every death, I'll send a rocket.
For every fentanyl death, we'll send one drone to blow up some shit in a cartel area.
Every time. If you kill 100,000 Americans, we'll send 100,000 missiles into Mexico.
One missile for one death.
Or something like that. I'm just making that up.
But if we had a candidate who said, you know, I'm just going to solve this one problem, and I don't care if I have to invade Mexico to do it.
And by the way, I would support a candidate who said he would invade Mexico.
Let me say that directly. I'm in favor of invading Mexico.
Militarily. Just to say it directly.
I'm in favor of militarily invading Mexico.
Because it's not really a government government.
It's a narco government.
They're taking 100,000 of our people.
If Trump ran for president on invading Mexico, I'd vote for him.
Now, if Mexico wanted to do something about it to avoid being invaded, they should do that right away.
I'd even help them do it.
Help them fund it.
Give them some resources.
Let them do what they can to become an independent, strong ally.
But at the moment, I would support a candidate who said, invade Mexico militarily.
Absolutely. In a heartbeat.
I wouldn't even hesitate.
So those are my big issues.
Freeing the January 6th people who are overcharged.
Again, we're not forgiving any real crimes.
They're just obviously overcharged for Democrat political purposes.
It's just obvious. You can't do this right in front of us.
It's like, it's one thing to fuck Americans privately, and I don't hear about it, but if you do it right in front of me, I'm not going to let you fuck Americans right in front of me.
That's going to be noticed.
Here's the other story that, I don't know, it's just amazing what the public can be sold.
And I saw Kyle Becker was responding the same way I would have.
So there's a story now, and I need a fact check on this.
Can somebody verify this is really true?
So I heard it from one source on Twitter, so, you know, use your judgment.
But apparently there's a story that Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman who allegedly ran three fraudulent operations against Trump in 2016 and 17, traveled to London and met with spies and stuff at the British Spy Center, GCHQ, and the British eavesdropping agency that provided materials to the CIA chief, John Brennan.
So we know that John Brennan said he did get some stuff from Britain, We know that Christopher Steele was an ex-British intelligence officer, and we were sold on the concept that there's such a thing as an ex-British intelligence officer, or professional.
Do you think there's such a thing as an ex-British intelligence person?
No. No.
Now, I believe he's not on the payroll.
I believe he's not on the payroll.
Well, that's not like being an ex.
Do you think that he could do something that his masters didn't like?
No. I mean, not in hope to have a relationship with him in the future, which I'm sure was valuable to him.
So, we never say directly that it's obvious that Great Britain was involved in the Russia collusion hoax, if not completely behind it, with Hillary Clinton.
But why do we act like it's not there?
Right? It's right there.
Christopher Steele was an ex-X British spy.
Why don't we call it British interference?
It's just crazy that we all agree that it's Russian interference when the actual reporting is British interference.
We're looking right at it.
The news has reached a point where they can put it right in front of you and tell you it's not there.
Here's all the Brits...
You know, being behind this Russia collusion thing.
But it was Russia. Here's all the evidence.
It was really Great Britain. Now let's talk about Russia.
We can actually do that.
Like, right in front of you.
All of the information is right there.
It's obvious Great Britain was involved in some level.
Obvious. But we just act like it's not true.
All right. San Francisco is trying to, I guess the mayor is beyond this, they've got a proposal in which the police would be able to continuously monitor neighborhoods and cities through your personal security system.
What? That's right.
If you have a ring camera that's connected to a network, the San Francisco police, this is a proposal, would like to, at any time they want, look through your camera, total access to it at any time, and see what you would see if you were standing on your front porch.
And the idea is that once they had access to all this surveillance...
Yeah, what about your indoor cameras, you ask, quite reasonably...
Quite reasonably. And do you think the police would misuse this ability to see what's happening in your house?
Of course. Of course.
Somehow. Of course.
Yeah. And don't you think they could tell when you're home?
Yeah. The police will know when you're home.
Do you want the police to know when you're home?
Now, I'm a big supporter of the police.
Love the police. It is, however, a fact that there's not much difference between a police officer and a criminal.
Now, there's an important difference, which is one is on the side of the law and one is not, but in terms of their personalities, not that different.
You know, the ability to do dangerous things for benefit, for really not that much benefit.
If you assume they're underpaid, which I assume.
So, I don't know.
If you said, what is a group of people you would least want to know if you're home?
Number one would be criminals, right?
The number one people you want to know, you don't want to know if you're home or not, is criminals.
But what is the number two organization, the second group that you would most not want to know about what's happening around your home?
Isn't that the police? And it's the police because I wouldn't trust them.
Not because they'd see my private stuff, which is a good enough reason.
Somebody says, my wife.
Yeah, your ex-wife. Do you think anybody will be a police officer with access to the system who also has an ex who has that system?
Imagine the police officers being able to see their ex-wife or husband And their new lover, you know, visiting the house.
Do you want any of that?
The amount of intrusion into your personal life is just through the roof.
Now here's something that I would be okay with.
If the police said, optionally, if you want to put a separate camera system in front of your house and give us access to it, but it's your choice, it's got to be a specific kind where we can't get to any of your other cameras or anything, so it's got to be a walled-off system.
If you'd like to have that kind of a system, and you agree, then we'll be able to look at it.
But you have to agree, and you have to know exactly what they have access to and what they don't.
I could imagine having a Ring doorbell, let's just say, and let's say if Ring could somehow wall off its software so that the police could only look through the front door if you've got other cameras somewhere.
Could you imagine labeling it law enforcement monitored?
That would be better, wouldn't it?
Like if you were worried about your own security and you had a Ring camera, that's good.
But if you had a ring camera that you knew the police could look at in real time, that's a little scarier, right?
As long as everything you did was voluntary, that's a different situation.
But if they're going to force this, no, I don't think it could get approved.
Do you? Do you think there's any way that could get approved?
If the resident doesn't...
You think there is? I mean, maybe.
Maybe. It seems like a long shot.
But maybe. All right.
I could tell you when the Ukraine-Russia war will end if you could give me the following information.
And I know you can't, but maybe someday somebody can.
It goes like this.
How quickly can Russia find and spin up new ammo warehouses?
Because their ammo warehouses are being targeted for destruction by Ukraine, who now has new, accurate, long-range weapons to get to all their ammo depots.
And if their ammo depots were beyond that range, they also wouldn't be useful.
So now Ukraine looks like they can get to any useful ammo dumps that Russia would have on Russia's side of the territory.
Now the question is this.
We have X many missiles and rocket launchers that can do that level of accuracy.
What's the name of them?
The H-I-M-A-S or something?
There's a specific type of weapon.
So they're being shipped to Ukraine, and I think they have a HIMARS. H-I-M-A-R-S. So I think Ukraine has nine of them.
People are saying, can we get 100?
Now... Carried a gun in the Capitol and he threatened to kill his family if they turned him in.
So the warning there was that the person who was overcharged at the Capitol, there was some extenuating situation there.
Maybe. But in general, the overcharging in general.
There will be specific cases where there's a real argument there.
Alright, getting back to my point.
How many rockets can one HIMARS system send per day?
Could they send 100 rockets per day?
What do you think?
230? They could do at least dozens, right?
Now, how fast can the Russians build ammo warehouses as they're being destroyed?
Now, I'm making an assumption here that we're always going to know where they are because we have eyes in the sky and we've got probably just tons of local intel.
Because remember, Russia is occupying an area in which not everybody being occupied is happy about it.
So in theory, the locals should be plenty happy to say, you know, I saw some ammo trucks heading into that building.
So I feel like we would always know where they are.
And I would also say that Russia's military capability would basically disappear if their ammo did.
Now, everybody adjusts.
Maybe they'd threaten with nukes or something.
So we don't know what would happen.
But in theory, the number of HIMR missiles blowing up a number of ammo depots, if you have enough missiles, and the number of missiles is increasing as they're getting more of them, And the rate at which Russia can replace them at some point will be lower than the rate at which they can be destroyed.
As soon as that becomes a permanent situation, which seems very likely, the war is over.
I feel like we now know what it looks like.
Now, of course, anything could be wrong, right?
Predicting war is sort of silly, because it's always based on surprises and adjustments and things you don't see coming, and the fog of war, and who knows if anything we've heard about the war is even true at this point.
But it does seem to me that the number of HIMARS compared to how rapidly Russia can build new depots that are functional...
I think it's down to that, right?
Am I right? It's down to that.
And what appears to be what is going to happen is that Russia will start to think that they're lucky if they can keep what they've got.
And they'll make a deal that doesn't make them happy.
At the same time, the Ukrainians will make a deal that makes them very unhappy, too, which is a good deal.
It makes everybody unhappy.
Somebody asked if I was registered to vote.
The answer is, I don't remember if I'm registered.
Do you register once or do you have to register every time you move?
How does that work? But I don't vote.
I'm not registered as a Republican.
Well, I take that back.
I might be registered as something.
I don't remember. If I registered as either a Democrat or a Republican, It wouldn't have meant anything to me.
It would not have been an indication of who I was going to vote for.
I probably said independent.
Because I have registered in the past.
I don't know if I'm registered at the moment.
And I don't have a plan to vote.
The reason I don't vote is different from your reasons.
It's because I do this publicly.
I don't think you should vote if you're going to try to be objective about anything.
Now, it's hard enough to be objective about anything, and I don't think I hit that standard.
I wish I did. But for me, there would be a bias that would occur if I voted that would increase whatever bias I'm already operating under and struggling against.
The rest of you, you should vote.
I recommend it.
If you're talking in public about politics, at least give a thought to not voting.
I wouldn't want you to give up your right to vote.
If it makes you feel good, go ahead and do it.
But just be aware that casting an actual vote, like acting with your body, makes it really, really hard later to say that you made a mistake.
Right? If I tell you I think this candidate's better than another one, then it turns out I'm wrong.
Well, it's going to be hard for me to say I was wrong, but at least I didn't vote for him.
Do you see it now? Well, okay, that candidate I was pretty sure would be the good one, turned down poorly, but at least I didn't vote for him.
Do you get it? That would make me more biased.
There's no way I would act the same if I had voted for him.
If I voted for him, I'd feel like I had to defend it to the death, even though logically I shouldn't.
Revolver has an article basically mocking the New York Times coverage of the Ray Epps situation.
So you all know Ray Epps was caught on camera inciting protesters to go into the Capitol on January 6th.
And he seemed to be, if not the most vocal organizer, certainly one of them.
I think the most, right?
In terms of going inside the Capitol, I think he was the most vocal.
I think he had a megaphone and everything else, did he not?
And fact check me on that.
Did he have a megaphone? I think I may have just imagined that.
Somebody says yes? I'm seeing yes's and no's.
Isn't that interesting? Some of us have false memories, and it might be me.
I think I've conflated him with other people.
There was a megaphone person there, but I don't know if it was him.
Anyway, we won't settle this right away, but it doesn't matter.
And here's some of the things that the revolver story says about the New York Times wrote what, to many of us, our impression is that the New York Times was trying to cover for some intelligence agency and run a cover story that would make their operative, allegedly, look like he was just an innocent citizen.
So it looks, too many of us, can't prove it, but it looks like the New York Times is just working for an intelligence agency to write a fake story about Ray Epps to cover their tracks.
That's what it looks like. Now, do I believe that's what happened?
I don't know. But the New York Times has been credibly accused and proven to be, you know, untrustworthy on a number of topics of great interest to the public, from weapons of mass destruction and, you know, you name it, Russia collusion.
I mean, they have a long record of clearly backing fake news.
Clearly. So, when they say Ray Epps is just a citizen and there's nothing to worry about here, do we believe them?
Well, I will tell you that just this week, my famous Democrat friend who I mention anonymously, a smart person that I often have conversations with about politics, or I have in the past, and he told me in the context of some other conversation, it didn't have anything to do with January 6th, I don't think, but he told me that it was in the New York Times and therefore, you know, it was reliable.
And I thought, what?
What? In 2022, how could you possibly say that?
In 2022, there's like an adult human who pays attention, who believes that because it was in the New York Times, that makes it very likely to be true.
Not 100%.
Nothing's 100%.
But very likely to be true because it was in the New York Times.
To which I say, well, if you've been alive for the last five years, you would know that if it's a political story...
That favors one side or the other?
It's not going to be true.
Maybe facts and dates are true.
But the political spin, I don't think anybody expects that to be true.
That's a spin like everything else.
So here's some quotes from the Revolver article.
You can see it in my Twitter feed.
I tweeted it. The only problem is that Ray Epps didn't go to Trump's speech.
So apparently there's evidence that he planned the protest, like he had advanced planning, and we know that he would be part of the protest.
He went all the way to Washington and did not attend the speech.
Trump's speech. He went directly to the Capitol, where he immediately started organizing them to go in, which apparently he talked about in advance with somebody.
All right? So the guy who went there innocently didn't even go there for the reason that people went there.
He had a different agenda.
All right? And it says, quote, the Revolver piece says, the Times piece attempts to wave off Epps' January 6th participation as negligible, similar to those who committed minor offenses and weren't charged.
Yet, Epps is the key person caught on video with an advanced plan to go into the Capitol.
He's the primary person on video organizing people to go into the Capitol, and we know he had an advanced plan to do it.
And he's being treated like people who trespass.
There's no correlation.
That's not just a person who trespassed.
That's somebody with a plan.
And... And even the New York Times, who dismisses the conspiracy theories about Ray Epps, this is according to Revolver as well, refers to Epps in its own definitive video documentary, so this is New York Times against New York Times, they refer to him as a rioter for whom storming the Capitol was part of the Palat all along.
So the original New York Times reporting was that he's obviously a key member of the plot, and he was planned to go into the Capitol all along.
So the New York Times has said this directly in the reporting, and now they're reporting that he was basically a minor person, like other people who were released.
And then, according to the Revolver, this is more opinionated, I think...
That the New York Times ominously suggests Epps will sue news outlets for defamation if they keep saying things about him.
So, doesn't this look exactly like the New York Times is doing a cover piece for an intelligence agency?
Not that they are.
That's something I can't confirm.
But it looks exactly like it.
I don't know.
Unless there's something I'm missing.
Here's the most interesting part.
Revolver asked this, I wonder if the author of the New York Times piece, Alan Fuhr, could clarify for the record, did he ask Epps if he had any association with any intelligence agencies or cutouts of such agencies?
If so, what did he say?
If not, why not?
And I read this and I thought, wait a minute.
The New York Times did an article on the topic of whether Ray Epps was working for an intelligence agency.
That was the point of the piece.
And they didn't ask him if he did?
Or if they did ask him, they didn't report his answer?
That being the only point?
And they interviewed him.
And they didn't ask him if he's part of an intelligence agency?
The only question that mattered?
Now, here's the funny part.
If Revolver had not helpfully pointed out that he hadn't asked the question, I don't know if I would have noticed.
Would you have noticed?
If you read a whole article about how he definitely totally wasn't an intelligence operator, just a normal person, would you have noticed that they never asked him the question and then reported the answer?
I don't know if I would.
I think that that is so clever that I would not have noticed.
Now, Revolver has more of an interest in this because they reported on REAPs, so they're also defending their own reporting.
So they looked a little closer and they noticed, and I didn't even notice that.
Did any of you know that?
That the New York Times did that article and didn't report on whether they asked him if he was a member of an intelligence organization?
We didn't notice that, did we?
Think about that. Oh, you did notice it.
If somebody says they notice, good for you.
All right. Apparently a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from some kind of ruling that would allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as their identification, but also to allow transgender to join sports teams corresponding with their chosen genders.
And the federal judge has blocked it.
Now, I would like to reframe this again.
I think we ought to look at the sports as what's broken and not the athletes.
And every time that we look at the athlete as, is the athlete good?
You know, is that fair for them to do what they're doing?
Or is there something wrong with the athlete?
Every time we're focusing on the athlete, we're just looking in the wrong direction.
There's something wrong with how we organize sports that this is even a question.
Why in the world are people not playing against people of equal ability?
When was that okay?
Why is it okay that your awkward kid who's not good at sports has to go to a school in which only the gifted, physically capable people get to be heroes and they get to be lauded for their accomplishments and they get all the boys and the girls and all that?
Why is that fair? Why is it fair that people of lower ability don't get to play in an organized sport?
At least the ones with prestige.
They can play unorganized sports.
Or lesser organized sports.
So I feel like we should just scrap the whole thing and say, how about people who have roughly equal abilities play each other?
If you go to high school and the high school team you're playing against has Shaquille O'Neal, young Shaquille, on the other team, is that fair?
Should you even have a game?
What would be the point of playing?
Let's say your tallest guy on your team was 6'1", and you're playing against Shaquille O'Neal's team in high school.
Are you going to win? No.
No. Because Shaquille, for whatever reason, he's not like you.
He's not like anybody else.
So what would be even the point of playing those games?
It's like, what's the point of swimming against Leah Thomas if you're a woman?
What's the point? Because you know how it's going to turn out.
So we don't have a problem of just trans on sports.
We have a problem of wildly out-of-the-norm athletes playing on sports.
The problem is athletes that are way out of the normal playing on the wrong team.
And the wrong team in this case just means ability.
It doesn't mean gender. Why in the world do we care the gender of who's on the team?
Now, the whole idea that women need to get awards is just a bullshit woman thing.
Sorry. Because if it worked the other way, probably you wouldn't see any change.
If women had always been the athletes, you know this is true, if women had traditionally been the only ones who played sports, and socially we had adjusted to that, you know, to a time we adjusted that was right, but then we got more aware and said, hey, men aren't playing sports.
How about get some men into these sports?
Do you think anybody would give a fuck?
No. Nobody would give a shit if sports had always been about women and men wanted to get it.
Nobody would change the law for that.
Of course not. It's only because men and boys were playing sports, unfairly.
I'm not saying that was a good deal.
It was very unfair for the women.
But the reason it changed is because it was women asking for it.
I don't think it works the other way.
And I don't think that it was ever a good change.
Because what women ask for is, hey, can't women get their own awards?
To which I say, well, why can't shitty male athletes get their own awards?
Why isn't there a varsity team for short male basketball players?
Why is that wrong? Why is there not a varsity male basketball team for people under 5'8"?
Why can't they win an award?
Well, you say, well, Scott, they're just bad athletes.
You don't give awards to bad athletes for whatever the reason.
Sure, they're 5'8", but, you know, you want to award the good athletes.
To which I say, well, I wasn't born where I can compete with Shaquille O'Neal.
Look at me. Am I going to stop his dunk?
So why in the world...
Should I, let's say, hypothetically, I had no sporting ability, why should I be, like, you know, glorifying the people who were good at a random event?
Sports are completely random rules.
And I, as a person who just, you know, wouldn't be good at some of those sports, I have to go glorify and my tax, you know, some of my tax base goes to support their awesomeness.
You know, why am I paying for some athlete that I'm not?
So first you've got to figure out how we got here.
How we got here is that women complained.
I would have too. Perfectly reasonable.
And they worked to get sort of equal treatment, but it wasn't what they should have asked for.
They got what they asked for, but it's not what they should have asked for.
It was good for girls and good for women, so I can't fault them for asking for what's good for them.
That's the way it works. You do get to ask for what's good for you.
I'm not going to criticize people asking for what's good for them.
But if we had re-architected the whole thing from scratch, we would have said, you know, that's a good point.
Maybe we should just have teams that are based on ability, and...
The best female players who are on teams mostly with men would still be superstars, wouldn't they?
Could you imagine if a female made it onto a high-end team in which the only other people who could play for that team were male?
Wouldn't that one woman who could actually legitimately make the team be like, really, it'd be Danica Patrick, right?
Danica Patrick probably made more money than 99% of all male race car drivers.
Why? Because she was interesting.
She was interesting.
She was pretty. That helped.
But she was interesting because she was the highest level female in a largely male-dominated sport.
What's wrong with that model?
Do you think Danica Patrick thinks, oh, I've been so discriminated against in this male sport?
Or does she think that she is world famous and has great opportunities because of it?
I don't know. So, really, the trans topic has everything to do with the fact that women are treated as a little bit more special than men, and we've agreed that we're okay with that.
And then the trans thing just messes up the whole model.
Just messes up the whole model.
But I'm going to leave you with this one thought that I'm not going to change.
You'll never talk me out of this.
The trans are not broken.
Trans people are not broken.
Sports are broken. Just fix the sports.
I know it's not going to happen.
I'm just saying, look in the right place for the problem.
It's not the trans people.
All right. So, you know, who was it?
Trump's Secret Service people testified for the January 6th people.
And... Here's an interesting fact that you would never notice if I were not here to bring it up.
You know, I always notice...
I always mention when CNN runs an opinion piece, often by Chris Silliza.
I hope I'm saying that right.
And he's one of their superstar opinion people.
And he'll do a story that's sort of anti-Republican by its nature and does a good job.
And there's a couple others...
Collinson, I think, is the other one, who are their standard go-to.
I think they have, like, three or four big-name opinion pieces who always jump in when you need to rescue a Democrat problem, right?
If there's something in the news that's skewed a little bit too Republican, you know, one of their big names jumps in and squashes it down.
Well, I noticed with interest, and maybe it could be just summer vacations or something, but they've got what I think is an unknown, at least to me, somebody named Jeremy Erb, who writes the opinion piece to say that the House January 6 Committee corroborated key details involving former President Trump's heated exchange with Secret Service when Trump was told he could not go to the Capitol.
Okay. So they corroborated key details about that exchange.
Let me think. What did that story include?
Let's say there was a story about him throwing food against a wall, which he denies.
There was a story about Trump allegedly grabbing the steering wheel of the car he was in to try to encourage the driver to go toward the protests.
But yet, the reporting by Jeremy Erb is that the key details were corroborated.
What do you think were the key details?
Which part was corroborated?
You see what's missing?
Here's a fact that was corroborated.
Here's another fact that was corroborated.
Here's the fact. Here's the corroboration.
It doesn't have that.
It just says that key things were corroborated.
Were the key things the actual things that you think are the key?
Because I think if Trump grabbed the steering wheel of a moving car, that would be...
I'd like to know that. Did he say that happened?
I don't think so.
I don't think that was one of the key details.
I've got a feeling that no key details that you care about were confirmed at all.
And I got a feeling, this is just a feeling, so I can't prove what I'm going to say now.
It feels as if, it's probably just summer vacations, but it feels as if the big name opinion pieces, people couldn't do it.
They're just like, seriously?
You want me to act like he corroborated the thing he didn't mention?
I feel like the ones that do the big pieces have a little more pride.
It's like, I can spin this, but I'm not going to just ignore the key detail and say that other key details were corroborated and just lie about it.
I think they had to get somebody who is new who would go this far.
Again, this is pure speculation.
I can't read any minds.
I don't know what CNN's really doing.
It could just be that the bigger guys run...
And bigger women are on vacation, so they had to find somebody to fill in.
But he hilariously fills in by doing just the most ham-handed job of spinning this in an illegitimate way.
He'll probably get a permanent job there.
It was so good.
All right, well, it turns out that that was the end of my notes because I thought I had a third page, but it turns out that my printer...
Decided all it needed was that little line there.
So it printed that little line, and that's all it needed to do.
Now, have I changed your minds on anything?
Nope.
I don't change too many minds on here.
Okay.
Except that Skittles might not be a food group.
If you think Skittles is a food group, I hope I changed your mind.
You agree on the sports?
Good. You know, part of it is because I played co-ed intramural sports quite a bit, and it was just better.
It was just better to have a mixed group.
If I could have played at the highest level of soccer in college, for example, Probably wouldn't want anybody on my team who couldn't keep up, but that was not the case.
When I played soccer with women on the team, they kept up with me.
Maybe they couldn't keep up with the best male players on the team, but they certainly kept up with me.
All right. Oh, you know about Hartwick.
Yeah. The tiny college I went to, Hartwick College, Recruited European soccer players before that was a big thing.
So one year that I was there, we had the number one soccer team in the country, won the country.
Tiny little school.
That was quite exciting for us.
All right. Should your theory on sports carry over to intelligence in the classroom?
Well, it does. I mean, that's being reversed a little bit.
But ideally, you want people of equal capability to be in the same class.
Don't you? Isn't that obvious?
You can't always get that.
There's practical reasons why you can't do it.
But you'd want it if you could get it.
What if music were treated like sports?
Well, I don't know where that's going.
Don't take criminal questions.
Oh, how about the interview office in town?
You know what? I had a thought this morning.
Let me run this by you. So I told you I was thinking of starting like an actual podcast studio.
Maybe something in town where people don't have to come to my house.
You know, something small, very small, but professional.
And maybe something I could have an audience.
So I could bring in an audience sometime.
But I realized that maybe what I have to do is host debates.
I feel like everything has sort of lined up that I'm the only one who can do it.
Now, I'm not the only one who has the skill.
That would be lots of people.
But I might be the only one who has the minimum amount of skill and the willingness to do it.
If there's nobody willing to do it, it doesn't matter how much skill they have.
So I don't think I have the highest level of skill.
I think I have, like, just enough.
Now, to do this, I would have to do it on a video, though, because I don't think I could get people to come where I live.
It's not like in L.A. where people are going to go there anyway.
If you had an office in New York, you could get everybody, because they're in town anyway.
But people are not in my town anyway.
So I think I'd have to do a video.
And I might set it up so there's like three videos, two of the competing people and then me, but I would be live if anybody wanted to be there in the audience.
And my model would be heavy interruption.
So it wouldn't be a regular debate.
It would be a debate in which I interrupted both sides.
You're ignoring the question.
That sort of thing. Medical software.
More evidence in the New Golden Age.
Oh. Oh, interesting.
Julia Scherer says, Corpusim, C-O-R-P-U-S-I-M, is a thrilling, useful new open source medical software.
Open source medical software.
Hello. Open source medical software.
How much do I want that?
That's either the worst idea or the best idea.
Imagine, if you will, that everybody who wanted to...
I have no idea what this product is, so what I'm going to talk about, don't assume that has anything to do with this product.
But imagine if just people could contribute their experience of what they did.
I had this problem.
I did this for it.
Eventually, wouldn't it turn into a giant AI? And you wouldn't need doctors anymore except for the physical manipulation of things.
I don't know. I think it would go in that direction.
Who would be the first and second debaters?
I don't know. I'm not sure that I would bring in necessarily the politicians.
So the trouble with politicians debating is that they're professional liars...
And we don't expect much more from them.
Am I right? Like, having a debate between two politicians feels like a complete waste of time.
Having a debate between experts, I can imagine a model where I could make that work.
But any debate between pundits or politicians would be just a complete waste of time.
Do both? I just think it's a waste of time to do the politicians.
It really is. I mean, the only reason to do the politicians is that you get more audience because they're noticeable, and you can embarrass somebody, and maybe there's a gaffe.
But it would be the least useful thing to do.
You know, if I did an actual debate on policy, nobody would watch, probably.
Is Rand Paul a professional liar?
Quote, yes.
Yes. Now, I have a high opinion of Rand Paul.
I think he's probably one of the most honest people, but you don't think that he's ever left anything out?
Do you think he provides all the context for the other team, or maybe just shows his side?
I don't feel like you can be in politics and give complete, let's say, complete respect to the other team's argument before you state what your opinion is.
And without that, I'm not sure that's really honest.
That's doing a good job as a politician.
I love Rand Paul as a politician, by the way.
I think he's a national asset.
There are a few politicians that I think have, let's say, they've surpassed Congress in terms of who they are.
Like, there's some people who are just members of Congress.
You've never even heard their names if they're not from your state, and even them.
But, yeah, Tom Cotton's one.
He rises above. And Rand Paul's one.
So I believe there are some people who have risen above their limited role that they get elected for, and he's one, in a good way.
Well, the Speaker of the House is a special case.
Ted Cruz? Yeah.
Now, often there's people who have ambition to be president...
Yeah. Ted Cruz, I think, for sure.
Yeah, and MTG. Yeah, some other people.
Thomas Massey, good example.
Thomas Massey and I do not agree on everything.
But whenever we disagree, his reasons are good.
Which bothers me, frankly.
I hate to feel disagreement with people whose reasons on the other side are actually solid.
Like, oh, that's actually a pretty good reason.
And Thomas Massey does that to me all the time.
I think probably three or four times I've had an immediate disagreement with something I thought he said.
And then you hear the larger argument and you go, oh, okay.
Maybe I don't agree with it because I'm not quite as, you know, my politics don't line up exactly with some of his stuff.
But when he gives his reason, I usually say, okay, that's the reason.
Yeah, he's more libertarian than I am.
But he's consistent.
Being consistent is worth a lot.
And there are libertarian arguments that you say to yourself, well, I don't know that that would work, but I can't rule it out.
It's got some logic behind it.
You'd pay good money to hear that?
Now, that's somebody I would debate.
I would definitely debate Thomas Massey.
Because like you said, he doesn't operate like a traditional politician.
Oh, here's the biggest compliment I'll ever give a politician.
You ready for this? This is literally the biggest compliment I will ever give a politician.
I'm positive that if I had a debate with Thomas Massey on some topic, which we disagreed, and I made a better argument, he would change his mind right in front of you.
Now, I'm not saying I have the ability to do that or that there's any topic which stands out as the one that I would do that.
However, it is my opinion that if I gave him a better argument in public, that he would have the capability.
It's the capability that's important, right?
Because others would just cowardly retreat to their team.
I believe he would actually tell you in public that he changed his mind under the unusual condition that I made a better argument and it had some weight.
I don't know that anybody else could do that.
Do you? Would you trust anybody else to change their mind in public?
I would, but I'm not a politician, right?
But a politician?
I don't know. Name one other person you think would be capable.
Forget about willing, you know, just capable.
I mean, Joe Rogan would, but again, not a politician.
What?
Co-punt?
Is that a word? If Trump and DeSantis debated, it would be horrible.
Yeah, that would be a weird one, wouldn't it?
Imagine Trump and DeSantis debating.
I can't see that ever happening.
Yeah, I see some support for Dan Crenshaw over on YouTube.
Conservatives have a real mixed feeling about him, don't they?
I forget what the issue is.
Yeah. Crenshaw is interesting because he's smarter than he lets on.
I don't know if you know that, but Crenshaw is super smart.
And I think he's smart enough not to let you know just how smart he is, because I'm not sure that would play right.
So, he's very smart.
Whether you disagree with him or agree with him, you know, I'm not going to have that conversation right now.
Oh, somebody's calling him a rhino?
Is that what's happening? Well, I don't know about any of that.
I did an interview with him, and I'll tell you, my first impression was all positive.
So I had only positive feelings.
Um... So it's mostly the anti-war versus not anti-war enough thing that people have a complaint about.
Yeah, I don't know. I'm not up to date, so I don't have anything to disagree with him about, but maybe I would.
Who knows? But you like Bill Gates, too.
Well, I think the shine on Bill Gates is coming off a little bit.
Here's what I like about Bill Gates.
Unlike you, I believe he's operating in the best interest of humanity.
I don't know that you could ever talk me out of that.
Because if you think he's operating to get power, there's no indication that he's after power.
He could have had all the power he wanted, there's no indication he wants it.
And there's no indication that he's in it for money.
I don't see any indication of that.
Now, I could be wrong, right?
Because we're all just reading minds.
I can't read his mind. But I would say an indication of anything except good intentions.
Now, does he get everything right?
No. Does anybody?
No. But if you were to bet consistently on what he predicted versus what other people predicted, I think you'd come out ahead going with what he predicted.
All right, well, we're running a little long, I see.
And today, I think we've nailed it.
It's Sunday, so it's the best show ever on a Sunday.
And, yes, I am better at predicting.
You're right. And, oh, I don't think carpool duty will recommence.
So, when school starts, I will be in a different living situation, so I won't be carpooling.
And that's all for now.
Ladies and gentlemen, and...
Thank you. I'm just reading your comments and getting transfixed by them.
