Episode 1836 Scott Adams: The Democrat HOAX Playbook, So You Can Predict The Mar-a-Lago Outcome
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
HOAX list, 12 and counting...#13?
Whiteboard: HOAX Pattern
14 FBI Whistleblowers have come forward?
GSA employees who packed the Mar-a-Lago boxes
The question of Presidential declassification
California Megaflood disaster predicted
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah, my power plug was unplugged and gave me a little problem.
But we're back.
This morning is going to be terrific.
Do you see what's behind me?
Do you see what's behind me?
It's a whiteboard. That means good times.
And if you'd like to take it up a notch, and I know you're the kind of people who do, you're not happy that the notch you're in, are you?
No, no. Let's take it up a notch.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. So good.
Well, in today's first segment that I call the hardest way to say it.
The hardest way to say it.
There are some messages that you can say in simple words, but you don't need to.
You could say it the hardest way you could say it.
Kamala Harris is the winner for today, and every day, frankly.
She said recently, Equity as a concept says recognize that everyone has the same capacity, but in order for them to have equal opportunity to reach that capacity well, we must pay attention to this issue of equity.
Let me try to sort this out a little bit.
So we've got three concepts here.
Equal capacity, creating equity, and then equal opportunity.
I feel like there was an easier way to say that.
I don't know. Feels like there was an easy way to say it.
But a bigger issue is, should anybody have said that at all?
It doesn't really feel like something that anybody should have ever said.
Because she's talking about public school primarily.
And I tweeted this.
Kids who chase equity instead of strategy are doomed.
Kids who chase equity...
Instead of strategy, like how do you get ahead personally, they're doomed.
Because you're just looking in the wrong place.
If you're looking in the right place, you're looking at what is a strategy that I personally could use, that's unique to me, that can get me ahead in life and get me ahead in work, my career.
If you're not doing that, everything else is the wrong thing.
So if you're worried about your equity, you've become a complainer.
Is that a good strategy?
It is a strategy.
Complaining to get more stuff is a strategy.
It's just not a good one compared to having a strategy for getting what you want that's unique to you.
The complaining strategy is sort of the generic strategy.
Do you think it makes sense that every person has the same strategy?
We're all going to work toward equity.
Sounds good. We all like equity.
We all like fairness.
But compare that to teaching people how to pursue their own best strategy.
There's no competition.
So some of you already know I'm working on helping the homeschool market with life and career strategy.
Basically, it would come out of my book, had to fail at almost everything and still win big.
So I'm paying to have that turned into a curriculum and study guide.
So once those materials are available, then any homeschooler, and any public schooler, but I'll aim at the homeschoolers first, any homeschooler could just make that book a required high school book.
Now it is written, it is written, For 14 and up.
It was designed for exactly this.
You could read it at 50, and a lot of people do, and they say, usually what they say is, damn it, I wish I'd read this earlier.
It's still helping me, but I wish I'd read it earlier.
So 14 would be the youngest you want to go with it.
And there are a number of other people who are trying to fit the same needs.
So when I tweeted about this this morning, I saw a number of other links that people sent saying, oh, we're working on this, and we're working on it too.
So apparently there's a whole understanding within the homeschool market that doesn't exist in the public school market.
In the public school market, they seem to just be operating on fear.
Who's going to get them in trouble?
So if you look at the public school system, it's an entirely fear-based system.
What do we do to stay out of trouble?
What do we do to make sure nobody complains?
Whereas the homeschoolers are absolutely about what makes the kid successful.
You can't compare those two things.
The staying out of trouble philosophy versus the how do I make this kid as successful as possible, given their natural gifts.
No comparison. And I think we might soon reach a point where you're not going to want to hire anybody who wasn't homeschooled.
Literally. And we might already be there.
I'll bet there are some of you who, if you had a homeschooler come in, well, let me ask this question directly.
You've got two candidates that seem to have about the same, roughly, same qualifications.
One is homeschooled.
One is public schooled.
Who do you hire? Who do you hire?
Yeah, I think it's the homeschooler every time.
Now, the people who would not are the people who haven't been familiarized with the students that come out of it.
If you've ever met anybody that came out of a homeschool, they're not like the other people.
They're really not. At least that's been my, you know, limited anecdotal observation.
Am I right? Doesn't it seem to you they don't come out the same?
They shouldn't.
Right, yeah, they come out differently.
And they do seem more adult.
They seem to be more keyed into, you know, what makes somebody successful, what's important, what isn't.
Just my, I mean, that's a very subjective impression.
All right, here's an NPC update.
Here's how I can identify mine.
Yours might be a little different. But I've gotten a flood of people when I say something that's obviously good and smart.
The trolls are now saying, oh, why don't you go back to Q? I guess that's a Q prediction, isn't it?
I'm thinking, has anybody talked against Q more than I have?
Nobody. Literally probably cost me 10% of my income.
Probably. Just talking about Q. Because that's how many Q supporters probably said, I'll never read your comic again.
Something like that. So the NPCs are saying, did Q tell you that?
That's one of them. The other one is any cartoon-related sarcasm.
I could literally give you a new equation for room temperature fusion, and even if it worked, somebody would come into my comments, even after it had been proven to work, and even after I win a Nobel Prize for science, Somebody would come into my mentions and say, oh, so we're going to listen to the Dilbert guy now for energy.
That would happen. Well, okay.
The other thing I hear is that when I put the list of the 12 hoaxes so far, people say, those hoaxes are all real.
And I think, you couldn't possibly be a real person to say that.
You know, the Democrats who are real people often will challenge the hoax list.
So the hoax list, if you're new, is a list of 12 very well-known hoaxes that the Democrats have perpetrated in the last just few years.
And mostly during the Trump era.
And there are people who actually say all 12 of them are real.
Now, the people I trust who I think are wrong...
But at least they seem like real people.
We'll say three of those are true.
At least three of those on that list are true.
They're not. But at least that's something like a real person with a real opinion.
It's time to go to the whiteboard.
Are you ready for this?
Are you ready for the whiteboard that will change the world?
Yeah. I think you are.
Let's do it. I give you now the hoax pattern.
Am I back? For some reason, I'm not getting electrical power through my electrical connection.
It is connected. I can confirm that it's plugged in.
But let's see if we get any power out of this.
All right. Sorry, YouTube.
Alright, here is the hoax pattern.
You ready for this?
Let's see if I can get this so it's less shiny.
A little less shiny.
There we go. So the hoax pattern works like this.
You start with some anonymous sources.
Then you add some legal action to make it seem real.
So there has to be some action.
So the action could be an FBI investigation.
It could be a special prosecutor.
It could be some kind of lawsuit that you're heard of.
There could be some kind of action in the New York area.
But there has to be some actual legal activity of any kind.
So then you could say, well, we have a story.
And then we have some legal activity.
This is sounding pretty real.
You've got anonymous sources.
You've got...
Yeah. So then you go to the amplifying, the what if.
And as you're saying in the comments, this needs a name.
This is the wrap-up...
The wrap-up...
What do you call it? The wrap-up hoax?
No, the wrap-up smear.
It's the wrap-up smear.
Wrap up smear.
So that happens at about the same time as you get the what-ifs.
So the what-ifs are how they amplify it.
What if he's talking to Putin?
What if he sold his secrets to Xi?
What if he's working with Iran to build a bomb?
What if? What if?
So you can one-if this thing into reality, and the people doing the one-if-ing are the deep state fake news, and then here's your real tell.
Are you aware that NBC is considered, and I'll say alleged, so I can stay out of trouble, alleged, alleged that they're basically just a CIA operation?
Meaning... That if NBC is telling you to interpret a story a certain way, you can reliably assume that the CIA is guiding them into that coverage.
Now there's one name that I hear more often than others as being the most identified with CIA, NBC, and that's Ken Delanian.
Now this is not my accusation.
This is things I read on Twitter.
But talk to Glenn Greenwald if you want to get a complete picture of how this works.
So Glenn Greenwald does the best job, and I don't want to get into his turf too much.
But basically, whenever you see this tell, That Ken Delanian has come on to say, what if it's nuclear secrets?
What if it's the worst case scenario?
This usually is your tell that the CIA has joined, in this case, joined the FBI and the rest of the deep state and the fake news.
So now you can see the full form of it, right?
So there's not really much question.
And as I tweeted today, Even if you're dumb enough to not recognize the pattern, this is the same hoax pattern for most of them, if you're dumb enough to not recognize the pattern by now, at least you can recognize it's the same actors.
You got that, right?
It's the same people.
It's not every member of Congress, or some of these have some people at Congress, or some groups, or it's a different group.
No. It's the same people.
And... The people would be like Adam Schiff, Ken Delaney.
You know, we've got the same FBI agents working on January 6th as working on the Mar-a-Lago thing, at least one of them.
And then, of course, you see McCabe, you know, ex-FBI guy, McCabe, comes on CNN to give his opinion.
And it's all the same play.
So here's where we are now.
This is what I call Schiff and the SCIF. The SCIF is a secure place where you can go look at a secret document, but you can't copy it, you can't take your phone, and basically it sits there and you can be near it, but you can't do anything with it.
You can just read it. So Schiff has now said, exactly as we expected, And remember, I called the plays in advance.
You know, once you see it developing, you can say, oh, it's going to take this form.
So we're up to the Schiff and the SCIF form.
So Schiff has said that he is demanding some kind of defense review of these documents taken from Mar-a-Lago.
Now, who do you think is going to look at those documents?
It's only going to be the people with the top clearance.
Who would be somebody who has the top level of security clearance in Congress?
Adam Schiff, who has lied to us how many times about what he saw in a Schiff?
In a Schiff, I think.
How many times has Schiff lied to us about what he personally saw in a Schiff?
It's happened, right? That's the real thing.
We know for sure.
We know for sure that he lies about what he sees in his gift.
That is just solid, confirmed fact.
And that's where we are.
Now the next phase is to draw down as long as possible.
To make sure there's some kind of an investigation, legal process, some kind of hearings.
You've got to keep this thing alive.
You've got to keep feeding it.
Stuff, stuff. But eventually, after the elections are over, or after the primaries, or whatever it is that they're trying to get past, I think in this case the 2024 election period, they're going to say, oops, oops, we finally talked to the people who packed the boxes.
Yeah. The GSA employees who actually packed the top secret boxes.
We waited until the end to talk to them.
Do you know why we didn't talk to them in the beginning?
And when I say we, I mean the public.
Do you know why the public doesn't know who those people that pack the boxes are?
Doesn't know what their opinion is.
Doesn't know what they saw. We don't know what Trump asked them to do.
We don't know if Trump was there.
We don't know if Trump was aware of anything in the boxes.
We don't know if those boxes had only top secret things in them, or some top secret, but basically they were general boxes.
We don't know if the boxes got reused.
We don't know anything. And don't you think that would be easy for us to know?
You don't think we can find the GSA employees who actually packed the boxes?
Now, I don't need to know their names, necessarily.
I'd be happy if somebody who's a Republican knew their names, just to make sure they're real people.
But I don't need to know them.
The public doesn't need to harass them or dox them or anything.
It's not about that.
I just need to hear from them.
And the question I ask is this.
What right does the public have...
To know who these accusers are, because they're not just accusing Trump, are they?
They're doing something that would change the entire political landscape of the United States.
That affects me. Do I have a right to know that there are some government employees, people that my taxes pay?
Do I have any right to know what they think about this situation, like right now?
Not later. Right now.
Do I have a right to know that?
I feel like I have a moral and ethical right, probably don't have any constitutional right, but why do you think it's going to take so long to hear from the only people who matter in the story?
The only people who can clear this up, we've not heard from, and we won't.
I don't believe you'll ever hear, until it's too late, when they do the oops.
Now, after the oops, there's another step.
Where the Democrats don't know that it's been debunked.
They will never hear it because their news will never report it.
And every time you encounter them on social media, it'll be like they're in a different world.
You know, someday in the future you'll say, and remember when that Mar-a-Lago thing got debunked?
And every Democrat you encounter will say, what?
That didn't happen. Show me the link to that.
And then you'll find that there are more links...
They'll say it didn't happen than did, because the news is completely fake.
So there will be far more news stories saying that this thing was always real, even after its debunk.
So Democrats will be completely lost.
They'll think it was true. Now, Eric Trump retweeted my hoax list today and suggested adding a 13th.
So the 12 hoaxes that were on the list are the ones that I think are done and over and debunked, and there's no doubt about it.
The Mar-a-Lago thing, in my opinion, is not yet completely debunked.
It's super obvious that it's a hoax, or, or, and when you mock me later, just in case that happens, I'm going to cover my tracks, or it coincidentally looks exactly like one.
Now that would be a big coincidence.
Because I don't even think you bring in Ken Delaney to say what if the worst possible things, unless it's a hoax.
I don't think it's an accident that he shows up on TV. I think that's basically, that's a wink.
You know what this one is.
You know. We're going to send NBC to cover this for us.
We got it. So someday we could be surprised.
But, How would you like to do the following?
I'm just going to suggest it.
What do you think of the branding?
Hashtag 13th hoax.
With 13 as 1-3, just because it's more visual and shorter.
So hashtag 1-3-TH for 13th hoax.
So I just tweeted that today, just before I got on.
And there's something...
I didn't quite even notice what I had here, because it was sort of accidental.
But... So I had a note from...
I just want to give proper credit here.
From Kyle Caffrey on Twitter.
That the 13th hoax is pretty strong branding.
And I'm thinking that we should just start calling it the 13th hoax, even before it's confirmed to be a hoax.
Because it's so strongly obviously won.
Now, I could be wrong. Let me say this as clearly as possible.
I could be wrong. You know, we could be surprised.
But it would be a big surprise.
Because the nature of this one is so transparent.
I mean, this one looks like they stopped trying to hide it.
Because they know that there are not that many people watching this livestream.
There are not that many people who will ever see this framework.
There are not that many people who are paying attention enough to know that this is exactly like the other hoaxes.
Right? Whether it's the same players.
So as long as most of the world can't tell the difference, it probably doesn't matter if we can.
But the 13th hoax is way more powerful than 10th hoax, 12th hoax, 9th hoax, 6th hoax.
There's something about 13th that's devastatingly powerful.
I don't know exactly what.
I don't know if it's the number itself, but you can feel it, right?
You could actually feel the 13th hoax.
Whereas if I said the 6th hoax, it would sound like information.
But I'm not wrong, right?
I'm not wrong. The 13th hoax sounds like it's important, whereas 7th just sounds like you're talking.
Yeah, maybe because of the 13 colonies, maybe.
Maybe because of all of the associations we have with the number, both good and bad.
You don't think a number could go first.
That's why it's...
Oh, you don't think 13th should go first?
Well, I don't want to put a thought in front of it.
Yeah. So anyway, I'm going to use the 13th hoax as my reference to the Mar-a-Laga situation.
Yeah, let's see if we can normalize that.
Because I think it's far more devastating to call out the hoax as it's developing and point to all the steps.
Because remember, I called out the Schiff and the Skiff place days before it happened.
So days before Schiff actually said he wants to go look at the secret information and tell us what's in there, I said that's coming.
Because that's just part of the pattern.
Of course it is. Of course Schiff is going to...
Say he saw it, and it's terrible.
Of course he is. And if any Republicans see it, they're going to walk out and say there was nothing there.
We know that's going to happen.
All right. So then Jim Jordan comes out on TV yesterday, and he claims that there are 14 FBI agents who are whistleblowers who have come forward to Jim Jordan and maybe others And those 14 alleged FBI agents who are whistleblowers are objecting to the politicization of the FBI. So the whistleblowers are not specific to the Mar-a-Lago situation.
I don't know if any of them are.
It's more general FBI agents complaining.
Now, how unusual would it be for 14 FBI agents to complain about the nature of management?
How abnormal is that?
Seriously, how abnormal do you think that is?
There's a little lag in your comments right now.
Somebody says normal.
Somebody says not normal. Not normal.
Low to normal. Pretty normal.
So there's a big difference here between people who think that would be normal and people who think it would not be normal.
I'm going to rule on this in my capacity as the Dilbert comic strip creator who knows a thing or two about how big bureaucracies work and how employees think about their bosses.
I kind of know that stuff.
That would be my expertise.
This would be one of the very few topics in which you should not rush into the comments and tell me that cartoonists should be ignored.
Because this one I know.
And 14 employees complaining about their bosses is basically nothing.
That's basically nothing.
You couldn't find any big company that couldn't get 14 whistleblowers.
If the whistleblowers are simply saying the company's strategy or philosophy is off base, that's half the employees, right?
Yeah. So the Jim Jordan thing is mostly bullshit, although I'm sure the number is probably close to correct.
I'm not saying he's lying.
So the allegation here is that while it might be true, it doesn't really mean much.
Not really. However, it's sort of a bullshit standoff.
So now you've got the bullshit from the Mar-a-Lago accusations that there's something nuclear in there that would be damaging, and now he's sort of In a standoff with his bullshit about the 14 agents' whistleblowers.
So it's a good bullshit standoff.
Here are the questions that I would ask the GSA employees who packed those boxes for the Mar-a-Lago destination.
Would you not want to know the answers to the following questions?
Now let's assume that they can't tell us what's in the boxes.
Do we agree? That's one question that can't be asked.
What's in the box? So they can't tell us, yes, there's a nuclear secret, or no, there's not.
But here's what you could say.
You could say, did they know that they were packing top-secret information that was classified?
Did they know that?
And did they have the right clearance to do it?
Probably. But that's the question I'd ask.
Were they aware that it was top-secret?
Or did they think that some of it was not top secret, but they were just putting it in top secret boxes?
Yeah, just to be careful.
Let me ask you this.
If you were a GSA box packer and you were in a hurry, and you couldn't really, you didn't have time to know what was top secret and what wasn't, would you throw it all in a non-top secret box?
How would you handle that? You don't have enough time to check.
You don't have enough time to ask around.
You only have time to pack the boxes.
Do you use the boxes labeled top secret just to make sure that everything's as secure as possible?
Because you can't tell.
You don't know what's in there. Or do you say, well, I don't know if anything's top secret and the president told me to pack it up for Mar-a-Lago, so it can't be that top secret.
So I'll just shove it in a box that says Mar-a-Lago and send it off.
Which one seems more likely?
Again, let me ask people who have any work experience whatsoever.
Those of you who have never held a job of any kind, you can sit this one out.
So this is only for the people who have ever worked.
What do you think is in the boxes?
Only secrets.
Only secrets. Or did they just over-label the boxes to make sure that the GSA packers themselves did not get in trouble?
If I'm a GSA packer, I'm labeling everything top secret because I don't want to hear about this again.
You hear me? If I'm putting shit in those boxes and I don't know what I'm putting in there, I'm labeling all of it top secret and I don't care what's in there.
Am I right? I label all of it top secret.
Anything else would be fucking stupid.
True? If you're actually in the room and you don't know the nature of these documents, you label all of them top secret, I mean the box, you label the box top secret, you tape it up and you make sure nobody can get in.
I'm not wrong. I'm not wrong, and you've never heard anybody say this out loud, have you?
Not only is it obvious, what I'm saying is obvious, they would just throw stuff in the box and over-classify the secret level of it.
Now, it is also possible that they were top-secret documents and somehow they got coerced into putting them in a box and sending them to Mar-a-Lago.
If that's true, they all need to go to jail.
Am I right? If it's true that the GSA employees knowingly put top-secret documents into storage to be shipped to Mar-a-Lago, then they all need to be in jail.
Everybody who was aware that they were doing that, right?
Now, have you heard anybody accuse the Packers?
Has anybody said, ooh, we're going to indict those Packers?
Has anybody done that?
I haven't heard of it.
So if the Packers are not in trouble, What is the one and only fucking way they could not be in trouble?
They overclassified everything.
It's the only way.
It's the only way.
They overclassified everything.
It's the only way to stay out of trouble.
All right. Then the other question is, did Trump direct them to do anything?
That seems like a pretty simple question.
Again, I don't need the identity of the GSA employees.
I don't want to dox anybody, because it's not about that.
There's no allegation that anybody who packed the boxes did anything wrong, right?
Let's be clear on that.
We don't want to demonize the GSA employees.
There is no, no, zero, there's no evidence, no implication, no suggestion, no hint that anybody in the GSA did anything wrong.
We all agree on that, right?
Because those employees need to be cleared.
Unless somebody knows something I don't, but as far as I know, completely clear.
We have to keep that a good distinction.
But I'd love to know what they think Trump directed them to do in any detail.
Or did he just say, take all these things in this room, and it was all kinds of a mixture of stuff.
And then lastly, I'd know, what is the public's right to know?
Do we have a right to know what the GSA employees did?
I feel like we do, even if there's not a court process.
I feel like there should be some kind of freedom of information or obligation because they're paid employees or government employees.
Everything the government creates is owned by the people, right?
I mean, in a sense.
So I feel like we have access, we have a right to it, Maybe we have to wait for the legal process for it to play out.
But I do think we have a right to it.
That's my feeling. And I don't think we should have to wait for the courts to deliver.
Here's another question. And I think I tagged Alan Dershowitz to answer this, but I doubt he will.
The question is this. We know a president can declassify anything.
I've seen no evidence that Trump declassified these specific documents.
Right? We've seen hand-waving that he declassified documents, but there's no evidence whatsoever that he declassified specifically the stuff that was going to be shipped.
Now, if he had, then people say he would be out of legal jeopardy, although...
Depending on what he declassified, he might still be somebody you want to criticize.
But he'd be in a legal jeopardy if he had done that.
Now, here's the question. Since the Constitution gives the president, I believe, the right to classify or declassify anything, because he's the chief of the military, does the president have to say the words, I declassify these, Does he have to do the paperwork, even if there's a process, even if there's a law that says you must?
Or, can a president declassify something by his actions, without words and without documents?
Can he declassify without actions, with just his actions?
For example...
Let's say I walked into the Oval Office and the President said, you don't have clearance?
No, he wouldn't say anything.
Let's say he just showed me something that was top secret.
If the President hands you something that says top secret right on it, and you don't have clearance, what should you assume about the document that you're looking at?
I would assume that by his actions he's declassified it.
What would you assume? That would be my ordinary, everyday assumption, is that it's declassified, at least for me.
Can a president declassify something for one person?
I feel like he has full control, right?
So I would think that handing it to me is declassifying it.
It's a de facto, obvious declassification.
Now, it doesn't mean it's declassified for people who are not in the room, but he can declassify it for me, can't he?
So, if the president said, ship this stuff to Mar-a-Lago, is that not declassifying it?
See, that would be an interesting case, wouldn't it?
To me, it seems that the way you act with it is also declassifying it, unless it's accidental.
And if it's accidental, well, that's also an excuse.
If there are some sensitive documents in there and he didn't mean them to be in there, that's just a mistake.
And maybe he needs to pay for the mistake.
That's a separate question.
But I feel like...
Yeah, and I feel like even if he had...
That's a good question. If the people who packed the boxes did not have top-secret clearance, I'm guessing they did.
But let's say if they didn't.
If they didn't, Then isn't that declassifying it because you asked a bunch of non-classified people to dig around in it?
I don't know. But I guess that would not declassify it for everybody.
It would just declassify it for the people in the room.
Or is the fact that it's being shipped in a generic way prove that it's been declassified?
You know, I think if you see the intentions in the actions clearly...
That, at the very least, you can't prosecute for it.
You could argue whether it was properly done, but I don't think you could prosecute for it if the president thought he or she was declassifying it by his or her actions.
I don't know. It'd be an interesting case.
But, mark my words, you won't hear from any boxbackers until it's too late.
So it's a good play.
So have you noticed that we can't get a day without a new disaster looming, even if it's not real?
So now California is reportedly, the news is saying, we've got a double mega disaster situation.
So the first mega disaster is that we're in a drought, and climate change might be making the drought worse.
The second one, I'm not making this up, is that climate change will cause too much rain, And specifically, some storms that will cause massive flooding and a trillion dollars of damage.
So climate change is going to make it too wet and too dry at the same time.
No problem with that.
And during these years when there's a very high risk that California will be too dry and too wet at the same time, I don't know.
I think I've lost all faith in anything that's in the news.
I feel like, yeah, it might rain a lot pretty soon.
I don't feel like it's going to flood.
But maybe a little flooding.
Who knows? We'll see.
And of course you're seeing reports about heat deaths.
Because the power shortages and the climate change is causing heat deaths.
And the heat deaths are up.
So it does appear real that way more people are dying from heat.
That's real. So climate change is, in fact, killing people.
Here's some context for you from Bjorn Lomborg.
That there are about 60,000 or more cold deaths every year.
Way more than the number of people who die from heat.
So the bigger problem, by far...
Maybe ten times as big as how many people die of cold.
So if climate change caused a few more people to die of heat, but far fewer people to die of cold, climate change would be saving lives.
Do you know how you make climate change sound dangerous when it's saving lives?
Well, you leave out the part about the cold deaths.
Now, allow me to be balanced.
You don't expect this.
It's coming at you. The reason they changed it to climate change instead of global warming is because they realized that if one part of the world heats up a little more than usual, it could cause hurricanes and storms that have not happened before.
Everybody gets that, right?
The alleged heating is not projected to be as hot everywhere at the same time.
It's going to be spotty.
If it happens spotty, or even if it doesn't, it's going to cause entirely different weather patterns.
So if it gets hot in one place, it could cause some storms in another place or someplace to get colder, I suppose.
So whether it makes you hotter or colder, it could kill you either way.
So if it's making things hotter and colder at the same time, it's just killing people.
If it's making it warmer and killing people, but also the only thing that's happening is everything's getting a little warmer, then in theory it's saving more people than it's killing.
So which one is it?
The climate people, the alarmists, would say, well, you know, this hot and cold differential is obviously going to cause a problem.
But then the data people say, well, I hear you.
Like, I understand the logic of it, that there's going to be both more cold and more hot, you know, more variability.
So, okay.
But the data so far is showing that way more people are dying from cold.
And if any of those places start to warm up a little bit, it might net out the way you'd like it to.
We'll see. So I think that's an unknown.
But you have to have the context.
All right. Gosh, did I talk about everything that's happening?
I feel like I did.
This might be the best live stream of all time.
I've covered everything.
Oh, one thing. Rumor control.
Has anybody heard any rumors about my personal life in the last few days?
So let's say the last week.
The last one week.
Has anybody heard anything about me?
Really? I guess the news hasn't spread yet.
Oh, one of you has.
Yeah, one person has.
Alright, so my ex-Christina, my ex-wife, has announced she's pregnant.
Now your first question is, who's the father?
I don't know. So that part has not been announced.
So there's some mystery involved in that.
Now the next question you have is, is one of the possibilities you?
Calendar-wise, no comment.
But she says no.
So her official answer is that it's not me.
So those are, and she posted that on Facebook, so a lot of people have seen it.
So I'm only telling you this because it's going to get out there, so that just happened the other day.
So she and I are not in contact, haven't been in contact for a while, so I don't know what her life looks like or what she's doing or anything.
But some of you are going to interpret that negatively for me.
Yeah, even the divorce is not finalized yet.
But, yeah, somebody's pasting the picture on the locals' platform.
They're seeing a picture of the sonogram.
So the only reason I'm mentioning it is because it's public, and you'd have some questions I thought I'd answer.
So you're also asking the obvious question, did I want to have children?
And the answer is no.
So I wish her the best.
And I know that she was actually very interested in having another child.
So this is probably terrific news, I hope.
I think it's terrific news.
And it's actually made me pretty happy.
Because I think it will make her happy.
And if it makes her happy, I'm happy.
So, I don't think that...
No, I'm not going to answer that question.
She looks happy. Yeah, so I think that her happiest years are raising a little kid, so she likes that stuff.
So I would say that a lot of people were expressing sympathy or empathy for me for going through a divorce, and I kept explaining, well, we got married because we wanted to, and we were together for a long time, and we liked it for a long time, and we got divorced because we wanted to.
And now she's, you know, obviously got something going on that looks pretty good.
Yeah, it's because she wanted it.
So this is a story of everybody getting what they wanted.
It just took a while to work it out.
However, the other news is that my house is now empty.
So as of today.
So for a while, A couple of her kids were staying here.
It was just a convenience thing because of the summer.
But now they're off.
They're all off together.
So I've got a big empty house here.
It's very quiet in the house.
Very quiet. You need a place to stay?
Yeah, I got room. Come on over.
All right. I'm only sharing it because it's public.
And you would have questions, and I don't think it would be fair to her that you're asking some of those questions.
So I thought I'd just clear that up.
So I wish her well.
I think it's good news.
And we'll move on.
All right. Do the people I keep in the torture dungeon make noise?
Well, that's the question I'm being asked on the locals' platform.
And the answer is...
It's a soundproof room.
Yeah, I'm not going to answer the...
any more of the personal questions.
I think that's enough. All right.
New cat? No, I think I'm not going to get a new pet...
Anytime soon. I think pets are only good if you've got a family situation and you can take turns entertaining it or you can have two pets and they like each other.
One person with one pet is as hard if the pet's there alone all day.
It feels like putting the pet in jail.
Drumming's going well.
It's great.
I got my swing beat, locking that in.
I saw a post on Instagram that said that Elon Musk owns Boxable, the company that makes those little houses that unfold when you deliver them. the company that makes those little houses that unfold when Is that confirmed? I knew he invested in it, but I didn't know he owned it.
So I'm not sure that's a real fact.
Am I going to become an old cat lady?
I might. All right.
Can I bring the whiteboard into focus?
Yeah, I will do that for you.
See if I can get the best picture on here.
Does that give you one? Let me get it away from the comments, maybe.
Yeah. Sorry, it's hard because the Let's try this.
I'm doing this for YouTube as well.
One moment and I'll get out of the way.
Okay, that didn't work at all.
Alright, how about that? Alright, I'll take a picture of it and include it.
