Episode 1814 Scott Adams: The January 6 Narrative Has Been Debunked The Replacement HOAX Has Emerged
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
J6 hearings debunked their own claims
Huawei telephone equipment switches
AG Barr says treat cartels more like ISIS
The Democrat HOAX pattern
Fraudulent political HOAXES list
2024 Choice...Trump or someone who wants you in jail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Welcome to the dose of optimism that you've been needing.
Are you finding that social media and the fake news is getting you down?
Yeah, yeah, you're not alone.
But what you need is the simultaneous sip and coffee with Scott Adams.
It is the antidote to all of your misery.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
If you fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
And join me for the simultaneous sip.
You'll find that it's the dopamine hit of the day.
Yes, is your chemistry out of balance?
This will fix it.
Go. Do you feel that?
I feel that my serotonin has been replenished, although it has nothing to do with depression.
Dopamine, good. Oxytocin still needs a little bit of work.
But we'll work on that as we go.
Because this togetherness, which we're about to experience, will generate your oxytocin.
Now that would be an interesting experiment.
Do you think I could change your oxytocin levels with a live stream?
What do you think? Could I do it?
So oxytocin is the one that makes you feel basically content and happy and in love and all that stuff.
Yeah, I think I could. A little bit.
I'll bet if you tested it, you could actually determine that I could if I tried.
So I'll try. I'd like your oxytocin levels to go up a little bit.
Just a little bit. Believe it or not, that'll probably work for some of you.
Sometimes a direct suggestion.
If you have a big crowd...
A direct suggestion will get some of them.
1%, something like that.
But 1% just have their oxytocin levels raised.
That's the power of persuasion in large groups.
If I try to persuade one person of one specific thing, what are my chances of success?
Well, it depends how much I work on it, right?
If you lock them in a room with me for a year, yeah, I can convince anybody of anything.
But if you're just tossing something out there, you're only going to get 1% of the people on the first try.
You'd have to work on it to get more than that.
So when I toss out something like your oxytocin levels are going to go up because you're going to feel a connection and a warmth, almost a virtual hug.
In fact, imagine right now you're getting a virtual hug from me.
It's a little gay for some of you, but work with me.
And then you'll feel better. Your oxytocin level is going up.
Well, the big story of the day is that Josh Hawley runs like a bitch.
Did you see that story? So, Josh Hawley, there's a video of him relevant to the January 6th event in which he was, let's say, jogging briskly to get away from the problems.
And a number of people on the Democrat side have decided that they would like to characterize that as, quote, running like a little bitch.
Running like a little bitch.
To which I say, paging AOC, isn't that a sexist slur?
Don't all the Democrats who say he was running like a bitch kind of need to be cancelled?
Because isn't the entire concept of running like a bitch an insult to women?
That's the point of it, right?
That you're not a man, you're a woman, and that's an insult, that you're acting like a woman.
I'm pretty sure women can run.
Probably a lot of them can run faster than Josh Hawley.
But I thought it was funny that for the first time in American history, a member of Congress did something quickly.
And we're all calling him a bitch.
Oh. Oh, you did what you planned to do, which was leave the building in a time of danger.
So you planned to do that, but are you saying that you did it promptly?
Oh, you little fucking bitch.
You little bitch.
You did something that everybody should have been doing at that exact time, but you did it promptly?
What kind of member of Congress are you for acting promptly?
And, if I may say one other thing, I don't think this can be missed.
What are you doing in Congress if you're still capable of running on both legs?
What? I didn't even know you could be a member of Congress if you could get up and run.
So, that story is the most important story in the world.
Why? Could it be because the January 6th narrative completely collapsed?
They got nothing to talk about except that Josh Hawley is still capable of being mobile, and he did something quickly in Congress, and I think he should be expelled for that.
Well, here's some news.
Apparently, do you know that China makes a telephone equipment switch, which is the most important piece of equipment in a phone network?
So when you place a call, your call goes to the nearest switch, a big device, and then it goes to where it needs to go from that device.
Well, China is one of the biggest entities in this market, and their company, Huawei, makes these switches that sit atop cell towers.
And, I don't know, have I ever mentioned...
That it's risky to do business with China.
Have I ever mentioned that anywhere?
Oh yeah, I think I have.
I think I have. Yes.
And now it turns out that if you put this Chinese high-tech equipment into your network, among the small problems that might arise are, according to the news, especially if they're near US military bases, According to multiple sources familiar with the matter,
the FBI has determined that they could disrupt national defense communications, including those used by our command to control or oversee the nuclear weapons.
Wait, what? That's right.
We are putting equipment into our network That could make us helpless in a nuclear attack.
I think that's overstating it.
We wouldn't be helpless. But it's a risk.
It's a risk that's being injected into the system.
Now, I call back to you, and I say to you, does anybody remember...
Maybe you could give me a year for this.
I think it was 2018. I think it was 2018.
Was it 2018 I started telling...
China was too risky for business, you know, to do business there.
And I said that I was going to take China down by making sure people understood that if you brought your business there, or you did business with China, and it didn't work out, you couldn't hide anymore.
If you do business with China, and it doesn't work out for you, Don't say you didn't fucking know, because I told you.
One of the superpowers I have is as the creator of Dilbert, if you do something that's going to get in my crosshairs, you might regret it, because I get a lot of attention.
There are a ton of people in the corporate world who literally try to avoid doing something that would end up in a Dilbert comic.
Elon Musk's been the famous example of that.
He actually has a rule that says don't do anything that might end up in a Dilbert comic.
That's actually the corporate rule.
And there are other companies that have very similar rules they've told me over the years.
So yeah, I can actually put a damper on bad ideas in the business world.
It's kind of what I do. I kill bad ideas in the business world.
Sort of my special skills.
And so one of the ideas in the business world that needed to be killed is that doing business with China was a good risk-reward decision.
It's not. It's not.
So what I did was persuade people to understand that the risk was higher than they thought.
Now, was I aided by events?
Yes, I was.
The pandemic, you know, and all the badness that came out of that.
But you will notice now, you'll notice a lot of stories that have the same flavor to them, that it's too dangerous to do business in China.
Bloomberg actually says that now, and they do a lot of business in China.
One entity does business in China while the news entity says, you know, it's kind of sketchy to do business in China.
So that's happening.
And Huawei is the latest example of that happening.
Do you ever see the videos of Joe Biden going to his helicopter?
Have you ever noticed he jogs to his helicopter?
Has anybody ever seen that? He usually jogs to it.
Like a bitch, if I can say that.
Now that it's okay to say that, until this morning I wouldn't have said something like that because it would sound sexist and misogynist.
But as of today, the Democrats have opened up that word to popular use, and I'd like to say that when Joe Biden runs to his helicopter, I don't know, to me it looks like he's running like a little bitch.
That's just me. So, interesting thing happened yesterday.
Interesting thing happened yesterday.
So the very video that you said you liked yesterday, a number of people on the Locals Network said they enjoyed my live stream yesterday, the title of which was that the January 6th narrative had dissolved.
And what's interesting is that that episode alone, among my other episodes on YouTube, there are hundreds of them on YouTube, it can't be downloaded.
I don't know why. The other ones can't.
But that one can't be downloaded.
You can still see it, but it can't be downloaded.
What do you think is up with that?
Was somebody able to download it?
Somebody just said they were able.
Maybe it got turned back on.
But for the last 24 hours, you couldn't download it.
So here's a little experiment that I did.
I titled my live stream today with a similarly provocative title.
What did I title it? Something about the January 6th has been debunked or something.
So we'll see if we have the same problem with this one because of the content.
Do you think that YouTube has somebody assigned to watch me?
Like a specific person?
Or do you think it just goes in the pool like any other complaint?
I think I'm watched. I think the larger, probably anybody over 100,000 subscribers, probably has somebody who's assigned to watch them, along with a list of people that they're watching.
Yeah, I think so. So, my effectiveness is largely determined by a person I don't know, probably, just guessing, a person I don't know, have never met, who is judging my content and deciding whether other people should see it.
Probably one person.
Don't you think? I doubt it goes to a committee each and every time.
It probably goes to the same person who's got more context and everything.
How is that okay?
Don't you think that I should at least know who that person is, that I could make my case?
It's pretty creepy, isn't it?
That my free speech probably, I mean this is an assumption, I'm speculating, probably is being monitored by one person I've never met and don't know their name, Probably.
Think about that.
So Attorney General Barr said something like, the cartels, maybe we should treat them more like ISIS. What's that sound like?
We should treat the cartels more like ISIS. Like a terrorist group.
Huh. Does anybody remember that story where Trump was asking about droning the cartels?
And the mainstream news treated it like it was crazy talk?
Well, is it still crazy talk?
Because Attorney General Barr, who said that the election, you know, claims against the election were bullshit, and Barr is not exactly pro-Trump at this moment, right?
So Barr seems to be somewhat agreeing with the general characterization of That the cartels are ISIS-like in some ways.
But that really is indicating a military attack, isn't it?
Treating them like ISIS? That means a military attack on Mexico.
What else could it mean? So, I think I might have been...
I don't know, was I the first person in the country to say we should send a missile into Mexico?
Like, really seriously?
Did anybody say it before me?
I mean, it's a big country, so somebody must have.
But I didn't hear it. So now we're actually talking about it seriously.
Right? Did you think it would ever become a serious conversation that we would drone or send some missiles into the cartels in Mexico?
It's now a serious conversation.
Not only is it serious, but I have the following prediction.
If Biden doesn't do it, and I don't think he will...
Trump will. And when Trump does it, it's going to be way more popular than anybody imagined.
I mean, there'll be protests and, you know, there'll be a big pushback.
But it's going to be a lot like Trump taking out the top terrorist in Iran.
Do you remember when Trump had him killed, the number one terrorist in Iran?
And everybody said, well, you can't do that.
He's part of the government. He's a general.
You can't just kill a general in Iran.
Well, yeah, you can. Yeah, Soleimani.
Soleimani. It turns out you can.
You can just kill him. Trump did it.
He just killed him. And it probably helped.
Hard to say, but it probably helped.
Yes, Trump or anybody else could absolutely attack Mexico in an act of war.
And I got some pushback on that, and here's what the pushback was.
You shouldn't attack other countries.
To which I say, shouldn't?
Shouldn't is a word you use when you don't have reasons.
Am I right? The word should and shouldn't should be removed from your vocabulary unless you're trying to just be a weasel.
The moment you say something should be done, you're indicating you don't have a reason.
Because if it's dangerous, you'd say, that's too dangerous.
If it's too expensive, you'd say that's too expensive.
If it's too risky, you'd say that's too risky.
But if you say it shouldn't be done, you're basically signaling that you don't have a fucking reason.
So the pushback I got for attacking Mexico's cartel operations is that it would be an act of war, to which I said, okay, go on.
It's an act of war, and now give you a reason that we shouldn't do it.
There wasn't one. The reason was it's an act of war, and you shouldn't attack your neighboring countries.
Now, shouldn't is not a reason.
You need a reason.
Somebody gets hurt, there's some long-run problem, anything.
Nothing. So just should and shouldn't was the whole reason.
There's no fucking reason we should not declare war on Mexico.
Let me say it clearly.
If we're going to send a drone into Mexico, we should declare war.
We should have that conversation in Congress.
I don't think the President should do it without Congress.
But we should have that conversation in Congress.
Should we declare war on Mexico?
And I think we should.
Is that clear enough?
I'm saying yes, declare war on Mexico.
Yes. Declare war on Mexico.
I don't want there to be any ambiguity.
Because when I say we should attack the cartels, it is an act of war.
And if you're going to do an act of war, just do it.
Don't be a weasel about it.
It's a fucking war. We're in the war, we're just losing.
Let me say it again. The war already started.
It's been going on for years.
We're just fucking losing. Do you want to keep losing?
Then just sit there and let your children die like crazy.
But if you want to win, you're going to have to call it what it is.
It's a fucking act of war.
And do you think the Mexican government's going to be mad about it?
Who fucking cares?
What are they doing about the cartels?
Nothing. They're owned by the cartels.
We don't care. Do not care.
Act of war. Declare war, clean out the nests, and do what you want.
You know what the next objection was?
Well, that's not going to stop the fentanyl from coming in.
What do you think? Do you think attacking the cartels would stop the fentanyl from coming in?
No, of course not.
Do you think that's the reason that we shouldn't do it?
No. No.
You're missing the point here.
Does having a police force make murder disappear?
No, it doesn't. So we should get rid of the police, right?
Because there's still murder? No, it reduces it.
Right? It's friction.
You want to put as much friction as you can on everything that's bothering you.
And I would put all the friction in the world on fentanyl.
Now, you might create a situation where selling fentanyl specifically gets too expensive for the cartels.
Because they're basically a business, right?
So you could say, all right, we're going to make this one thing too expensive.
But if you want to keep sending us cocaine and marijuana, we won't treat that the same way.
But this fentanyl stuff, if you do that, your bases of operation are going to disappear.
That's an act of war.
I think we could say what is and what isn't too far.
And those who say, but Scott, Scott, the real problem is demand.
Go learn something about addiction.
If you think demand can be managed, you don't know anything about the topic.
You don't know what an addiction is.
Addiction means you can't do anything about it.
It means your brain has been taken over.
Just because some people can kick an addiction, that doesn't mean it works.
It just means that some people weren't that addicted and they had the ability to get out.
The people who are super addicted, they don't have any ability to get out.
They'd probably do it if they had the ability and the will to do it.
But they don't. So you can work on the demand side all you want, but it's going to be a 5% difference.
If you bomb the cartels, it might be a 10% difference.
Again, not that big.
But big enough, big enough to say that we should declare war on Mexico.
I don't think anybody's disagreeing with me, are you?
I didn't see any disagreement here.
Are you all on board with declaring war on Mexico?
Okay, there is some disagreement.
I will note there is disagreement.
And do you have any reasons?
It's the Mexican people's fault.
It's the cartel's fault.
If you're saying that innocent Mexican people would be killed, you're right.
You're right. You're right.
But that's the cost-benefit analysis.
Bomb the traffickers.
Yeah, I mean, we would only bomb the traffickers.
Smaller border. So you think there'd be more terrorism?
You think there'd be more terrorism than 100,000 people killed every year for fentanyl?
If there is, if we declare war on Mexico and it increases the number of people dying in this country, we should increase the war.
Until it stops. I'm pretty sure we can pacify Mexico.
I feel like that's doable.
Alright. Things you need to believe to be a Democrat.
I will refer you to, I retweeted this so you can find it in my feed, but Ryan Vertanen did a substack in which he Explain some of the weird things you'd have to believe to be a Democrat.
It's worth reading. All right.
I'm going to say that it's just a fact that the January 6th insurrection hoax has been debunked.
It's been debunked because the hearings have gone to a fairly mature area already, and if there was any evidence to support the insurrection claim, we would have seen it by now.
And so I got into a little Twitter debate with somebody who was, my God, Scott, have you not watched the hearings?
It's just full of evidence.
To which I said, really?
I haven't watched the hearings.
But you would think that if it's full of evidence, that would be in the news.
I read the news, and the news doesn't have any evidence.
So I asked, and by the way, this is good technique.
I knew that he would have several reasons...
So I said, give me your best evidence.
Your best evidence that you got out of the hearings that there was a planned insurrection.
Here was the best evidence.
That Trump wanted the magnum meters turned off that were checking for guns because he said, quote, they're not here to hurt me.
And that was evidence that what he really meant is they should take their guns to the Capitol and overthrow the country.
Seriously. That was his best evidence.
That was number one.
Number one is that words don't mean what they mean.
You see the pattern yet?
When Trump says, find some votes, in the context of asking for an audit, that that really is mafia talk.
Find the votes.
It means just invent them and do something fraudulent.
I don't think so.
I think find was exactly what the word means.
Do an audit and find things that you've not already found that are really there.
Why can't words actually mean what they mean?
Is Trump the only person in the world who uses vocabulary in a different way?
But when Trump says, they're not here to hurt me, and then he goes on and encourages people to protest peacefully...
Peacefully. What possible interpretation could there be Except that he said there's no danger from the guns to him, meaning he was thinking about his own danger as the purpose of those magnometers.
He wasn't thinking about the Capitol.
There's no evidence that he was thinking, oh, take your guns to the Capitol.
There's no evidence of that.
There's only evidence that he thought he wasn't in danger, and that was the reason for the magnometers.
The stated reason for those metal detectors primarily was Was to keep people who were attending and the president safe, right?
And once he said, but we are safe, that was the right answer.
But we are safe. Republicans aren't going to shoot each other, or shoot me.
And he was right. Now, there was danger at the Capitol.
That's different. Cope.
All the Democrats have left when all of their theories have been debunked is one word.
Cope. Try to deal with the fact.
What? That your entire hearings just fell apart?
It just dissolved in sunlight.
They put the hearings in the sunlight and there was nothing there.
It just dissolved. Now here's the...
Yeah, cry more. Cope.
So we now know exactly how the Democrats do their hoaxes.
And you can see the pattern form again.
Because it's the same pattern as Russia collusion.
So here's the pattern. A gigantic claim, so big that you can't even believe it.
That the President of the United States, or somebody running for it, was colluding with Russia.
That's a big claim, right?
It's as big as saying that the President was running an insurrection on January 6th.
Like, big, big claims. So number one is big claim.
Step two, insist that there's plenty of proof, but you haven't seen it yet.
Oh, you will see it, but when you do, wow!
So that's step two.
That happened in both cases, and it was Adam Schiff both times, right?
Oh, we've got plenty of proof.
Then, when they go to show their proof, you see it doesn't exist.
So that happened with the Russia collusion, and now it's happening with January 6th.
They showed their work, and there's nothing there.
What do they do? Oh, I guess we were wrong about this.
Nope. They shift their message to Russia interference in the case of collusion.
And then if you're a Democrat who isn't watching the news too carefully, or actually I take that back, even if you're a Democrat who's watching the news carefully, what do you say when a Republican says, but that Russia collusion thing was debunked?
What do they always say?
No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't, because the Russians were known to interfere with the elections, right?
They changed the topic, but acted like it was the same topic.
No, Russia collusion was totally debunked.
Russian interference is a fact we all agree on, because we saw the troll farm and we saw the memes.
But how many people who know about Russia interfering Know that some of the memes were anti-Hillary Clinton, and some were anti-Trump.
More of them were anti-Trump.
More of them were anti-Trump?
Anyway, but anyway, there was a mix.
I think I had that backwards.
But there was a mix. The same troll farm that was supposed to be interfering with the election, I guess they were, because they sent out some memes, spent $100,000, which is basically nothing.
And the memes were all weak, and none of them became viral.
So the Democrats have the same technique.
They hear there's this big claim.
They hear there's evidence that hasn't been shown.
And then once they're so sure it must be true, because there's all this evidence that hasn't been shown, then when the Democrats have to show their evidence, it's not there.
None of it. Zero. And then they shift the argument to something that's sort of in the same conversation or domain, but not really.
So shifting it from collusion to interference...
So that they can claim collusion still happened.
Now, proving interference has nothing to do with collusion.
But they sold it.
And when I talked to my Democrat friend that I always mention, my Democrat friend who I learned what Democrats were thinking, very smart, very well informed, actually believes that the Russia collusion thing was essentially proven because the Russia interference was proven.
Also proven to be trivial.
And having no impact whatsoever, as far as we know.
And then separately there's the hacking thing, but I don't know.
We don't even know who did that.
Our government tells us that Russia absolutely definitely was the hacker for, was it the DNC hack?
Would you believe anything that our intelligence services tells you about the source of a hack?
Big no. Big no.
So would you say that we have evidence, or even proof, that Russia hacked the election?
I would say the only evidence that you and I have comes from the least credible source, which is our own intelligence agencies.
You know they're not supposed to tell the truth, right?
It's not even their job.
Nobody wants the intelligence agencies telling the truth.
Do they? They wouldn't be very good at their job if they told the truth.
So no. Some deception is part of what they do.
So I don't think you could have a less credible source than our intelligence agencies.
You all agree with that, right?
That's the lowest level of credibility in this country.
And that's the only source.
So I would say if you had to bet whether Russia was the source, I would actually bet against it.
Maybe 60-40 situation.
I wouldn't say I know Russia didn't do the hack.
I can't know that. But the only source we have that they did it is literally the least credible source in the United States, intelligence agencies.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So now let's take this to the January 6th narrative.
The original claim is that there was a planned insurrection, and Trump was part of it.
And then they show us evidence that Don Jr.
had no idea that there was a planned insurrection.
They should have stopped it right there.
To me, that's just funny.
Right? It's not even like a good point.
It's just kind of funny. Like, really?
And have you tried this test yet?
Try to get a Democrat to answer the question, how do you explain that Don Jr., according to his text messages, how do you explain that he didn't know there was a planned insurrection?
Just watch their faces when they ask that.
Well, yeah, a little curious.
You think there was an insurrection and Don Jr.
didn't get wind of it? Not only was he not brought into the plan, but apparently he hadn't even heard of it.
Not even the rumor mill.
Ivanka? Never heard of it.
But yet the devil cuts by.
All right. So now that their planned insurrection narrative has completely dissolved in sunlight, will they say, well, you know, we looked and there was nothing there?
No. They will morph it, just like collusion became interference.
Now it's becoming, he should have done more sooner to stop it.
They've pivoted to he should have done more sooner, and that's just as bad.
Because by not doing more and sooner, he shows that really he didn't want to do something.
Now, can you think of anything else in the world, in any domain, that's something that's good, something that we'd all agree would be a good outcome, that was done soon enough?
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing is done fast if it's good.
If it's good, it always takes too long.
It always seems like it takes too long, right?
So when you look at these numbers, you can say, oh, it took too long.
And you'd probably be right.
It did take too long.
But isn't that everything?
How about a little context?
Literally everything that's good and should be done takes too long.
Takes too long. If you look at it after the fact, you will always say, you know, you should have known to do this faster, right?
So if all they have left is literally the most generic criticism of everything, do you know this January 6th hearings?
Don't you think these should have been done sooner?
And better? Yeah.
Yeah. Do you know why they should have been done sooner and better?
Because every fucking thing should be done sooner and better.
Every fucking thing.
There's nothing good that you want that shouldn't be done sooner and fucking better and more.
Right? So that's all they have.
All they have is the most generic complaint.
But will they say, all right, this is all we have is our generic complaint.
It should have been done sooner and more.
It should have been done more. No.
They will use the small win that he should have done it sooner, which largely Republicans are also thinking, hmm, maybe he should have done more sooner.
That part I'm not even going to argue.
But they're going to use that part that he should have done more sooner to make their ignorant base believe that they proved a planned insurrection.
And it will work.
It will work. How do I know it'll work?
Because it works every time.
It's never not worked. It works every time.
All they have to do is make a big claim, say that they have secret evidence, and then it hardens in people's minds and they believe it's true.
Once they've convinced people to believe it's true, then cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias will kick in, and everything they see after that will make them think it's been proven, even if the thing happening is literally debunking it.
They will still think that the energy is proving it.
They just say, there's something happening, and I know it's true, so therefore the thing happening must be proving it, when in fact the thing happening is the opposite.
Now, how do you get away with something that ridiculous?
Well, you have to have the press on your side.
If the press is on your side, you can sell anything to your own base.
So we've gotten to the point where politics is not about convincing the other side, because that can't be done.
It's about getting your own side pregnant with a belief that doesn't have evidence and knowing that they won't change their mind.
So basically, bamboozling your own team is now all of politics.
Do you remember when it used to be fooling the other team?
Am I wrong that that used to be the way it worked?
That you could count on your party maybe being on your side, but the whole thing was try to convince the other team.
And now they don't even try to convince the other team.
There's no effort to convince a Republican of anything.
There's only effort to brainwash their own people using this technique of the big claim, the no evidence, followed by the small claim that people conflate with the big claim later.
But the technique works every time.
Yeah, it's a form of hypnosis.
You were right. Should have acted sooner.
Um... So that's how it all works.
Now, there's a new study I saw.
It was on Twitter. And it says that basically it breaks down what kind of conspiracy theories the left believes versus the right.
And you can see a whole bunch of conspiracy theories that are attributed to the political right.
Lots and lots of them.
And then you can see some that are attributed to the left, just so it's complete.
Yeah, like what? Okay, you're asking the right question.
Like what? Like what?
What would be an example, what would be one example of a Republican conspiracy theory?
Well, this gentleman who did, or whoever did the study, had on their list the existence of the elite pedophile ring.
That would now be considered, according to the study, that's a conspiracy theory with no evidence.
Except that it's been proven.
Did they miss the whole Epstein story?
Isn't the entire Epstein story about underage girls and not just Epstein, but a ring of people in power whose names have not been released for reasons we don't understand?
Except that, obviously, they're in power.
So, as of today, Let me establish in public, I've been a big skeptic of the elite pedophile ring.
Never, you know, I never bought into Pizzagate.
I never bought any of it.
Zero percent credibility, in my opinion.
Until today. Because once somebody says, well, you forgot about Epstein, I'm like, oh yeah, I don't really think of him as a pedophile because...
The age of his, let's call them victims, because that's the law, is above the pedophile cutoff.
There's some other name for that, right?
It's still illegal. It's still rape.
But what's the name of it?
There's some other name for that, right?
I'm seeing all kinds of names for it.
Anyway, so if somebody is above some age, let's say it's 16, I don't know what the age is, then it has some other word, not pedophile.
But whatever it is.
So, yeah, so it's still a crime.
We're not going to minimize it.
But if you call that pedophilia, and I think the way it's being used by Republicans is they're using it expansively, meaning to include statutory rape.
If you include that, then I would say the advanced pedophile ring is proven.
I would say that's just an evidence at this point.
Do you agree? Now, anything with people younger than whatever Epstein was doing...
Actually, he went even younger than 16, did he?
Yeah, he went 14, did he?
Yeah, he went all the way to 14.
So I'm not sure what labels you put on that.
But I'm going to accept the common use of the word in politics, which is underage people.
So I think that's proven.
So here's the problem with somebody who tells you, I'm going to do a study of what conspiracies, theories, each side believes.
Somebody has to be the god.
Somebody has to be the judge of what is true and what's not.
Otherwise you don't know what's a conspiracy theory and what's just a fact.
So you can't do this study.
This is an undoable study because it requires somebody to know what's true.
And nobody does. Nobody does.
Let me give you an example of how bad this is.
It's a pretty long list of alleged conspiracy theories, but one of the things that's not on it is the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax, to which you say, well, wait, is a conspiracy theory the same as a hoax?
Well, in this case it is, because the press and the Democrats colluded, To make you think that something that didn't happen definitely totally happened right in front of you.
If a whole bunch of people coordinate to sell you something that's not true, that feels like a conspiracy theory to me.
I mean, I usually call it a hoax, but I would call that.
So those are not on his list.
Do you know what's on his list?
I'll have to call up my own Twitter feed here.
But the point I'm going to make while I'm looking for it...
Is that there was a whole bunch of stuff on that list I'd never heard of.
And does it feel fair that you would leave off the drinking bleach hoax and the fine people hoax that permeated every part of politics and literally everybody heard about?
Do you compare that to a conspiracy theory that some Republicans have, but you've never even heard of it?
You've never heard of it.
How are those on the same list?
You've got to weight these things a little bit, right?
So over in local, somebody's already posted that bit.
All right, so I called it up. So here are some of the things that are called a hoax.
Democrats infecting Trump with COVID. I've never heard that.
Have you ever even heard that?
Is that like a hoax?
I've never heard it. So it's like number, I don't know, five on the spread or something.
That COVID is being spread on purpose?
I've never heard that one. I mean, it's the type of things people noodle about, but I've never heard any believe it.
How about the FDA promotes cancer?
That's a right-wing...
I've never heard that.
Have you ever heard the right-wing say that the FDA promotes cancer?
What? How about...
Government mind control?
Are you kidding me?
Government mind control is listed as not real.
What? Have you ever heard of the Pledge of Allegiance?
The Pledge of Allegiance is overt government mind control.
That's not even hidden.
The Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, the American flag...
That is all government mind control that is a feature.
It's not even a flaw.
How in the world is this some kind of conspiracy theory?
Now I know you're MKUltra and there's a belief that there are things that they're training us in that we don't know about, but that's just a fact.
Everything the government does has an element of public thought management.
How in the world is that a conspiracy theory?
How about Holocaust denial?
Now, that's a real conspiracy theory.
What percentage of people on the right deny the Holocaust?
If you had to guess, what percentage think it didn't happen at all?
Like, none of it happened.
Yeah, 1%. So why does that get on the list?
Why is there a 1% thing on the list?
Something about FDR and Pearl Harbor, the MLK assassination, fake moon landings.
Well, that was just fun. A lot of people say that, but I think that's just fun, actually.
The government assassinating entertainers.
Have you ever heard that?
What conspiracy theory says the government is assassinating entertainers?
Like, most of you are lean right.
You haven't even heard of this. So, when you see a study like this, this is completely fraudulent.
Completely. But I also don't know if they thought it was real.
Because, you know, people are operating in their bubble.
They might have thought this was useful and real and telling us something.
It tells us nothing.
It just tells us that if a Democrat does a study about people believing the wrong things, it will look completely different than if a Republican did the same study.
Because they'd both be in the God position and neither of them could pull it off.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen.
Is there anything that I left down?
Let me tell you a little personal story.
That's just the weirdest thing.
So yesterday I had an extended conversation regarding my desire to buy a guitar.
So, I plan to get a guitar for myself for Christmas.
Like, I like to plan my own Christmas presents to myself.
And it's because my drumming's coming along, and I heard that learning the guitar might be easier.
Yeah, I would do electric guitar.
So it's not usual that I would have a conversation about playing an electric guitar.
In fact, I don't remember the last time I did, if I ever have.
All right, so I have this extended conversation about me playing an electric guitar.
Then I go to an event for my oldest stepdaughter, and she's getting engaged to be married.
Whatever it is, she's engaged, I guess.
And so it was just an event, and there was a musical entertainment.
There were two guitar players.
One of them looked like me.
Not only did he look like me, but he looked like me enough that every single person at the party came up to me and said, that guitar player looks like you.
Now, What is going on here?
It would be one thing if I thought he looked like me, because I was primed to think of myself in guitars.
And so when I looked at him, I thought, that looks like me playing the guitar.
But everybody else thought it, and they were not primed by the topic.
They didn't know I was interested in the guitar.
Nobody knew it. And there he was.
It was like the talk of the event that the guitar player looked like me.
And the funny thing was that during a break, I was standing outside, and the guitar player walks past me on his break, and I called down to him and I said, Hey!
You're me! And he looks at me and he laughs, and I go, You're me!
You're me! And he just laughed and he walked away, because he could see it too.
As soon as he looked at me, he was like, Yeah!
I'm you! It was pretty weird.
So let me tell you my idea for a startup, which is one of my best ideas ever, and nobody's ever done it.
So feel free to steal this, you know, whoever gets to it first.
There should be an app in which you can find the people on Earth who look the most like you.
You might say, why? Oh, tell me you wouldn't use that app.
Come on, I don't need a why.
I don't need a why.
If that app existed, you would look for your clones.
Am I right? Tell me.
All you have to do is put in your picture, let's say, or your stats, your height, weight, whatever.
Yeah, you'd all use it.
And you would come up with this gigantic list of people who are your height, your weight, and they kind of look like you.
Now, what would be useful to do with that?
Find out what clothes you look good in for the first time in your life and know it'll look good on you.
Why? Because somebody who looks just like you is rocking that shirt.
So if they just show the shirt that they wore and say, hey, this shirt feels really good.
Do you know how many of this T-shirt I could have sold?
And that's even to people who don't look like me.
But I'll bet you there's a whole bunch of people who have watched this livestream and said to themselves, oh, my physical, you know, shape is similar to his.
I'll bet I'd look good in a T-shirt.
What one do you wear? Because it looks like, you know, the fist's good.
It sure does. It's a fresh, clean tease.
Now, if I had a website where somebody could look at me in my T-shirt and say, I need a T-shirt.
And by the way, not all T-shirts are good.
I mean, it's actually dicey to get a good, just a t-shirt that fits right and, you know, launders and doesn't wrinkle and doesn't feel weird and stuff.
So, if I had a way to find out how something looks on another person, that's the only way I would shop.
I would get rid of all my other shopping methods.
And I would just say, scroll, scroll, there's a shirt I want.
Bing! And there's an Amazon affiliate link.
The person who looks like me gets a few cents because I used their link to buy it.
Everybody wins. Everybody wins.
Hair is a big part of it.
You're right. You'd want somebody who had similar hair.
All right. How many of you think I can take out the January 6th hearings?
With my reframe.
Because it would require other people to accept it and amplify it.
And the reframe is that they have debunked their own claim.
And I don't think you need to get into the details.
Do you? I think we should just say it's a fact.
They debunked the claim, and so they've moved to, should a good thing have been done sooner and better?
That's it. Should something that definitely should have been done Could it have been done sooner and better?
Yes, just like the January 6th hearings themselves.
By waiting, what?
How long did they wait for the January 6th hearings?
A year? A year, right?
Don't you think they should have done that sooner?
Because a year after, people have moved on a little bit.
That's it. So I believe that we're going to test this.
If today's YouTube live stream gets demonetized or in any way de-boosted, like I suspect the last one did with the same title or similar title, I'm going to have some questions.
You should also look what happens to my tweets on the same topic, because I don't know that they're getting suppressed, but if anything was going to get suppressed in this world, it would be me saying that the January 6th things have already debunked the allegations.
There's nothing more important than that to debunk in the whole world right now.
Am I right? The mainstream press should be frantic to try to protect the narrative, which is all but dissolved at this point.
So they're trying to protect something that's already turned into vapor.
But it's still going to work.
Remember, their method does not depend on evidence.
It does not depend on evidence.
It depends on persuasion.
And the persuasion worked.
But they're going to have to kneecap me pretty soon because I'm going to make too much of a dent on this topic.
Oh, here's some good news.
Would you like to hear some good news?
Did some research yesterday because I assumed that this little problem was probably solved by now.
And it's the problem of doing a proper split-screen interview live.
There are lots of ways to do it if you record it.
You can just do a Zoom. That's easy.
But to do it live...
There were tools that existed but all had some problems.
And I tried all the tools that didn't work.
But there's one I heard about called Ecamm.
I haven't tried it yet.
But I saw a video that says somewhat easily you can do a split screen so somebody can call in.
Now, if it's true, if that's true, that I can easily get a split screen up and running on YouTube, I know I can do it on Instagram, but that's not a platform I'm big on.
I know I can do it on Facebook, but I don't like to use Facebook or anything.
So I was waiting for YouTube to be able to do it natively, which it still can't do, which is weird.
Does anybody know why Google can't figure out how to make YouTube do the main thing that people want to do with it lately, which is have more than one person on the screen?
I don't understand. It's got to be intentional, right?
There must be a reason that they don't want to do it.
But it's available through this third party, I'm told.
Called Ecamm. I would just run it on my end.
And then I can invite people.
I know how people like Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan do it.
And probably Tim Pool, but I don't know as much about his operation.
I think the way they do it is they have a dedicated engineer.
The ones who use the more complicated approaches, like StreamYard and Vmix and...
Wirecaster and OBS. All of those have the same problem.
There's a delay. So you don't see your lips move as you're watching it.
It's like, ugh, it's terrible.
Well, Viva has problems with this.
So Viva Fry would be an example of something that isn't working as well as I would want it to work.
Because remember, I do this somewhat casually.
It's the only way I can do it.
So I needed to work on an easy device without an engineer.
But I think we're there. So here's my tease.
I'm going to test that out in the coming weeks.
And by the time we get to the 2024 election, I should be in shape that I can do them regularly.
Not in place of this.
So it would not be a replacement for the morning coffee with Scott Epps.
It would be an additional content.
And I ask you this.
You've watched me long enough.
Do you think I can't just rip the universe apart with interviews?
Because I can make so much noise, you know, just talking like I'm talking now.
But what I do won't really be forwarded beyond, you know, some audience that you think might like what I do.
But... If I had one of the big-name candidates on, and I'm pretty sure I could get Trump, if he ran for office, I'm pretty sure I could get Trump to appear on this.
Because, you know, Trump does podcasts.
He goes where it makes sense to go.
And nothing would make more sense than doing this.
But here's the interesting thing.
What if I got some Democrats on here?
I could invite my Democrat friend...
And then just trigger them into cognitive dissonance, and that would be the show.
So the show would be not even a debate, because there's nothing to debate in most cases.
It's usually just somebody who's suffering some kind of cognitive dissonance.
So what I would do is trigger them into it, and then let you watch the word salad come out.
And then I would call it out as it's happening.
I'd say, alright, the next thing I'm going to say...
Is so persuasive that it should produce word salad.
And then watch it come out.
Have you seen me do it? Has anybody seen me do this on Twitter?
Where I tell people that their next response will be word salad, and then it is?
Yeah, you've seen it. The people at Locals have seen it.
I do this live.
It's reproducible as often as I want to do it.
I mean, I can easily trigger somebody into word salad.
A number of you have seen me do it.
Now, the other thing you can trigger them into is changing the topic, which is also a win, or calling you a racist, which is also a win.
You could beat Joe Rogan?
What do you mean? Oh, you mean in ratings?
No, I couldn't. One of the things that Joe Rogan does is he has higher production values, and that really makes a difference on YouTube.
I'm noodling about doing that, but I would have to build a studio to do that, which I'm thinking about doing.
I do have a space in my house that is perfect for a studio, but I don't know if I want to spend time there.
That's the problem. Have you ever considered hiring an engineer?
Yes, and rejected it.
Yeah. As soon as you add that second person, everything goes to hell.
Let me explain my process for coming on here.
You notice that I seem pretty relaxed.
I'm sort of... I'm in flow when I come on here, usually, unless there's like a technical problem and then I lose my train of thought.
I'm usually in flow when I get on here.
Imagine me trying to get into flow with an engineer pecking me to death, telling me to center yourself in the frame, sit up, move it back, can you change the microphone?
As soon as you add that other person, the whole show is done.
And you turn into an automaton.
And somebody's watching you in person.
I've tried to do this a few times with a witness, like from the man cave or something else.
Maybe a stepdaughter will be in the room or something.
So I've tried to do this with somebody there, and it doesn't work.
Literally, if anybody, it wouldn't matter who it was, if anybody was sitting just right over there, I wouldn't talk the same.
I'd be somewhat talking to the person instead of the screen.
But if I had a live audience, like 10 people, then I would speak the same as I do on here, because I would feel the same.
And they wouldn't be bothering me.
They would be part of the act, right?
They would not be ruining my flow.
They would probably help me get into it, because they would be reacting and stuff.
So they would bring me into flow.
So one engineer will take you out of flow, And audience will put you into flow.
So you have to be in flower, or else you can't do this.
Yeah, it's sort of like the home gym.
Yeah, the home gym, you don't have the energy because there's not other people there.
That's true. I think I would be best in front of...
Here's what I'd like to do.
I'd like to build a studio that has a small audience.
And maybe not even invite people.
Maybe I put it on a tweet or something.
But just the local people.
Because I'd probably do it on a main street in one of the two towns, between two towns.
But either one of them had these cute little main streets with little storefronts, if I could pick one up for a reasonable price.
Because I don't want to own it.
And then I'd make it my little studio and invite people out.
Probably mostly do remote stuff.
Yeah, the garage is too noisy, too...
doesn't have temperature control.
Should we do it in the movie theater?
So the movie theater, I removed...
So I have a home theater situation here.
So I removed the home theater seating.
It was kind of old anyway.
And that's probably what I would turn into either a music studio when I get my guitar...
Or my podcast studio.
But let me ask you this.
Don't you think there's something better about the casual, non-professional way I do this?
Or am I fooling myself?
Am I just fooling myself because I don't want to work hard or something?
I feel like there's something that adds to it.
Because I've told you often that the way to consume this is not necessarily to listen to every word.
You put it on when you feel lonely.
Because I've learned that most of the people who consume this are doing it alone.
Some of you, you know, have it with a spouse or a friend or something.
But most of you are alone.
And when you're alone, and you're so alone that you're listening to podcast content, you're probably lonely.
So if I give you the professional content, you're going to feel some kind of wall between us.
But if I talk to you the way I'm talking to you now, which is almost exactly like I would talk to you if you were sitting here in person.
You could tell that, can't you?
If you were sitting on the other side of the table, and it was just the two of us, and we're just drinking coffee, it would be about 95% just like this.
It's not that different. I think you could pick that up, right?
And by the way, do you know how hard this is?
It's not hard to do at the moment, because I do it so much.
But do you know how hard it is to be natural in front of an audience?
Oh my God, it's hard.
And, you know, it doesn't happen quickly.
Even when I was live streaming in the beginning, you probably remember.
I mean, I was a little stiff. And it's also hard to fill all the space.
Have you noticed that? But you don't want to fill all the space.
You need to have some gaps a little bit.
They have to be strategic. Yeah.
Somebody's agreeing with me.
Yeah, you sucked. When I originally started livecasting, I don't think it could have been worse.
I think it was bad on every way that it could be bad.
And number one was I had such nasal nose problems.
I mean, it was just disgusting.
So I didn't think I could get to a professional level anyway.
So I thought I'll just keep it casual and see what happens.
You still have the episode saved?
The first one? Oh, you're asking me.
No, I don't have them saved. Remember how long it took me to get a decent mic?
Yeah. But you know, the secret there was the cheapest one.
So the decent mic that I have on the lavaliers, do you know what they cost?
$17. The microphones that were failing, those were like hundreds of dollars.
Right? And as soon as you get to, like, the high-end microphones you're already into, you need an engineer.
But we all learn together.
That's true. This has been quite a journey for a lot of you.
You know, the thing that makes me happiest is the number of people, especially on the Locals platform, who have completely improved their life based on something they picked up in this process on the live streams or my books.
That... That is worth living for.
You know, you wake up and you say, you ever do this?
You wake up and you can't remember what's the point of being alive.
You ever have that, especially before your coffee?
You wake up and you think, you know, God, I don't even think I need to be alive.
Like, there's nothing about it good.
I don't have anything going on today.
What's the point of it? For me...
The fact that people tell me I've improved their life in some way is a reason to wake up.
Like, if you say, there's a good chance you'll improve somebody's life today, that changes your whole day.
Like, oh, wow, I could go improve a life today.
People are constantly thinking in terms of systems or goals.
And talent stacks, all that.
I bet you think of talent stacks, even if you don't think of it explicitly.
And... What's that say?
Interview Ed Calderon.
Who's Ed Calderon?
You know, I do have an ex-president of Mexico follows me on Twitter.
It feels kind of awkward when I'm advocating an attack on his country.
But he follows me on Twitter.
I don't know. I guess he likes what I say.
I can't remember which one.
Does anybody know which ex-president of Mexico follows me on Twitter?
I forget which one.
It wasn't Fox, no.
Was it Calderon?
Somebody's saying it's Philippe Calderon.
That might be. That sounds familiar.
I think Vicente Fox, I believe I interacted with him on Twitter once.
No, it wasn't Nieto.
Did you read about China freezing savings accounts and using tanks to protect banks?
I did not read about that.
I did not. You're talking about Bannon yesterday.
It was good to hear from me.
I am Bannon. Oh, yes.
Yes, people seem to appreciate the fact that Republicans are noticing that it's people who look and act like they do that are going to jail.
And not just look and act in a lifestyle way, but specifically on this topic, specifically on the topic of protesting results of elections and that sort of thing.
It is people who look and feel like exactly the people going to jail.
And so when I said that if you beg for it, if the Democrats beg for it, and so far they are, if they beg for it, we will.
Set Trump on fire and shove him completely up their asses like an angry gerbil.
If they beg for it.
And they are. Like, there are a lot of people who might back a Republican who would prefer that Trump not run.
Maybe even a majority.
I don't know. What do you think?
I don't think it's a majority. I think Trump actually has a solid majority who want him to run at this point.
But let's say there's 40% who would be happier if it were DeSantis.
Whatever the number is. It might be 25.
But I don't know that it matters at this point.
If Trump wants to run, nothing matters.
So if the Democrats want Trump to win, just keep persecuting people who look like me.
People who look and feel like Bannon.
You couldn't do a worse persuasion job.
Now, I think that their plan to take down Trump depended entirely on succeeding.
They actually took a run at the king and they didn't get him.
Right? It looks like the January 6th thing is not going to produce any kind of a charge.
So, if you take a run at the king, you better make sure you get him.
Because... If they had not done the January 6th thing, I don't think he could get re-elected.
Now, there's a little provocation for you.
I'm going to say it again because I liked it so much.
I don't believe Trump could get re-elected except the January 6th committee cleared him.
Because if they hadn't debunked themselves, I would have thought there might be something there.
And enough people would have said, you know, we don't know, there might have been something there.
But let's not have that trouble.
What is the taking a run at the king?
What is the actual quote?
It's something like, if you try to kill the king, you better make sure you succeed.
It's something like that. But does anybody feel the same thing?
Does anybody feel that the January 6th things increased Trump's odds of re-election?
And are you thinking only because I persuaded you?
Or were you thinking that before?
I feel like they hardened the resistance.
Now, and let me say as clearly as I can, because I think some of you are confused about who I would or would not endorse.
My first choice is that nobody as old as Trump or Biden ever runs for president again.
That's my first choice.
So the minute you say, okay, let's do somebody else because of age, I'm with you.
I'm with you. Because we do have enough choices, right?
So it's not as if the Republicans have nobody else to run.
They have a good bench. Republicans have a pretty good bench.
It's just not a problem.
I'll take a Tom Cotton.
I would take a DeSantis.
Ted Cruz is interesting.
That's somebody that I used to be more against.
It had to do with his public persona, I think.
But I've never seen anybody fix his public persona better than he has.
And he also demonstrates on a regular basis just how damn smart he is.
Cruz is really smart.
It would be nice to have somebody in the office that you didn't have to worry about their IQ, right?
Now, I happen to think that Trump is brilliant.
In the ways that he's brilliant.
But that's not necessarily all the intellectual ways that somebody's looking for.
Ted Cruz is just flat-out brilliant in a whole bunch of different ways.
But there's just something.
Do you know what I mean?
There's something about him that either it terrorizes the left and makes him impractical, There's something about him.
But here's the things I do like about Ted Cruz.
When he makes a mistake, like his travel issues and stuff like that, I feel like he owns it.
Am I wrong? Maybe I don't know every situation that's ever happened.
But is it true that when Cruz makes some kind of a gaffe, he just owns it?
Right? Right? Now, there aren't that many gaffes, but I believe he owns them all and just says, yep, yep, moving on.
Even the gaffe about Trump insulted him and his wife and stuff when they were running against each other, I love the fact that that doesn't bother him a bit.
People are trying to get him riled up, Trump insulted your wife and stuff like that, and he's just like, yeah, whatever.
Politics. I do like the fact that that doesn't bother him a bit.
To me, that's a plus.
So, anyway.
I'm not sure I would agree with all of his policy declarations as I wouldn't agree with any of the other candidates and all of their opinions.
But if you gave me a no-Trump option, I'd probably take it.
I'd probably take it. But I don't think we're going to have that option.
I think the realistic choice is going to be Trump versus somebody who wants you in jail.
That's what it's going to feel like.
I mean, it's not literally true.
But it's going to feel like your choice is Trump or somebody who wants people like you in jail.
And that's Trump every time.
And I wouldn't even be embarrassed about it.
Because I think there could have been a scenario where it would just be too embarrassing to back Trump.
And that scenario would be if the January 6th hearings had gone the way the Democrats wanted them to.
It would be sort of embarrassing.
But they've made it easy.
They eliminated the only thing that I had as a big problem, that the January 6th thing seemed disqualifying to me.
To me it seemed disqualifying.
Did anybody have that opinion?
That the way he acted on January 6th, Trump, was disqualifying, but then you saw the January 6th stuff and you said, oh, maybe not so disqualifying after all.
Did anybody have that opinion?
No, yeses, no.
A mix. We get a mix.
Yeah. Then let me ask you this.
No matter how disgusted you are with Trump, let's say you're a Republican, but you're disgusted with whatever, whatever he did.
If he ran against a Democrat, would you vote for him?
Go. It's Trump with all of his flaws against a Democrat.
Who do you vote for? It's Trump.
It's just a wall of yeses.
Yeah. It's easy.
Because here's the one thing I actually believe about Trump.
I think he was fighting for me.
Me meaning an American citizen and somebody who supported him especially.
I feel like Trump fought for me.
Didn't win, but I felt like he fought for me.
And somebody else was pointing out that the first time Trump ran, he was running on promises.
And he was a notorious liar.
So it's pretty hard to run on promises when you're actually famous for hyperbole.
But he won, because he was running against Hillary.
That helped. But now he doesn't have to use hyperbole.
Trump can literally say, did you like that stuff before?
Well, I'll just give you that stuff again.
Because you saw me do it.
You know exactly how I do it.
You know what it would take to do it.
I'm just going to do that again.
Get you back where you were.
That's the easiest sale of any political sale I've ever seen.
There is no sale better than, did you like what I was doing?
I'll do some more of that for you.
Or did you like what Biden did?
You could keep that too. It's literally the easiest.
It'll be the easiest election.
Trump could do the Biden approach, and we'd win.
The Biden approach to campaigning, Trump could go hide in a fucking basement in 2024, and it would guarantee his victory.
Just because the less he talks, the less they have to make fake news about him.
He could just put out boring news releases every day.
News release! We should have a secure border.
Just, like, keep it plain.
He would just walk back into the job.
But would he be Trump?
See, that's the trouble.
You don't hire...
You don't get a...
Let's see. Not insult somebody accidentally.
You don't keep a wild animal in your house...
And expect it's not going to bite your guests.
It's sort of built into the wild animal concept.
And you don't hire Trump to be president unless you know some of your dishes are going to get broken.
And I'm not talking about other people's dishes.
You know what I mean? Some of your damn dishes are going to get broken.
You're not going to be a spectator.
Some of your dishes will get broken, too.
So, the one thing I've always said about Trump since the first time he ran is that he would be an expensive president, but worth the expense.
And I think that that was one of my better, you know, characterizations.
He's very expensive, in the sense that he caused a reputational hit to me.
Probably brought my income down by a third.
But Biden's expensive in his own way, isn't he?
Biden's expensive a different way, by fucking up.
Trump is expensive because he causes provocation and division and, you know, everything's attenuated when he's in office.
It's not free. You know, you don't want to support Trump if you want a trouble-free world.
He's bringing the trouble.
But if you want that trouble to be directed at the things that you hate and think need to be changed, he's just the trouble you need.
You know, he's the trouble you require for some things.
Competence is the word you're looking for?
Am I? Yeah, I see people saying it's going to be Trump and DeSantis for one term.
I'm going to debunk that strongly.
Now, you might be right.
Nobody knows the future.
But here's my thinking.
When was the last time somebody had a vice president that reasonable people would say, you know, I wish you reversed that.
I wish that vice president were actually the president.
You don't do that.
Because it makes the president look weak.
Because the conversation would turn into, maybe it should be DeSantis.
DeSantis wouldn't do that.
Why doesn't DeSantis talk to Trump?
Why isn't Trump listening to DeSantis more?
No. You cannot have that situation.
Now, forget about Trump's personality, which would not allow that to happen.
It's just not good politics.
You want people to say, all right, I think Pence could stand in.
I think he could.
And he could. He was very qualified.
But he'll be boring and uninteresting, and he's not our first choice.
That's exactly what you want.
You need Pence all day long.
Pence is the...
Let me say it again.
I don't think Pence gets nearly enough credit.
Does anybody agree with me?
I think Pence proved himself to be a patriot at the highest level.
I would thank him for his service more than anybody.
His character never cracked.
Think about that. Pence's character never cracked.
You could like it or don't like it, but he was Pence.
He started as Pence.
He ended as Pence. And he was not only that, but the craziest thing he ever did turned out to be genius, which was not have a meal with somebody who wasn't his wife, unless the wife was there.
That rule, you remember the Pence rule?
And everybody was like, ho, ho, ho, Pence rule.
I would not have a meal with a woman that was not my wife in a business setting.
I wouldn't do it. Sorry.
Now, there may be at least somebody here who once asked me to lunch, and I said no, now you know why.
And there is, I think there is at least one person watching here who is female, who has asked me to lunch when I was married, and I said no.
I didn't give the true reason.
Because the true reason sounds like it's going to cause an argument.
You're like, oh, she doesn't have to worry about me, or I'll call her, and I'll tell her it's okay.
So you don't give a reason.
But that was the reason.
I wouldn't have a meal alone with a woman in the context of being married or engaged.
Or in a serious relationship, I guess.
Remember when that was controversial?
That wasn't long ago.
It was not long ago that that was controversial.
It's not controversial at all.
The Me Too movement completely validated Pence, completely.
He's the most validated guy ever.
And now what about Pence refusing to do what Trump said, you know, for the certification?
You could disagree with what he did, a lot of you will, but it was high character.
Would you agree with that?
I thought what he did was high character, even if you think he shouldn't have.
To me, he put the system above the outcome.
And when I see a politician put the integrity of the system above the outcome, I go, ooh, you have my attention now.
Can you do that again?
Because if you can do that more than once, I have a new favorite candidate.
Like somebody who says, I'm going to protect the system, even if we're getting a bad result at the moment.
The system is more important.
The Constitution, all that stuff.
So I don't think that Pence is my first choice, or even first through fifth choice for president, but I think we have to say as a vice president, he was...
He was first right. So I'm going to give him that.
All right. And on that note, I'm going to go.
And let's see if we can download this YouTube video.
And I think this was the best live stream of the day.
