Episode 1848 Scott Adams: The FBI Has A Taint Team? And Rob Reiner Has Some Explaining To Do
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The FBI's Taint Team
Mar-a-Lago raid, just a documents issue?
Rob Reiner's MSNBC information bubble
Student loan forgiveness won't cost anything?
Gyal Keiko's tweet on our matriarchal society
Half the public can be fooled every time
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody, and congratulations for making it to the highlight of civilization.
Coffee with Scott Adams.
It doesn't get any better than this.
Even though it might, it might.
I'm joking, it could.
It could actually get better than this.
It's hard to believe, but possible.
Now, is anybody here feeling a little low on the fascism scale?
Would anybody like to take it up to a full semi-fascist state?
Then all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure It's the dopamine of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. Have you ever heard that there's such a thing as too much of a good thing?
It's true. Did you know that if you take a little bit of Botox, which in a larger dose would be a poison, But if you take a little bit of Botox, it can make your wrinkles go away.
So something could be really bad for you if you get a lot of it, but if you get just the right amount, it could be good.
And so that's why you should not dismiss being a semi-fascist.
I think we could all agree that being a fascist would be a bad idea, just as we could all agree that taking an overdose of Botox Botox would be a bad idea, too.
But if you get just the right amount, it gives you a little flavor.
Just a semi-fascist.
Just enough. Just enough.
Well, if you didn't know, that's what Biden has called many of the Trump supporters.
He's called them ultra-mega-semi-fascists.
Ultra-mega, semi-fascist.
Which, again, is just the right amount.
Semi. Alright, so I read yesterday that the FBI has something called a taint team.
T-A-I-N-T. The taint team.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, Scott, you're making that up.
They don't really have a team called the taint team.
No, they do. They really do.
It's called the Taint Team.
Now, if you're wondering what does it take to qualify for the Taint Team, well, I don't know for sure, but based on the name, you don't want to be a butthole.
If you're a butthole, you cannot be on the Taint Team.
If you're a dick, if you're being a dick, you can't be on the Taint Team.
But if you're somewhere between a butthole and a dick, You're perfect for the Taint team.
The Taint team is ready for you.
Now, just a clarification.
The Taint team has nothing to do with Andrew Taint.
Andrew Taint has been cancelled by social media and quite effectively cancelled, I would say.
He's been erased from history.
But that's pronounced differently.
Andrew Taint...
It is pronounced and spelled differently.
That's T-A-T-E, and that's pronounced taint.
And that's different than the FBI taint team, pronounced taint.
So keep those straight.
Well, you know those Mar-a-Lago nuclear secrets that were going to destroy the world if anybody saw them?
It turns out it's not so much about nuclear secrets.
You know, we haven't ruled out nuclear secrets.
We haven't ruled it out.
But it's probably not so much about that.
Now, today the news is it's more about, because the affidavit got released with redactions, it seems to be more a problem of documents.
It's a document control problem.
Not so much a problem that they were...
Secure documents. Not so much a problem that they were secret, although they might have been.
We don't know. But it's really a problem of documents.
Now, you knew this was bad, didn't you?
As soon as you heard this story, you said to yourself, oh, God, this is bad.
This is bad.
Mar-a-Lago documents.
But now that we've gotten a little bit closer to the bottom of it, people.
I was worried about the pandemic.
I was worried about a nuclear war with Putin over Ukraine.
I've been worried about the supply chains.
I've been worried about the food, the fertilizer.
I've been worried about inflation.
But nothing, nothing comes to the level of documents.
People, I don't know how to say this in a way that doesn't panic you, Trump had documents.
I know. I know.
Calm down. Calm down.
If you need any kind of therapy, you should get it.
You might need to talk to a professional.
But Trump, and this is almost confirmed.
I mean, I couldn't believe it when I saw it, but he...
I'm getting emotional. I try not to.
But I care about my country so much.
People. People.
He had documents.
He had documents.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Oh, I love my country so much.
And to see it be destroyed right in front of me.
America! Come back!
Come back.
Documents.
Yeah, documents.
Documents.
People, let's try to soldier on.
Be strong! Be strong.
We can do this if we stick together.
Documents.
Well, Michael Schellenberger is reporting that French minister, Barbara Pompili, reportedly she said in March that she told the U.S. Energy Secretary Granholm So she told Granholm that if the United States wants to help You have to increase your production of energy if you're going to help us.
So France, the French minister asked our energy guru to make more energy.
That's the only way to help France.
And Granholm said that she would.
And then she didn't.
Then we did not.
The United States did not.
Now, yeah, that was probably for liquid gas, I'm assuming.
Now, is that embarrassing to you if you're American?
That's deeply shameful to me.
Because do you remember Lafayette?
You know, Lafayette, we are here.
You know, Lafayette helped the Americans win the Civil...
win the Revolutionary War.
And... And then was it General Patton, who when he landed, he said, Lafayette, we're here, repaying the favor.
You know, we do have a special relationship with France, and France is basically having a, not basically, but it's a gigantic security problem.
It's not just, you know, food and electricity, it's war.
And we're going to let France down in an emergency?
What? Are we really doing this?
Did the United States turn down a direct request from France?
From France?
Really? Are they going to help us the next time we're fucked?
Would you expect them to?
You know, reciprocity is a pretty important deal.
It may be one of the most important things in the world.
We're just going to ignore reciprocity as one of the most important elements of all our security.
This is maybe the worst thing that I've heard of that we've done in a long time.
We've done some bad things.
Am I having the wrong reaction to this?
Because this isn't a regular country that we're talking about.
We're not talking about, oh, Ecuador, we've made you a promise and we didn't keep it.
This is France.
France we have a different relationship with, am I wrong?
Did something change in the last hundred years that nobody told me about?
France and the United States have a blood bond.
We help them in this situation.
Am I wrong? In this situation...
We help France. If that's changing, don't expect them to be here when we need help.
Good Lord. I mean, this is the most basic thing you would do for an ally.
They ask you directly for energy which you could produce.
You know, we could just produce more.
And we decided not to do it.
After promising them that we would, That's just the skeeviest thing ever.
We should be very embarrassed about that.
All right, but let's get to the fun story.
So Bill Maher had on his show Rob Reiner.
And have you wondered to yourself what the hell is wrong with Rob Reiner?
Because you've seen his tweets.
And his tweets look as if he's in some kind of weird bubble where information is not reaching him except, you know, from the left.
And so now we have a confirmation.
This actually happened last night.
It answers all of your questions.
Are you ready? Now, didn't you think...
I've got to pause here for a minute.
Sorry, I've just got to pause for a moment.
There is a way to identify NPCs.
Everybody who says the word meathead during this conversation probably is an NPC. Why?
Because it's the most obvious thing you would say in this conversation.
Oh, that's why they called him Meathead, his character, when he played a character long ago.
Oh, Meathead.
So you can identify all of the NPCs because they're just going to say Meathead the entire time I'm talking about this.
Meathead. Meathead.
All right. Oh, my God, you're so boring.
Anyway, this actually happened on Bill Maher's show with Rob Reiner.
So Maher was saying, talking about the, I think it was about the laptop being suppressed.
So Maher said, it's a little bit of a thorny question because once you go down this road, this is sort of where we are in this country.
The other side is so evil that anything is justified in preventing them from taking office.
Is it? Is it?
Bill Maher asked. So Bill Maher asked Rob Reiner my question.
Do you remember my question?
If you've seen me tweeting it like a fool for the last couple of weeks, my question was, if you really believe what you say you believe, why wouldn't you do anything to stop Trump from getting an office, including Reagan election?
And I've been saying, why is there no, there's not even a Republican asking that question.
It took Bill Maher to ask the question in public.
He's the only one. So Bill Maher, let me give you a sitting ovation for asking the only question that was important, I think.
The only important question was, have we reached a situation where you would expect the Democrats to cheat on an election?
Of course you would.
I would. Now, I'm not saying I have evidence it happened, but under the current situation, of course you would expect that.
Of course you would, because I would.
If the situation were reversed, and I believed, I really believed, I were stopping some kind of Hitler monster, I would rig an election.
Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you?
I mean, seriously. And you have to ask that question, because that's a very important part of the context of everything we're talking about.
All right, so Bill Maher, to his everlasting credit, asked exactly the only question we should be asking is, if it's gotten that bad, you know, what is there that you wouldn't do?
And then what did Rob Reiner do when asked the only important question?
He dodged it and he changed the topic to that January 6th stuff was bad, wasn't it?
He couldn't even handle the question.
And then when Marr said they buried the Hunter Biden story before the election, because they were like, quote, we can't risk having the election thrown to Trump.
We'll tell them after the election.
And so now you all know that that's true, right?
There's no doubt in the news.
About whether the laptop story is first of all true, it really belonged to Hunter, and second of all, it's also completely true that 50 current and ex-intelligent officials lied and said it was Russian disinformation.
Now that's just well-known information, right?
Is there anybody here who didn't know those two facts?
Is there any person here who didn't know those things to be true?
That it was really Hunter's laptop, and that really the government colluded to say that it wasn't, to change the result of the election.
That's just, we all know that, right?
There's not a single person here who doesn't think that's true, right?
Because I don't believe that's in question.
I believe that's now just a fact that both sides would say is a fact.
Here's what Rob Reiner said to that.
And we know for a fact that that's what they did, Reiner responded.
He actually didn't know that.
He was hearing it for the first time.
And Mara yelled, of course!
You don't follow this?
Maher was actually finding out that Rob Reiner wasn't following this story, the biggest story, or one of them, in the news.
And yeah, he tweets about it, he's very involved in politics.
And the size of this story, and Rob Reiner had not heard about it, like heard about the full story.
And then Maher said, oh, then Reiner said, I don't know what they did.
So he admitted it.
He was not familiar with the story.
And then Maher quipped, I know because you only watch MSNBC, which is exactly the correct answer.
So Maher called him out for being in a bubble and not knowing something that even other people in the bubble know is true.
Like, he's within a bubble within a bubble.
That's not fair. I don't think Bill Maher's in a bubble.
I think Bill Maher's actually able to move between bubbles.
Yeah, and Zucker confirmed that...
The FBI asked Facebook to tamp down on the story.
So, now, does this not answer your question?
So you think you have a political divide in this country, but we don't.
You just found out what's happening.
We don't have a political difference in this country.
We do have differences of opinions, but everything that you think is this great divide where we're at each other, it's all because of news bubbles.
The news business has created all of it.
None of this is real. None of this is real when you meet your neighbor.
You and your neighbor are fine.
It's just that people have been completely hypnotized by one bubble.
And by the way, it would be just as bad if you somehow only watched right-leaning media, right?
I'm not saying that the left is the one that's wrong and the right is always right.
I'm saying that whichever bubble you stay in, you're lost.
You're lost if you can't get out of your bubble.
And Rob Reiner Confessed on a national show that he doesn't follow the news that he comments on emotionally.
It's exactly what you thought, wasn't it?
Or did you think there was something else going on?
Did you think he was well informed and lied?
Or did you think this was exactly what it looked like?
He didn't know the news.
You think he knew. So some people are saying he knew and he was lying.
I don't think so. Because if he knew, he would have played it differently.
He would have tried to excuse his behavior.
But he didn't. He just said he didn't know.
That's different. Well, we now have a very clear pattern, which is when the Democrats are going to do something super criminal, they will blame the Republicans for doing that same thing.
Because it makes your own crime completely invisible.
It's a psychological trick to make your own crime invisible.
So when the Democrats were colluding with Russia to create this Steele dossier, what was the accusation?
The accusation was Republicans are colluding with Russia.
So while the Democrats were literally, and this is now a fact...
Colluding with Russians.
Not Russia, necessarily, but Russians.
They were literally colluding with Russians, and they created this narrative that the Republicans were doing it.
Now, of course, things get gray, because Manafort was, in fact, doing a sketchy deal with a Russian.
Basically, Manafort was selling a rich Russian guy worthless information.
How much does internal polling...
How much is that worth to a Russian?
Pretty much nothing. And that's what Manafort was accused of giving a Russian guy.
Internal polling. It has no value at all.
None. It was probably just so the Russian could say that he had some information when he talked to Putin, so he could be more of an insider or something.
That's probably all it was.
Now, that really happened, and Manafort has to pay for that, and he is.
So now we've seen the pattern.
So if they're going to collude with Russia, they will accuse you of colluding with Russia.
And now with January 6th, the January 6th to many Republicans looks like it was an insurrection, right? Because...
There was a, you know, the laptop story was suppressed, and I would think you could call that insurrection, because it changed the nature of the vote, probably.
It probably changed the nature of the vote.
So what do the Democrats say when they stage a successful insurrection?
Because it was successful.
Biden actually won because of the Probably won because the 50 intel agents said it was Russian disinformation.
It probably made the difference.
We don't know for sure. So they staged a successful insurrection, and then the first thing they do to cover their crime is to blame the Republicans of an insurrection.
So the Republicans who were trying to stop what they thought was an insurrection, meaning that they thought the vote was rigged, and I'm not saying it was rigged, I'm saying that's what they thought, So now we see two major cases where the Democrats did a crime and then very publicly accused the Republicans of that same crime.
But if you do the accusation big enough, it actually erases your ability to see that they're the ones who committed that same crime.
And it works. We're watching it work right now.
It works twice. Well, let's talk about canceling those student loan debts.
So, remember when Biden said that the cuts would be paid for?
And then that got redefined for, well, what we mean by paid for is that we saved money in other ways unrelated to this, and so that gives us some money to spend because we would have spent more in those other ways, but we didn't.
So, therefore, free money.
Now, isn't this exactly where Democrats get money?
Let me explain a Republican who needs money.
I'm a Republican.
I need some money.
What will I do?
What are my options?
Let's see. I could get a job.
I could work. I could work and I could make myself some money.
That's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to go work and get myself some money.
So that would be a Republican plan.
Here's a Democrat. Needs money.
Needs money. Who already has the money?
Suppose I could get that money from them without working.
Wouldn't that be cool?
Alright, I'll try to do that.
I mean, it's a totally different...
The mindset is that somebody has my money and I have to go get it.
Democrats actually believe that other people have your money.
Oh, I have money, it's just that somebody else is holding it right now.
I got lots of money.
If you would just take it out of your pocket and put it where it belongs back in my pocket, I'd have all my money.
But you're holding all my money now.
Give me back all my money that you earned.
And this feels like more of that.
Because they're trying to find a correlation between it's possible for me to take money from you, Therefore, it's free.
That's the summary of what their actual explanation is.
They're saying that since it was possible to change the budget in other ways that would have reduced it by $300 billion more, but now they can take some of that back, so they're taking back the thing that wasn't real.
Basically, it's all about finding free money.
So they use words...
They use words to create a structure that makes it right for them to transfer money from wherever it is into your pocket to somewhere else.
Yeah, it's called theft.
Well, and of course you know that Pelosi, a year ago or so, said that Biden can't do that.
He doesn't have the authority. I guess he can delay debt, but he can't cancel it.
Only Congress can do that.
So what's going to happen now?
What's going to happen? So Biden signs the executive order.
Pelosi is on record of saying that's illegal, he can't do that.
What happens? Has anybody gamed this out yet?
Does Pelosi change her mind?
Or does she go against Biden and try to get it done, and she probably wouldn't succeed, actually, because the Republicans would hold tough in the Senate?
So what happens now?
I mean, to me, it feels like it can't happen.
Like, I don't think it's going to happen.
I don't think this debt cancellation is going to happen.
What do you think? And then somebody said that there can't be a lawsuit unless somebody has standing.
How in the world do I not have standing?
Don't I have standing?
Because it seems to me that somebody is just taking my money and giving it to somebody else without legal process.
If somebody takes my money and gives it to somebody else without legal process, don't I have standing for a lawsuit?
That seems like the simplest, most exact explanation of what legal standing would be.
I think so.
So, how many of you think this is actually going to happen?
I'm going to go on record with my prediction that there will not, in the end, be a successful debt relief for...
And I think maybe they'll be just as happy.
Why'd you go all racist on me?
What's up with that?
I've got to get rid of you.
All right.
All right, well, that's happening. - Thank you.
Is this my imagination, or did this actually happen?
Did all of this smart Democrat pundits suddenly go silent on Mar-a-Lago?
Because I see people still talk about it on Twitter, but if you were to take all the Democrats, the left-leaning people who talk about politics, and you were to rank them...
I'd put somebody like David Axelrod at the top of the rational people.
I'd just like to use him as my example.
I don't think he says crazy things.
He says things that are clearly for his team, but they're fairly transparent.
You know when he's doing it.
He's not crazy. But there are some that will just say anything, just any crazy thing.
And those are the ones who are still talking about Mar-a-Lago being a bad thing.
But I feel like all of the left-leaning critics who are sort of in a slightly credible situation, they're just backing off.
Now, Dershowitz did weigh in and said it looks like there was enough for an indictment.
But you all know that that doesn't mean anything, right?
An indictment can easily be gotten just because somebody says, well, we think there's something there, we better go look.
So getting an indictment doesn't tell you anything about whether there was a crime.
Axelrod said Obama was lying when he was anti-gay marriage.
So that's an example of where Axelrod is credible.
All right. So what we know now from this affidavit is that it did not establish that Trump was unresponsive.
So the reason that the FBI says they had to go in there is that Trump was unresponsive.
Now, he might have been.
I'm not saying he was or it was not.
But the documents apparently don't establish that.
So that would, if it's true, it would have to be established with some other evidence.
But then, of course, there's this enormous gray area of what does it mean to be unresponsive or uncooperative?
Because I doubt it was completely uncooperative, because they gave some boxes back.
Don't you think it was more like there was a dispute?
As in, we think you should give us these things back, and then they said, well, we think that the law says we don't have to.
I'm not so sure that that was just being unresponsive.
Maybe it was just being, I have a different opinion about whether you could have this.
Maybe it was just that. I don't know.
But I think it's not going to be as simple as ignore their phone calls or something like that.
So I think the story has gone now from he's got nuclear secrets to he did not handle documents correctly.
And I guess there's some laws about that too.
Now I guess it's legal for him to have photocopies of everything there.
Isn't that weird? That he legally, apparently, he could have had photocopies because he could have declassified the material.
So he could have all the information in any way he wanted.
He just couldn't have the originals.
So was this really only a debate about the originals?
Because I do think the government probably owns the originals.
I don't know. So if it turns out that's all it was, was a debate about whether he could have copies or the originals, That's sort of close to nothing, isn't it?
That's about as close as you can get to nothing.
I mean, I get that they need to take care of that stuff, but it's pretty close to nothing.
All right. Here's some good news for you.
I saw this in a tweet by Navin Cabra.
Apparently we're on our way to very soon having more students in the U.S. studying computer science than all of the humanities degrees put together.
How about that?
I bet you didn't see that coming. So between science degrees and computer science degrees, which are both on a steep upward curve, the social sciences are on a steep downward curve.
So it looks like things work out.
Maybe if you wait, things just work out.
Things adjust.
So that's good news.
Until the computers learn to program themselves, at which point all of those degrees will be worthless.
And then you're going to wish you had an English degree.
Actually, I don't know what the computers will do better first.
My job or computing.
All right, here's a tweet that could only be tweeted by a woman and get away with it.
Okay? So I'm going to read the tweet, but the thing you have to know is that it was a woman.
All right? Because if I said this, I'd get in trouble.
But a woman can say it.
All right? So the woman is, I think, Gael Keiko.
She's got a JD. All right?
So it's a pretty serious professional woman who's got some credentials.
And she tweeted this.
The reality is we are living in a matriarchal society.
Men are not the leaders, women are.
We're not going to war, we meaning women, we're not going to war hunting for food nor hand-building houses to survive.
We exist in a narration.
Women are the narrators, and their appeals or entreaties affect men far and wide.
So basically, if I could paraphrase this, women are the actors, and men are just the supporting players.
years.
Now, there's a version of this that I used to say, which was, maybe men make the money, but who spends it?
Who spends most of the money in your household, if you have a traditional household?
Don't the women make most of the spending decisions?
I think most of my money has been spent by women.
Yeah. I mean, obviously, both of you are going to decide on the house and the car and stuff like that.
But isn't it true that the woman has spending authority that's not calculated into who's getting what abilities?
So, here's why I thought this was interesting on a meta level.
Because not only is...
I hope I'm pronouncing it right.
G-Y-A-L. How would you pronounce that?
Gyal? Gyal?
Or Gyal? Right.
I'd say Gyal. But...
Her point is made because I couldn't tweet that.
So this is something a woman can say in public, and she gets a little pushback, but it's fine.
But if I said that, it would haunt me for the rest of my days.
Am I wrong? If I had tweeted that idea, it would haunt me for the rest of my days.
I would be practically cancelled for it.
So her point is made.
She can say this, but I can't.
It's a matriarchal society.
And generally speaking, women have...
Great freedom of speech.
Wouldn't you say? It's not even close.
GL, you say?
GL, maybe.
Because men allow it.
Yeah. Why do men allow women to be in control?
Why do men...
Well, you say sex, that's part of the answer.
No, that's almost the answer.
Partial credit. Why do men let women get away with whatever they want, basically?
It's because men can't use violence.
Violence is taken out of the equation.
If men could use violence, then men would be in charge in all their relationships with women.
But we can't. I'm not saying we should.
I'm not arguing for violence.
Don't mistake that.
I'm just saying that you take a situation which biology had created, which is, there's a big one and a small one.
The big one's usually in charge until you develop civilization and laws.
And as soon as you put in the civilization and the laws, which have many benefits, many benefits, it puts women in charge.
So, women in relationships are in charge.
Women who are not in relationships, far less in charge.
Now, I know what some of you are saying.
You're saying, damn it.
Damn it, Scott. You just need to get a better woman.
And then the woman will recognize your patriarchal rule.
To which I say, you're right.
I wouldn't argue that point.
If you can find somebody who's compatible with you in that way, that would be terrific.
Go do that. I'm just saying that the normal situation, not what it should be, not what you should do, not what I do, has nothing to do with us individually.
I'm just saying, in general, men are completely neutered because they can't use violence.
And shouldn't. And shouldn't.
But as long as the situation is that the men, their primary tool is taken away from them, But women's primary tool of having control of the sexual resource, that is not taken away.
So if one person has a weapon and the other doesn't, who's in charge?
It's not a hard question.
If only one person has a weapon, it's the one in charge.
All right. It's all because of man buns, if somebody says.
Yes, man buns ruined everything.
Women theoretically protect the family with men's resources.
That's true.
You both protect the family with both of your resources.
What about porn?
Takes away from women, yeah. So porn is a way that men try to regain power.
And what do women say about porn?
You miserable loser using that porn.
Do you know why women hate porn?
It's competition.
It takes their power away.
Because a guy can just say, all right, well, if I'm not getting sex, I always got porn.
So it's sort of a power equalizer.
So women reasonably don't like it.
That's it. You're describing males, not men.
Not men...
The whole, you know, if you're man enough, everything will work out, that's not a thing.
If you're man enough and you're lucky enough or smart enough to find a woman who is happy with that situation, well, that's great.
But you can't just man your way to make every situation work.
You're not going to out-alpha every woman because they don't need to be out-alpha.
They'll just say, well... Good luck getting sex.
I'll take half your money if you've got a complaint.
And Erica says, it's because I'm beta.
Erica, you are operating at the lowest.
This is a different Erica. Not the Erica we like.
This would be a bad Erica.
Apparently there's a doppelganger Erica who says dumb things on YouTube.
So not the one who says smart, clever things on Locals, but there's a dumb one on YouTube.
So... Dark Erica.
So the NPC take is that whatever my opinion is, is because there's something wrong with me.
The lowest level of thinking is that the cause of my opinion is some personal problem I have.
Now, I'm not saying that that's not true, but it's true of everybody.
Your personal situation always filters out through your opinions.
So that's true. But if that's all you have to add, that your personal experience might have something to do with your decisions, you're not really adding much.
So if you want to be an NPC, here's how to contribute in any argument.
Somebody says, I think the corporate tax rate should be lower.
What you do is go into the comments and say, well, you would say that because you're ugly.
Or five years ago you tweeted something I disagreed with, so, so, duh.
That's the NPC way to go.
Go after the person. Don't go after the argument.
Because if you go after the argument, you'll be instantly revealed as being empty and useless.
So you have to go after the person.
Very important. Will you get a picture of the kid's loan you paid off?
Advice about women coming from you is hilarious.
David, did I give you advice?
Did you hear...
Oh, you mean advice about women?
Did I give anybody advice?
Did you hear that? Did anybody hear any advice that I just gave?
Because David did. David heard me give advice.
So you're hallucinating.
And you see how he phrased it?
He phrased it that it's something wrong with me.
That's the NPC approach.
You didn't have any problem with what I said.
You had a problem that it was me.
So check yourself, NPC. If you thought you were real, you just found out you're not.
Because the real people would say something about the argument, or maybe something additive, something funny...
But if you're an NPC, all you can say is, there's something wrong with the person.
There's something wrong with the person who said that.
Something wrong with the person.
All right.
So did you see that Trump truthed or, you know, he posted a redacted page and the only thing unredacted was make America great again?
You saw some other people do the joke where everything was redacted except the words Orange Man Bad.
Where did you see that joke first?
Where did you see that joke first?
That's my joke. I did that the last time we were dealing with some redaction.
I think other people did it too.
It's not like I was the first one to think of it.
But somebody asked me if that's the greatest response Trump ever had, to which I said, it's not really original.
It's funny. It wasn't original when I did it either.
All right. What about women and the hot food thing?
What about it? All right.
Yeah, the one with Biden trying to climb up the redacted lines on the document.
That was really well done.
I was just watching...
Who was it?
Jamie... Who's the actor, musician, played...
He played Ray Charles, Jamie...
Why don't I remember his name?
Jamie Foxx.
Played Ray Charles. I saw a clip about him talking about how he said that attractive people are not billionaires.
Attractive men, I think.
Attractive men are not billionaires, usually.
And his reason was that if you're attractive, you don't need to be a billionaire.
Because the only reason you would acquire that many resources is to compensate for not being attractive.
Because the only thing people care about is their mating instinct.
And I thought, okay, that's exactly right.
That is exactly right.
The less attractive you are, if you're a man, this is for men, the less attractive you are, the harder you work to have something to compensate for that.
I can tell you absolutely that when I was 11 years old, I looked in the mirror and said, I'm going to have to have a good job.
Truly. Truly.
At 11 years old, I could tell, okay, I'm going to need a really good job to compensate for this shit.
That's a true story.
And from about that age, I said, I'm going to really have to kill it in order to have options.
And so I worked hard to try to kill it.
But you don't think everybody has that realization fairly early?
Because you do notice really early that the attractive kids are getting away with more, right?
Especially the attractive females.
You notice that from the earliest age.
The attractive ones get away with murder.
They notice it too.
They know they don't have to work hard to have a good life.
They really don't. If they can keep their looks, they can coast.
That's how it works. Being good looking works against guys as they age.
Really? I don't know about that.
I don't think being good-looking works against anybody.
You've never turned a woman's head except away in disgust, somebody says.
Thank you.
Do I think Joe Biden knew about the raid?
I don't know, and I'm not sure I care.
I'm not sure that's important.
You know, you could easily imagine that they...
Didn't tell him it was going to happen so that he wouldn't have to say he knew.
I mean, I'm not sure it matters.
It's possible that there are a lot of things that Joe Biden doesn't know.
That just might be one of them.
I'm the best.
Thank you.
Talk about Sam Harris.
I haven't listened to his new podcast about Trump yet, but I think I will do that.
I will key that up this morning.
Yeah. I don't know.
How much does it really matter if...
Does it matter if the Biden administration knew what the FBI was doing?
Because my assumption is that the FBI is working its own game.
I don't think that the FBI is taking orders from Biden.
I think it might be the other way around.
What do you think? Because remember, the FBI has interfered with both Democrat and Republican candidates in recent years.
They've interfered with both Democrats and Republicans, which suggests that they're playing their own game, that they're in it for their own retention of power.
So I don't think that they necessarily tell Biden anything.
Unless it helps them. I don't think it has to do with Biden.
I think that Trump was too dangerous to have in the job for the FBI, and so they made sure he wasn't in the job anymore.
Yeah, working independently...
Right. So I'm not sure there's that big difference between having a conversation with somebody versus just knowing what they would like you to do.
You know, when people talk about the Russian troll farm, They did not say Putin ordered them to interfere in the election.
They don't say that. They say it's likely that there was a billionaire who wanted to put himself in good standing with Putin and simply had an idea what Putin might want him to do.
And so he used his troll farm to do some memes in the election.
Then probably went to Putin and said, hey, look what I did for you.
We're buddies. You and me.
I'm helping you. You help me.
I think that was the whole game.
And those memes were completely useless, and they actually attacked both sides, Hillary and Trump.
But they helped Trump more than Hillary.
It's just there was no impact, really.
Hey, Tango, I see that callback.
Yeah, Zuckerberg said blocking the laptop story fit the pattern, but the FBI told them that there was going to be a big Russian disinformation dump coming.
So when it fit the pattern, that wasn't an accident, because the FBI established the pattern and then said, hey, watch out for this pattern.
So by the time that Facebook saw the pattern, they had been well-primed for it.
So I think that was a pretty specific case of the FBI staging an insurrection.
I would call that an insurrection, wouldn't you?
If the FBI tells social media to tamp down a story that would change the nature of the election, that's an insurrection.
What else would it be?
Or a coup? I mean, to me, the evidence is right there.
Now why is it that you can't see that the FBI getting Facebook to clamp down on that is an insurrection?
Do you know why we can't see it?
I mean, if you're on the other side of the politics, you can.
But do you know why the Democrats can't see that?
It's because of the trick they use where they accuse the other side of their crime.
As long as your accusation of the same crime is bigger and getting all the attention, it's literally invisible that you did the crime even when it's completely in evidence.
So the evidence of the Democrats...
Doing something horrible is not even in question.
Is there anybody who's doubting Zuckerberg's account?
I don't think so. There's nobody who says that Zuckerberg's lying.
There's nobody who says, no, the FBI did not do that.
We did not warn you that there was some disinformation coming.
It's all right there.
So this evidence is not even in doubt.
So just think about this.
The evidence that nobody questions...
Paints a clear picture of insurrection.
Clear. There's no gray area there at all.
They were trying to affect the election by getting the media to suppress a major story about a candidate that was true.
It was a true story about, probably, sketchy dealings with Ukraine.
Now, compare the story that is absolutely true, and everybody knows it's true.
There's not even any question about the facts.
Compare that with, say, the January 6th allegations where everything's sort of sketchy, meaning that two-thirds of the people who were there definitely were there to try to save the Republic and not overthrow it.
And that nobody brought weapons.
I mean, I'm sorry.
There were weapons in attendance.
But the so-called insurrectionists did not use guns for their insurrection.
So what kind of an insurrection is that?
So you've got two competing stories.
One is a known fact that the FBI threw the election.
It's not even a question.
There's no dispute about that fact.
And yet we ignore that because there's this bigger thing that's ambiguous.
As long as the bigger ambiguous thing is drawing all our attention, it's actually invisible that we have all the facts we need to put the entire FBI in jail.
The leadership of the FBI, anyway.
They should actually be in jail.
And it's visible to you.
So they've created a cognitive screen so you just can't see it.
Now, when I say you, I don't mean you specifically.
Some of you can see it. But you need to get a lot more of the citizens to be able to see it, and they'll never be able to.
It's just hidden behind the look-alike allegation that's just bigger and sexier.
It's really kind of amazing to watch it play out in real life, to see that you can fool...
What did Lincoln say?
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time, or something like that?
That needs to be revised.
You can fool half of the people all the time.
You can fool half of the people all the time.
Anything the Republicans say, their base will believe.
Anything the Democrats say, their base believes.
And you can do it every time.
When was the last time the Democrats, let's say the leadership, had an idea that was so bad that even the Democrat base said, that doesn't even make sense.
I'm out. All right, I like all your other stuff, but this new thing, whatever the new thing is, hypothetically, this new thing, that's too far.
I can't get on board with that.
Have you ever seen that? That doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen because half of the public can be fooled every time.
Half of the public can be fooled every time.
So Lincoln wasn't so smart.
I think I've upgraded Lincoln's thing.
Half of the public can be fooled every time.
It's a different half. It's not always the same half.
Now, if you think it's only the left who can be fooled, you're not really catching the point here.
The point is, Republicans could say absolutely anything, the leadership, and their base would believe it.
Because there's no exceptions.
You've never seen the Republicans say, at least in modern times, have you ever seen the Republican leadership say something, okay, this is going to be our narrative, and the base rejected it.
Oh my God, that's a crazy narrative.
Even though I'm a Republican, I have to reject that.
doesn't happen.
Half of the public can be fooled every time.
I'm not going to argue the definitions of insurgent versus insurrection versus coup.
Since everybody knows what I'm talking about, I'm not going to get into a definitional debate.
Here it is.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Thank you.
You can fool half of the people all the time.
Much, much shorter.
I think mine is better.
It's a better summary.
All right. We rejected it when Republicans said Trump wasn't presidential.
Why do you think you did that?
I hate to say I'm the reason for that, but I probably am.
You know that the transition of Trump from it's just a joke to Trump as a serious candidate?
That was probably me.
You know that, right?
Because I'm the one who framed him as strategically and persuasively brilliant, which has proven to be quite correct.
So if I had not redefined him quite publicly as being somebody who had skills that you didn't recognize, I don't think it would have happened.
Because there had to be a narrative to counter the narrative that he was just a crazy clown looking for publicity.
And I reframed that.
That was me. Well, so I see that some of you are rightly skeptical of my claim.
That's the sort of claim where you should start with skepticism.
Can we agree? If you heard anybody say what I just said, or any version of anything like that, your starting point should be, I don't think so.
I don't think so.
But let me ask you.
There are enough people watching here who watched from the beginning.
I'll ask you the question.
Do you think that I... Specifically, and primarily the reason that Trump was taken seriously by Republicans.
And...
So there's going to be a mix of answers.
So everything from F no to yes, certainly, yes, 100% yes, yes, yes, yes.
There are no's, a few no's, probably, mostly yes's.
So while we can't, there's no way we can, there's such a difference here.
On the YouTube is more no.
So the people who know me best and have followed me the longest are on the Locals platform.
There's quite a difference. Yeah, quite a difference in your answers.
For the people on YouTube, you probably have followed less.
I would say if you read Win Bigley, my book, your opinion might change.
You're smarter.
Your ego is very strong today, NPC.
So Ralph has shown himself to be an NPC.
So his comment to my comment that I influence things is that my ego is big.
What does that mean? It means he's an NPC. Because he could have debated the point.
Oh, I don't think that made a difference, or maybe it was something else that made a difference.
But instead, he had to go for my ego.
There had to be something about me.
NPC, right? So every time you see that, just say, oh, NPC. And then don't answer.
Because anybody who's operating on the NPC level, they're just scenery.
You should ignore them. You saw Ann Coulter say it first?
Not what I said.
I think Ann Coulter was predicting it based on illegal immigration being such an important topic, which she was right about.
She was right about that.
But I was the one who said he's about persuasion, and that, I think, made the difference.
All right, let me ask you this.
How many of you did I save from TDS? Is there anybody here who had TDS and I talked them out of it?
I'm seeing yeses.
All right, some yeses and nos.
No? All right, well, a lot of people did get talked out of their TDS. But maybe not you.
Maybe not you, because some of you were already talked out of it.
All right, well, it looks like I did convince a number of people.
I did ask once in a poll if I changed people's vote for Trump, and I think 1,500 people immediately said yes, that they voted for him because I changed their minds to do so.
And that's just how many answered the poll.
Imagine how many people did not answer the poll.
I figure at a minimum I moved 50,000 votes.
Would you say? I think I controlled about, not controlled, but I think I influenced about 50,000 votes.
That'd be my guess. Minimum.
Could be a quarter million.
But I think minimum of 50,000.
All right. Diamond and Silk.
I haven't seen them lately. Alright.
FBI took the fake because too far?
All right.
Just look at your comments now.
Alright, that's all for now. I'm going to go do something else.
