Episode 1851 Scott Adams: Is Biden Destroying The World Right In Front Of Everyone? CNN Boycott?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN Boycott cause they're going non-biased
President Trump should run on an anti-fascist platform
Will America let Europe freeze and starve this winter?
Saddam's WMD, an intentional government lie?
Who is winning the Ukraine war?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 welcome to another highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I think if you scoured the entire planet, all four corners of the circle, you would find nothing better than this.
Nothing. No.
No, you think that the birth of your child was good?
That was nothing compared to what you're going to see this morning.
And if you'd like to take it up to another level, I'm talking better than twins, Well, all you need is a cupper mug or a glass of tanker gel, sistine, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Yeah.
Oh, that was good.
Yeah, whoa, that was good.
Wow. I feel I'm growing muscles.
I'm not even working out.
That's how good that coffee was.
Well, did you ever wonder what it was worth to not be a hypocrite?
Did you ever wonder the economic value of being consistent in your opinion?
Well, I've learned the actual economic value of that.
$20. I won $20 yesterday for being consistent, in my opinion.
I know, I know.
Pat on the back. Here's what happened.
I was on Twitter, as I often am, and must have said something about those Mar-a-Lago documents not being terribly important to anything.
To me, the whole Mar-a-Lago thing looks like fake news.
Once we boil it down to what was happening, it's going to be sort of about documents.
I just don't feel it's ever going to be important.
We're just going to treat it like it's important until we finally all just give up and say, yeah, that really was nothing.
So I must have said something that trivialized the Mar-a-Lago stuff, and then I got tweeted at by a Twitter user, JC Adolfson, and he said, and he said to me, He said to me, I bet $20 if I scrolled back five years,
I would find tweets about emails and how she should be in prison for mishandling classified documents.
That's right. J.C. Adolfsson thinks if he goes back through my Twitter account, he's going to find an inconsistency where I thought Hillary Clinton should be locked up, but I think Trump should be just allowed to do whatever he wants with documents.
That's what J.C. said.
He was going to bet $20 that I had an inconsistent opinion.
To which I said, bet accepted.
Because I said her emails were trivial.
How many of you were angry at me at the time when I kept saying that Hillary's emails were no big deal and she shouldn't go to jail for that?
See what happened? A few years pass, and I'm just about the only person who can tell you that the Bar-Lago documents are not important, because who is the only consistent person in the entire world?
Me! Me! Me.
I know you're still mad at me.
Somebody says they're still mad at me.
But whether you think that both of them are important or neither them, or if you want to make the argument, Scott, these are completely different situations.
I know they're different situations.
I know. I get that.
I get that one of them could be bad and one of them could be good in a theoretical sense.
I believe that both of them are in the category of paperwork.
And while I get that there have to be laws about handling of secure stuff, I get that.
And I get that laws were broken.
And I get that nobody's above the law.
But I also like my own self-interest.
And my self-interest is that we don't have leaders in the country locking each other up.
The winner doesn't get to lock up the loser.
I'm not going to live in that country.
Seriously. If the loser starts getting locked up, I'm fucking out of here.
I'm out of that country.
So no. Do I care if Hillary broke some laws with her emails?
Not really. Not really.
Because it was probably technical laws.
Now, what she was doing might have been important to me.
Like, what she was actually transacting might have mattered, but I don't know what that is.
But do I care that her email was unsecure?
A little bit.
Not enough she should go to jail for it.
Do I care that Trump may or may not be mishandling some documents?
Yeah, a little bit. A little bit.
Do I think he should go to jail for it?
No. I mean, I don't know what the real situation is.
Maybe someday we'll find out.
But we shouldn't be sending our leaders to jail for stuff this small.
This small. Let me go further.
I think our leaders should be above the law.
There, I said it. Because I don't want somebody coming in and saying, Scott, why do you think some people should be above the law?
No, I do think some people should be above the law.
These smaller laws.
The smaller ones. Do you think the president should go to jail for littering?
Well, you don't go to jail for littering, but you know what I mean, right?
It's simply not in the best interest of citizens that we're using the legal system to beat up our leaders.
We should not give them that weapon.
We should disarm our leaders so that they're not fighting about bullshit.
Let them take care of global stuff.
Let them take care of the economy and immigration and supply chains.
Go work on that stuff.
But if you want to put any of them in jail for their emails or their paperwork, nah, I'm not on board with that.
I'd let both sides get away with that stuff, unfortunately.
I mean, you should discourage it.
Maybe after they're out of office, you do something about it.
That would be different. But Nixon?
I don't know. I think breaking and entering is not exactly a small crime.
I think breaking and entering is a different level.
All right.
It turns out that young people are being more pro-nuclear than maybe ever, as far as I know.
So what do you think has caused young people to become the most pro-nuclear they've been?
They're not pro-nuclear by a huge majority.
It's just compared to where they used to be.
There's a very dramatic movement.
What do you think it is? What do you think caused youth to be pro-nuclear?
You know, I'd love to tell you that it's adults doing, you know, maybe some education.
I'd love to tell you it was Michael Schellenberger, because he's, you know, a superstar in that.
I'd love to tell you it's Mark Schneider, another superstar of, you know, nuclear, let's say, education for the public.
And I'd love to tell you that I'd helped in some way, because I like boosting both of those people.
But I don't think young people are paying attention to any of us.
Do you? I can't imagine anybody under 20 could name any of those three people or has seen any of our tweets.
So whatever is happening, whatever is happening, I think is happening on its own.
I think with adults and maybe with leaders, we move the needle, you know, collectively.
But I think, here's my theory on the young.
You ready for it? The young disagree with whatever is the, you know, the mainstream opinion.
So I feel like it has more to do with the fact that adults say nuclear is scary.
If all the adults that said nuclear was safe, Maybe the young would be on the other side of that.
So there's a little bit automatic about young people disagreeing with the status quo.
I feel like there's a little bit of automatic in there.
Now, secondly, it could be that some of them have figured out there's no other way to save the planet if they think the planet is going to go up in flames.
So it could be some of them said, okay, whatever risk is involved, It can't be as bad as the whole planet going up.
Could be that. But it's an unknown.
I just read an article on it where the article said nobody knows why that's changing.
Well, Dr. Drew has been blocked on YouTube again.
Apparently he was planning to livestream a Dr.
Robert Malone interview. Dr.
Robert Malone, as you know, is a rogue doctor.
A rogue doctor.
Meaning that he has some non-traditional views on the dangers of the vaccines and some other pandemic-related topics.
And so we now live in a world where a doctor can't talk to a doctor in front of you.
That's real. Now, if you told me that YouTube had blocked, let's say, Joe Rogan from talking to Robert Malone or Tim Pool or name whoever you want to name as a famous blogger.
I would say to myself, okay, maybe I don't agree with that, but at least I see what they're trying to do.
What they're trying to do is make sure that you don't have a doctor fooling some non-doctor with a bunch of bullshit, and then the viewers can't tell that the doctor is full of shit, right?
But that's not really the same as a doctor talking to a doctor.
That's got to be different, right?
If you have two doctors talking on a topic in which both of them have been quite immersed for a long time, That has to be something the public can see.
So YouTube, if you're listening to me, and any of you have anything to do with who gets banned on the Dr.
Drew channels, You need to make an exception for a doctor on doctor conversation.
I believe you should also let all of the other conversations in under free speech, blah, blah, blah.
But if you're stopping a doctor from talking to a doctor about the most relevant medical question of our time, you've really gone off the rails.
There's no way I can possibly support that.
Not even a little bit.
So I would say to YouTube, just keep in mind, this is doctor on doctor talking.
If you're blocking that, you've gone completely into a territory that has no backing at all.
Right? No backing at all.
You've been off the rails since they fired James Damore.
Oh, they've been off the rails, not me.
All right. So we'll see what happens there.
The funniest story of the day is there's a trending hashtag on Twitter to boycott CNN. Do you know why there's a move by CNN's own viewers to boycott CNN? Alright, so let's just go through all the ways this is funny.
Number one, they want to stage a boycott for a product that nobody wants already.
CNN's ratings are so low that I don't know if you'd even notice a boycott.
Would anybody even notice?
All right, so that's the first funny thing, is that they're talking about boycotting something that has almost no audience.
I'm exaggerating a little bit, but it's a small audience compared to a lot of things on television.
The next thing is that you have to go follow the hashtag So go to Twitter if you have a Twitter account and follow the BoycottCNN hashtag.
And you have to see the comments from the angry audience that is being abandoned by them because they're making a move toward not being biased.
That's what CNN's doing.
So CNN has dared to say out loud...
That they don't want to publish biased news anymore.
They want to do something that's more realistic and close to the middle.
They're saying out loud, as specifically as they can, we want to be more fair and accurate in our news.
And what did their audience say?
Their audience said, no, no, we don't want that fair and accurate stuff down the middle.
We don't want that.
Now, how funny is it That they're literally boycotting fairness and accuracy.
And that their audience was apparently always in on the joke.
And the joke was that CNN wasn't trying to do real news.
That's how I hear it.
I hear that their audience understood That they weren't a real news organization.
It was about team building or something.
And that they liked that.
They liked the team building. They liked the team play element of it.
And as soon as they said they were going to be real news, and they allowed on some Republicans, I guess, this week.
Well, I say allowed on.
I'm sure they were always invited, but for whatever reason, they're going on now.
And... And so they're watching their own audience go nuts because the audience might be exposed to real news for the first time.
It's very funny.
It's very funny. There's not much you can say about it.
You just describe it.
And then it's just funny.
All right. So here's an example.
This is a story on CNN's website.
And you tell me if you would have seen this story a year ago.
Because I think this is an example of CNN trying to actually find a reasonable center.
Now, by the way, if they continue on this path, CNN does, of looking for the center, I think I'm going to be on their side.
I think I'm going to help them, talk them up a little bit.
Because I don't think it's going to work.
I think financially they're going to go down in flames.
Because I don't know that their audience wants real news.
And I don't know that Fox viewers are going to tune in.
So I don't think their strategy is a good one.
But I do support it for the benefit of the world.
So for the benefit of the world, maybe I'll give them a little boost.
We'll see what they can do. But here's an example.
You tell me if you think this story would have been on CNN, a major story.
This is not small.
This is a major story on CNN. And it says there's a big change in who's coming to the US-Mexico border.
A large number of migrants from Mexico and the Northern Triangle are still making the journey, but the number of migrants from other countries represented in the show graph has hugely increased.
So it's a story about the border situation worsening, and it's worse in a way that clearly is some exposure to, you know, terrorism and risk.
Because the people coming across the border are no longer just Central America and Mexico.
They're from everywhere.
Right? Yeah, we got Cubans and everything else.
So... Do you think the CNN would have told a story about the Mexican border crisis is not only bad, but it's worse than you think?
It's actually a story about the border situation being worse than you thought.
That's new, right? Can't you already see the editorial change?
To me, it looks like there's a shift.
Now, I saw some people attacking Jake Tapper for having some Republicans on the program and not pushing back hard enough.
Well, I'm gonna, you know, I'm gonna support Jake Tapper here.
If he had Republicans on, that's a big step in the right direction.
And I'm sure he's invited them on before, I just don't know why it's happening now and didn't happen before.
But how much pushback do you really expect on a, you know, like a four-minute hit?
There's just not a lot of pushback you can do.
So I don't know if you push back enough or not, but, you know, there's a limit to how much you can push back in four minutes.
Here's a question for you.
How many ways could Trump win the presidency back?
I feel like there are lots of ways for him to do it, but I don't think he's necessarily going to take the way that would be easiest.
Now, these are mostly just funny.
Here's one way Trump could win the presidency.
Never talk in public while he's running for public, while he's running for president.
Just not. Don't do any interviews.
Just don't do any. Just do the Biden, Biden strategy and actually tell the world he's doing it.
Just say, you know, you know exactly what I'll do because you watched it before.
I'm going to do more of that.
If you want more of that, I'm your person, but you don't need me to describe it because you know what it is.
You know what you're getting. So you know what you're getting, so I'm not going to say anything that will cause any fake news to come after me taking things out of context.
You know exactly what you're getting, I'll be here.
Let me know. Now, the news would go crazy because they wouldn't have Trump to entertain them.
And there's no way that Trump would do this, by the way.
I think that's so counter to everything in his personality that there's no chance it would happen.
But would it work?
Would it work? I think the only thing that could keep Trump from winning is something Trump said.
So if he doesn't say something, you know, that they can take out of context, it probably just waltzes right into the office.
Alright, here's another one.
You know how Trump was good at grabbing the gun from the opponent and turning it around?
So he turned fake news into a weapon against him when it was initially used against him.
Here's one he could turn around.
Imagine instead of make America great again, Trump ran on an anti-fascism platform.
Anti-fascism platform.
And just made everything about that.
Say, fascism is when the government tries to control industry and takes your rights away.
Here are all the ways the Democrats are controlling industry, or trying to, with their regulations and their taxes and their ESG. And here are all the ways the Republicans are trying to keep you free.
Now, what would happen if he ran on an anti-fascism platform?
What would the Democrats say?
They'd say, no, you're the fascist.
Republicans are the fascists, right?
That's what they say.
Now that would be predictable.
Now what would happen next?
You know what would happen next?
You'd have to talk about what a fucking fascist is.
You couldn't avoid it.
If he made it his platform, you'd have to talk about it every day.
And if you talked about it every day, what would you learn?
Who's more fascist?
The people who are putting restrictions on you or the ones who are taking them off you.
Now, the glaring exception is abortion.
The left is going to say, no, you fascists are taking away our right of abortion, which is true, in a way.
But at the same time, that's a special case, right?
Because, you know, the Republicans are saying we're stopping murder.
You know, that's not exactly what motivates fascists.
Fascists are not motivated by stopping murder as they see it, right?
That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of people.
So I think you could easily carve out the abortion and say, no, no, no, that's about people's genuine...
Here's the way I'd say it.
If I were arguing against abortion, I would give the other side the complete respect that they deserve.
And I think they deserve more respect than you do, perhaps.
I would actually make their argument for them.
I'd say, here's what they say, and I've got to admit there's something to that.
But on the other side, my team, if this is your team, so one could say, my team believes that this is murder and that all life is sacred, and we're going to push that.
I think you could make that message really easily.
But I think you have to respect the other side and say, I understand why somebody would want this Would want this right.
I understand why somebody would do it.
You know, times are tough.
Things are desperate. People have different opinions about what is right, what is wrong.
I get that. But we're on the side of life is sacred, and I think you'll appreciate that in the long run.
So I think you could easily make an anti-fascism argument and not worry about the abortion part.
You could argue that away pretty easily.
But you have to give some respect to the other team to make a good argument.
Nobody accepts an argument where you only say your side.
Nobody. Because if you only say your side of the argument and you don't acknowledge there's some point to the other side, everybody just says, oh, a partisan.
They're not even trying. You've got to show the other side.
Here's another way that Trump could win.
This would be his slogan.
You ready for this?
This one will just stop you in your tracks.
This would be a Trump slogan that would guarantee his election.
Make Europe warm again.
Make Europe warm again.
And we're done.
And we're done.
Right? Right?
He could just put out the bumper sticker and then go back in the basement.
He would never have to do an interview again.
Make Europe warm again.
There's nothing else you have to add to that argument.
Am I right? The entire argument is in four words.
There's nothing else you have to add to that.
That Biden was such a disaster...
That Europe is going to freeze and starve, at least to some degree.
And, you know, it might be even worse, not might, it's going to be even worse in the, you know, in the Bangladesh-type places.
You could just be done.
Make Europe warm again and walk away.
Because if you don't want Europe to be warm again, you're not really America, are you?
Because here's my take on this.
A lot of these questions are about what you want to do, like what's the best path.
This isn't one of them.
It isn't one of them.
What is this? The question of whether we're stepping up to help Europe enough, is that a question about the best strategy?
It isn't. Is it about the best path?
Is it about who's predicting what?
Is it about follow the money?
No. It's not any of that.
It's about one fucking thing.
Who is America?
This is an identity question.
Who are we? Because we're a little bit confused right now, aren't we?
Like, America's not quite sure who it is.
We're sort of in a little transitionary period.
We're a little at each other's throats at the moment.
But if we stand here and watch Europe starve and freeze, whatever we are is not what we used to be.
Who would agree with me on that?
If we let this happen the way it looks like it's going to happen, I don't see anything that would change it.
Can we say that we're great?
I don't think so.
Like, I'm so pro-American, it's disgusting.
But if we let this happen, we're not great.
We're not great. Let's just stop pretending.
You know, maybe it should be make America adequate again.
Make America not suck again.
Like, we're so far from greatness if we can't solve this problem.
Because here's the problem.
It's a solvable problem.
If it were unsolvable, or if we had done everything we could, I'd say, well, you've done everything you could.
But I'm not happy rebranding America to pathetic assholes.
There are enough people who think that about America already.
But we don't have to brand ourselves pathetic assholes.
And that's what we're doing.
You know, it's bad enough if somebody else has a bad opinion about your country, but we're doing this to ourselves.
We're making a conscious, considered, we've got plenty of time, like nobody's rushed, and we've decided that what America wants to be, at least if we continue on this path, is we want to be a bunch of useless assholes.
That's like an actual decision.
You know, in effect, it's a decision.
I tell you who I'd like to be.
Here's who I would like to be.
I'd like to be somebody who pulled down all the stops to help Europe.
That's who I'd like to be.
And if we don't have an administration that can help me be who I want to be, I can't really support that.
Can't support that at all.
Yeah, act like an ally.
And let me say this.
If we let Europe starve and freeze, don't ask them for help if we ever need any.
If the United States ever needs some help, I wouldn't ask Europe.
Because if they say no, I'd say, okay, I get that.
I get that. So we're going to throw away 200 years of insanely important history.
Where if you need help, we're going to be there.
We're going to throw that out the fucking window.
That's like the most valuable thing the country has.
What does America have that's more valuable than its allies?
Not much. Right.
Did you know that Elon Musk said he was going to give up all his major physical possessions?
So I guess he got rid of all his real estate.
He doesn't own a house. I'm guessing he doesn't own a car, which is funny, because he owns a car company.
But I'll bet he doesn't own a car.
Probably just has one that the company owns or he drives or something.
Or somebody drives them.
He probably doesn't drive too much.
And do you remember a lot of you were worried, because was it Klaus Schwab or somebody predicted about the future that you will own nothing and love it?
You'll own nothing and love it.
And then people interpreted that as socialism.
And when I heard it, I thought, no, no, no.
Owning things is a gigantic headache.
Now, if you're not in this situation, you may not have experienced this, but I'm sort of in the...
Not sort of. I'm in a situation where I could own more than one home if I wanted to.
Do you know how much trouble owning one home is?
Oh my God! It's like a full-time job.
Owning two homes would just double my work and I could go stay at a hotel if I want to travel.
Owning possessions is just a burden.
Do you know why I like going on vacation?
Does anybody know why I like going on vacation?
To get away from my possessions.
True story. When I go on vacation, it's not because I like the destination, although I often like the destination.
It's because I have to escape my possessions.
They're too needy.
And my dog.
I have to get away from my dog.
My dog is a continuous burden on my life.
I love her madly.
You know, when she passes, I'll be destroyed.
But nonetheless... She lowers the quality of my life by 40%, at least.
I mean, it's just terrible living in a house with a dog, if you're the only one.
If you have other people in the house, they can take some of the dog energy.
But if there's only one person in the house with a dog, it's just the shits.
It really is terrible to live with a dog.
And I love my dog!
I love her!
You just can't live and work in a house that has a dog.
Because the trouble is, I have too much empathy.
I don't know what your dog looks like, but every time I want to do something, my dog runs over and does this.
Are you going to do something for me right now?
Are we going outside?
No? Oh, we're not going outside right now, because I really, really want to go outside right now, not in five minutes, right now! That's my dog every minute of my life.
She either needs a treat right now, or she's got to go through a doorway or someplace else Right now.
And she can't wait.
So every minute of my day I'm disappointing my dog who I love more than, you know, anybody basically.
And so I'm just making the thing I love the most, I'm treating her like a prisoner.
Because she's not free.
I'm literally her jailer.
And I feel like her jailer every day.
Every moment I'm not playing with her, she's in jail.
She literally has to just sit on the couch for like eight fucking hours waiting for me to have some free time to do something with her for like ten minutes.
And then she'll go like, what, wait in jail another six hours until something comes up?
It's horrible having a dog.
I so don't recommend it.
Anyway. But I love dogs.
Physical possessions?
Yeah, you're not even involved.
Um... So Musk is Twitter whistleblower.
So the whistleblower is this painter.
He was the head of security for Twitter.
How much do you imagine the ex-head of security for Twitter knows about the internal workings?
Wouldn't you love to interview that guy?
Because didn't he say that he thinks there might be some foreign agents in the company?
Wouldn't you like to know a little bit more about that?
Doggy daycare? But doggy daycare requires me to drive the dog there and then pick it up and drive it back.
So that's like an hour and a half out of my day.
There's just nothing.
It's just an unsolvable problem, basically.
Anyway, we'll find out more about Twitter.
How many of you think there's going to be some kind of a civil war in the United States?
Don't answer. There's not going to be a civil war.
Again, all the people talking about civil war are just addicted to social media.
There's nobody who doesn't use social media who thinks there's going to be a civil war.
Not even close.
Not even close. If January 6th didn't cause Republicans to even arm themselves, I mean, I suppose they had some weapons nearby, but they didn't use weapons on January 6th.
And that was, at least in their minds, that was a pretty big deal.
Now, whether or not they were right or wrong is a separate question.
But in their minds, that was a big deal.
They thought the Republic had been subverted.
And even that didn't cause violence.
And it only caused a little bit of...
Well, it caused some violence, but it caused action only in one place.
It didn't even spread around the country.
So we need to get rid of the silliness.
That's not serious, the whole Civil War thing.
That's not serious.
And you need to start treating it as not serious.
You spoiled your dog?
Yeah, I didn't spoil my dog, but the dog gets spoiled.
Did you know there's an old interview that I saw on Twitter today in which Biden, however many years ago, talking about the war in Iraq, and I guess he supported the war in Iraq, and he actually said out loud that the story about Saddam maybe having nuclear weapons It was intentionally a lie by the government,
and that they all knew it, like the senators all knew it, that it was a lie.
And the reason that they went along with it, and Biden says this directly, that he went along with the lie because he thought that would sell better to the public than the truth.
I'm not making this up.
He actually said that. He said that the government lied to the people about nuclear weapons or a nuclear program in Iraq.
They knew they were lying, and it's because the real story wouldn't sell as well.
He said that out loud, in direct language.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but he was just as direct.
Now, he did argue that the, quote, totality of the situation was sufficient for the war.
So his argument is, yes, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, and while we could not prove he had nuclear, it was better to sell that to the public.
Now, did Saddam have chemical weapons?
You all watch the news, and I'm sure there's no fake news.
Did Saddam have chemical weapons?
Go. Some say no, some say yes.
I see mostly yeses, but a lot of noes.
Yes, no, yes.
Now, how could you all have watched the same news, and you have different opinions about whether he had chemical weapons?
How is that possible? How could you all have been watching the same story?
This is about a major, major war, and you don't know the basics about it.
The basics. Did he have chemical weapons?
Well, here's the weird thing about being on Twitter.
So I tweet about this morning, and then I get tweeted at by Joshua Hartley, who's on Twitter, and just take a moment to consider how awesome this is, what I'm going to tell you.
How awesome is it That we're wondering about, okay, what really did happen in Iraq?
And within minutes I get a tweet from Joshua Hartley who says, and I quote, my platoon guarded the main bunker storing chemical weapons in 2008.
What? What?
Am I actually talking to the person who guarded the weapons of mass destruction so I don't have to wonder if they were real?
I'm talking to the guy who stood there next to him.
All right, so he goes on.
He goes, no nuclear, so he confirms no nuclear, but yes, WMDs.
Saddam hadn't destroyed them as agreed.
Okay, now to go back to Biden's point, if Saddam said he would destroy them, but we knew he hadn't, would that be a cause for war?
They are weapons of mass destruction.
You could argue whether that's cause for war, but I don't think you can argue that they had them and they didn't destroy them.
Now, is the fact that they didn't destroy them evidence that Saddam was planning to maybe use them?
Yes or no? Is the fact that Saddam did not destroy them, because that seems to be proven, is that proof that he planned to have them available to use?
Do you know how the United States destroyed those chemical weapons, finally?
Does anybody know that story?
So they were there.
How did we destroy them?
Does anybody know? No, we didn't use them.
Burn them? They tried.
Blowing them up was too risky.
Now, I'm going to tell you the answer.
We guarded them until we left, and then ISIS took them.
We guarded them until we stopped guarding it, and then ISIS took it.
That actually happened.
I think. I mean, that's the story I'm getting.
Now, here's the second part of the story.
Do you know why the United States didn't destroy them?
We didn't know how.
The United States did not know how to do the thing that we told Saddam he had to do or we'd destroy his country.
Let me say it again. The United States did not know, and still does not know, how to destroy those chemical weapons without making things worse.
But we asked Saddam to do it, and when he didn't do the thing that's impossible, we destroyed his country and killed him.
Because he didn't do the thing we asked him to do that we know was, in fact, impossible.
That really happened. Amazing.
Now, the other thing is we don't know how useful these chemical weapons were because they were old and degraded.
Now, the reason that they couldn't tell you, oh, we found all these weapons of mass destruction and give you full details about it was because they were old.
And it did not support the narrative to say the only weapons of mass destruction were old and probably didn't work.
So they had to change the narrative to what would sell.
So now that you know that your government admits lying to you to get you into a war, would you believe anything they ever tell you again?
Not if you're smart.
Not if you're smart. So further, this is Joshua Hartley who had guarded the weapons of mass destruction.
I'll let you know what the rest of his tweets here.
He said, I was able to discuss this with members of the Bush administration after the war, and the lies around this are far deeper and more complex than can be discerned by publicly available information.
And he said I could DM him if I wanted to know more.
But this is what he's saying publicly on Twitter.
And he said that some of the WMDs probably were usable, but many of them were degraded.
Yeah. So apparently they were guarding a facility that the politicians wanted you to believe didn't exist.
Now, the New York Times was reporting about the old chemical weapons that were found.
And I think the New York Times actually reported that The story was being managed by the government because otherwise you couldn't sell it to the public.
Wow. Wow.
Because the weapons they found were too old to make their case.
All right. So how much of a lie...
Yeah, we know about Tonkin Bay.
So the government has lied to get us into war before.
We know that. That's a matter of historical record.
But you wonder how far the gaslighting can go.
And here's an example of how far the gaslighting can go.
So I guess Steve Ducey asked Jean-Pierre, the spokesperson for Biden.
Ducey said, somebody unvaccinated comes over on a plane, talking about immigration.
You say that's not okay.
Somebody walks into Texas or Arizona unvaccinated, they're allowed to stay?
And Jean-Pierre says, that's not how it works.
It's not like someone walks over What?
It's not like somebody just walks over the border?
Turn on the television.
You can see live streams of people walking over the border, just walking over.
You know, being guided by the coyotes.
It's all over the news.
All you have to do is turn it on.
You can see the lines of people coming over.
And then Ducey says, that's exactly what is happening.
It's not like someone just walks over.
That's exactly what's happening.
So then, you know, the spokesperson went on and just sort of changed the subject to all the awesome things they're doing to control the border.
But... Now, I get that her job is to, you know, just support the administration, but this is such a transparent lie.
Like, are they supposed to lie to you that directly?
Because it would be one thing to say, oh, I think the inflation is transitory.
Which they probably didn't think, but at least they had something like an argument.
Say, well, these things are temporary.
At least there was something to it.
But this is just a direct lie that your eyes are not working.
Oh, yeah, your eyes see people coming across that border right now on a live stream.
But that's not happening.
The thing you see with your own eyes right now, that's not happening at all.
It's just mind-boggling that the government can lie to you that directly.
It'd be one thing if you couldn't tell it was a lie.
Oh my God!
Who is winning in Ukraine?
Russia or Ukraine?
What do you think? Who's winning?
Have you noticed that the news has basically just turned that back into fog?
So when the whole thing started, there was fog of war.
You didn't know what was going on. And then it seemed like things cleared up a little bit.
It looked like there was going to be some kind of stability where Russia was going to maybe keep the parts that they'd occupied, and then maybe Ukraine would keep the rest, and maybe that would be how things shake out in the end.
But Ukraine says it's doing a counter-offensive in Kyrgyzstan, wherever that is.
And if you look at social media, people are absolutely convinced that they know which side is winning and why.
And they just have completely different takes.
So there are a bunch of accounts that say Russia is definitely winning and it's over.
But honestly, they all look like Russian agents to me.
Do you see that? It looks to me like Russia itself has so infiltrated Twitter that whenever you say Ukraine is doing anything right, it looks, I can't tell, I'm not positive, but it looks like a bunch of Russian accounts come over and start slapping you down right away.
Have you noticed that?
Is it my imagination?
Because they look like they're obviously not real people.
They look like they're obviously Russian, Operatives of some kind.
Oh, you see the opposite.
Somebody says you see more Ukrainian operatives coming in.
Well, you see both, right?
The Ukrainian ones, I think, in many cases, are just Americans who are pro-Ukraine.
But the pro-Russian ones, they all look like they're some kind of bot farm.
I don't know. It's hard to know, because confirmation bias is so strong.
But here's things that, among the things that you hear, there's a Kursan counteroffensive that's already broken through the Russian lines, or not, or nothing like that's happening.
That's possible. Or Russia has complete air superiority, or not, because the Ukrainians do have anti-aircraft that's working.
The supply lines are cut for the Russian occupiers, or not, because they have a land bridge to do anything they want.
So basically, everything that we know about the war has a, or not, they have to end to it, because I don't think we have any information that's useful.
I'll tell you what I predict.
And by the way, so being the only person I know of, I don't know if anybody else predicted this, at the beginning I said that Ukraine would not easily fall to Russia, because Ukraine would have advanced weaponry.
So, part of Ukraine, maybe the most strategic part, is occupied.
But most of Ukraine looks like it's not under immediate threat.
So, was my prediction the best of the entire war?
I would say yes.
I would say, although I was not completely right, I was the closest right by far.
Well, you're saying I'm wrong, but give me a reason.
Is it true or false that Ukraine still exists as a country?
True or false?
Because the experts said that by now they would not exist as a country.
I said they would.
How am I wrong?
Yes, they'll exist as a country.
Yes, I'm right.
Or no, they will already be conquered by Russia, where everybody else said.
And you still think I'm wrong?
What's the argument for that?
Now, of course, people keep saying to me, but you're just a cartoonist, so get out of this military stuff.
To which I say, you know, you're right.
I don't have any military knowledge or background at all.
But I was the only one who was right about Ukraine, militarily.
That's just a fact.
I also had no expertise in politics when I predicted that Trump would win the first time.
There are some things that I'm not sure you need to be an expert to predict, because there are macro variables that are so important.
And the macro variable, I think, is that nobody could ever conquer a modern country with modern weapons.
It's just not a thing anymore.
So that was my thinking, that the big picture of modern weaponry was being ignored.
So I think there's a non-zero chance that Ukraine is going to degrade the occupation to the point where it won't make sense for Russia to stay.
They might stay anyway, because they don't want to look like they retreated.
But I've got a feeling that Ukraine can degrade the military assets in the occupied countries just forever.
They'll just keep lobbing artillery and drones and missiles there until there's nothing left.
Whereas, given that Russia is not trying to conquer the rest of Ukraine, they're just fighting probably the military that's closest to the fighting there, I feel like that gives Ukraine an advantage.
Now, not an advantage that I think they will kick Russia out of that territory.
So let me be clear.
I'm not predicting.
I'm not. That Ukraine will recapture the territory.
I think that would be a lot to expect.
But I do think that Ukraine is just going to pound it down until nobody wants to live there, including the citizens.
I think that's going to happen.
I think it'll just become unlivable at some point.
Probably already is. All right, that's my prediction.
So we're watching Biden destroying Europe and much of the world.
And I saw an interesting...
Tweet by Nan Hayworth, she said, follow the money.
And I thought, that's interesting.
Because it's a little confusing about why the Biden administration is acting exactly the way they are with the Ukraine situation.
And the only way I could understand it is if there's somehow money involved.
And I guess you could say that maybe the Biden administration has to help Ukraine because Ukraine knows too much about the Biden administration.
I believe we're being blackmailed.
What do you think? I believe the United States government, Biden, is being blackmailed by Zelensky, either directly or indirectly.
That doesn't mean he actually said directly, we will do this.
But I feel as if Biden knows that if Ukraine goes under, so does he.
So I feel like we're fighting Biden's war.
It looks like Hunter's war, basically.
I think Hunter got us into a war.
I think Hunter is going to be the cause of starvation in Europe.
Is that too far?
I believe Hunter's addiction is actually going to destroy Europe.
So you don't think addiction is a problem?
There's one guy who was addicted that probably will destroy Europe.
Change the entire global security issue for, I don't know, decades or 100 years.
That's what it looks like to me.
It looks like one guy was addicted and his addiction caused him to have to have a lot of money.
And if you're addicted, you can't not have a lot of money.
And the only way to get it fast, maybe the amount he needed, was to do whatever he did that might have been a little sketchy.
So, yeah.
I mean, one addict probably destroyed Europe.
You know, you don't think one person can make a difference in this world?
Well, he's one person, and I think he destroyed Europe.
So, there's that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that concludes my prepared remarks.
And so, that brings us to what is it you want me to say that I didn't say?
Anything I missed?
Parmesan patriots.
Ukraine and Russia have our number, right?
Maybe.
Where are the aliens hiding?
Yeah, maybe Peter.
I don't know. Hunter's addiction was caused due to the inability to manage the anxiety of running the corrupt family business.
No, you're not the only one.
Oh, I haven't heard about Gavin McGinnis.
I haven't heard anything about that story.
Did you ever watch Sam Harris's Clarification?
I did not. By the way, there's a movie coming out soon.
Larry Elders.
It's Uncle Tom 2.
Uncle Tom, too. And I just started watching it, and it's kind of mind-blowing.
I've got to admit. Like, the first ten minutes of it, well, I've watched more than that.
Maybe the first half hour or so.
It's mind-blowing. I'm not going to tell you why yet.
I'll give you a full review when I'm done.
But it's mind-blowing.
It'll fuck you up.
If you watch it, your entire sense of what is happening or what has happened, specifically about black Americans, it completely will change your mind about what's happening.
Now, I'm not going to say I agree with all of the editorial.
That's different. It has an editorial edge and a specific, let's say, a specific set of actions.
That would make things better.
And I'm not going to say I back all of that, primarily because it's a religious-based argument.
And since I'm not a believer, if it works, it works.
So if it's good for black Americans, it's good for me.
So I'm not going to be against it.
I just can't make the argument.
So it's called "Uncle Tom 2." so it's the sequel to his first film, Uncle Tom.
Be a believer.
I did not get a guitar yet.
It'll be my Christmas present to myself.
Will the FBI target you for speaking out against government lies?
What do you think? What do you think?
You know, I thought about maybe using my man cave to invite people in for interviews.
And I thought that if I brought people into my home to interview them, I would have to warn them that their communication is not secure.
In my own home.
Because I thought to myself, who's the most important person I could get, maybe a politician or something, who would come to my house?
Because that's sort of a big ask.
I'm not exactly close to a major metropolitan area.
But I thought, if it's anybody important, I would have to make sure they didn't tell me anything even privately in my own house.
So my assumption is that my home is not secure, meaning that That I can be listened to.
Now keep in mind I have digital assistants and I have a bunch of iPads and my phone.
It's my understanding that if the government had a reason to listen in, they could do it.
Am I wrong? If the government had a warrant, FISA, FISA, could they not get into my Alexa and just listen to me all day long?
If they had a reason. Yeah, they could, right?
And do you think that the government would have trouble making up a reason for me?
I think they could make up a reason for anybody.
And do you think a judge would sign it?
Obviously, yes. Because we see that judges will sign anything.
So what are the odds that I'm not being targeted, not necessarily by the FBI, but by somebody, either a foreign entity or somebody?
I live my life as though everything I say is public.
Now, that doesn't mean that I don't say things that would be embarrassing.
I just mean I think I'm completely unblackmailable because there's nothing embarrassing that would embarrass me.
You know, like, there's stuff that would be embarrassing, but it wouldn't embarrass me.
I mean, I would just think it was funny.
In the bedroom also, yeah.
I mean, I have a digital assistant in my bedroom as well.
There's nothing, there's literally nothing that I could imagine that they would surface about me that I wouldn't think is funny, ultimately.
Could Trump name the FBI a terrorist organization?
I don't think he will.
Oh, the Russell Brand thing is unscheduled now.
So a few weeks ago, I had a Megyn Kelly podcast semi-scheduled.
They got unscheduled.
And I had a Russell Brand podcast.
podcast interview that was semi-scheduled, but now it's unscheduled.
Why, you ask?
I don't know. I don't know.
In the case of Russell Brand, he had some schedule uncertainty, and it didn't work with my schedule availability and uncertainty.
So we had a day picked, but I ended up having to schedule that day for something else.
So it might happen.
Either one of them could be rescheduled.
I'm not sure I'll do either one of them, though.
See, I made an exception in both cases.
I've been not doing, I don't know if you've noticed, but I haven't been doing interviews for quite some time.
And I wasn't going to do any more.
Like I was just going to stop doing them.
Unless I'm promoting a book or something.
If you're promoting a book, then you've got to do what you've got to do.
But I only said yes because they were such prominent podcasts, and they're both people that I respect.
I'd love to be on Megyn Kelly's show, because I think she's amazing at what she does, and Russell Brand as well.
So I made an exception for both of them, and then they both kind of fell through, and they were just work.
Because every time you're negotiating to be on, you've got phone calls and emails, and you've got to set aside a time, and then you can't do anything else in that time because you set it aside.
And you can't take a vacation unless you cancel, that sort of thing.
So I feel like maybe I won't do either one.
What do you think? Is there any reason I should do any podcasts?
It's not about them. But should I do any podcasts?
Is there any reason? Because I'm really just creating entertainment on another channel.
The only thing I could see that would make a difference is that it doesn't sell books.
So if you're thinking, oh, people will buy your book, that doesn't work.
It works if you have a brand new book.
It doesn't work if you're just a person who has books.
And it's not going to drive much traffic here.
If that's something I even wanted to do.
Have you noticed that I don't promote the live stream as much as you'd expect?
I mean, I do a little.
Have you ever noticed that?
Have you ever noticed the conspicuous lack of promotion for the live stream?
I just do the basics, right?
I tweet it. Blah, blah, blah.
I mention if somebody asks.
But I don't know if I want it bigger.
There's something about the size of this interaction that feels right.
Believe it or not, even with this size of audience, it's still intimate.
If I had a million listeners, it would just feel different.
I don't think the world would be a better place, necessarily.
And as you've noted before, Odin of all says the same thing?
Yeah, I'm not surprised.
Yeah, I don't want to lose the intimacy that makes this something I like to wake up and do.
You know, I say this all the time, but I'm not sure how much you believe me.
I do this because I enjoy it and I think it's important.
Now, I also monetize it, because, you know, why not?
I'm doing it anyway. Why wouldn't I monetize it?
But really, at this point, it's about the experience, you know, the shared experience, and about doing something useful.
So if I can influence the influencers, that's all I need.
I don't need 10 million viewers.
That's not going to help me.
You say I could change Russell Brand's mind on some issues?
Doubt it. I doubt it.
Where do you think we disagree?
No, I think he has a little bit more fun with maybe some conspiracy theory stuff that I wouldn't disagree with.
Maybe I wouldn't go as far as he does, but if it's speculative, there's nothing to disagree with.
Have you ever been invited to Bill Maher?
I did Bill Maher's show during the first Trump-Clinton election, and on his show I predicted that Trump would win, as did Ann Coulter.
Yeah, Ann Coulter also did.
She did it before I did. Hers gets all the hits.
You know, when they show her predicting that Trump would win and everybody's laughing at her, You know, but they're showing it in the context of she was right after all.
They never show mine.
I was on his show and I said he'd win.
And things got real quiet when I said it, but they didn't laugh.
Because by the time I was on the show, he had already gained a lot of traction.
So they weren't laughing by then.
But they got really quiet when I said he was going to win.
They got really quiet.
Because I think by the time I said it, they were like, oh, really?
Maybe. Hold out for Gutfeld?
Well, I'll definitely do Greg's show.
I mean, I would do Gutfeld just because...
for fun, right?
Just because I'm friends with him.
So that would be fun, I like his show, and I'll probably do that.
But I wouldn't count that as like the other podcasts.
All right.
Let me tell you a strategy that I used that I can now reveal to you because if I told you before, you would not believe it was a good idea.
But now it's obviously a good idea, so I can tell you.
Do you remember when I said, famously, that if Biden got elected, Republicans would be hunted?
Anybody remember that?
Because they got a lot of pushback.
Now, you can see that there's something going on like Republicans being hunted.
Now, I'm not a Republican, as you know.
I'm not even conservative.
But I'm lumped into that group by everybody who's, you know, on the left.
So they would assume I'm in the same group.
Now, given that I could be in that group of targeted people, What did it buy me to say publicly that Republicans would be hunted?
Go. What did I do strategically that protected me?
So here's the thing.
If you're the person who became famous by saying Republicans would be hunted, they have to do you last.
You get that?
Because I'm the most famous person for saying that we would be targeted.
If they targeted me first, then they would prove I'm right.
Right? That's the last thing they want to do.
So by being the most vocal person about people on the right or associated with the right being targeted, I largely guaranteed that they'd do me last.
Oh, they're still going to do me.
They're going to take me out.
I'm pretty sure of it.
I think they'll at least take me out economically and influence-wise.
But they have to wait.
If they do me too soon, it's just too obvious.
But if they do me last, then there'll be nobody left to say, hey, you got rid of that guy.
I'll just be the last one.
So I feel like they can't do me too soon, right?
Now, they might wait till, like, the presidential election, because getting rid of me before the midterms would make no difference at all, because I'm not really going to have any effect on the midterms.
But would I have any effect on the presidential election?
Yes. Well, let me ask you.
Forget about the past.
Let's just say there's another election.
Do you think that I could move the needle on a national election?
What do you think? Could I personally move the needle on a national election?
And remember, national elections are sort of a 2% difference.
So if you believe that the election would have been a 2% difference no matter what, how comfortable are you knowing that I exist?
Well, if you're on my side, meaning that you agree with my notions about stuff, then you're probably comfortable with it.
But imagine you were on the left and you came to believe that I actually could move the election by 2%.
You would have to get rid of me.
Now, I don't know that they believe that.
I don't know that there's anybody who would have the power to take me out who believes I could make any difference.
What do you think? Do you think that people on the left think I could make any difference?
Because I don't. I think the people on the left would consider me irrelevant.
But there might be some people on the left who think differently.
I change your vote, somebody says.
Well, let me ask you here.
How many of you changed a vote because of me?
How many of you changed your vote to Trump because of something I said?
It should be mostly not, right?
So I'm seeing some yeses sprinkled in with mostly noes, which is what I'd expect.
I'd expect mostly no.
But you'll see on both platforms there are yeses.
And can you see that even with this unscientific sample, you can tell I moved the needle.
Because I'm not sure how many other people could have asked that question and gotten any yeses.
If Charlie Kirk asked, hey, did I change your vote, would anybody say yes?
No, but Charlie Kirk, you changed my mind.
Because he's a very prominent political figure.
I feel like...
Joe Rogan?
Joe Rogan said jokingly, but maybe not jokingly, that you should consider voting Republican if you don't like how things are going.
Do you think that Joe Rogan can make people vote Republican?
And again, just 2% of them.
I'm not talking about most people.
Do you think he can move the needle?
I'd say yes. Do you think that Joe Rogan almost got cancelled?
Yes. So because he can move the needle, and I believe he can, the attempt to cancel him was pretty aggressive.
Pretty aggressive. But apparently it failed.
He was already too big to get cancelled.
And I think his brand helped him.
If your brand is...
Well, I think he just has a hard-to-cancel brand.
Because he's willing to go wherever the fun is, basically.
They tried to cancel him over ivermectin, yeah.
Elon also said to vote Republican.
Yeah, I guess he kind of did, did he?
Is the favorite rapper or something?
What about Andrew Tate?
I believe he's been disappeared.
So you can clean your memory, because you're not going to see much of him again, I think.
I think he disappeared.
So, you know, again, I'm opposed to the censoring of Andrew Tate, even though he's no friend of mine.
I don't like the censoring.
But you have to admit they did a good job, right?
The social media platforms just completely erased him.
And I think that he can't use payment platforms or anything.
Like, he can't do banking.
At least for, you know, this kind of business.
So he's on Rumble.
Being on Rumble is a partial solution.
Yeah, what happened to the January 6th committee?
Yeah.
Yeah. What about the...
Well, you're too nice, Cassandra.
What about the January 6th committee?
Didn't work out? Apparently that didn't work out.
So they've got to go to the Trump security boxes.
All right. Yeah, what about the Durham report?
Amazing. You missed clipping out voice clone permission.
No, I deleted the hot tub video.
All right.
Did they find the person who leaked Roe at the Supreme Court?
I doubt it. Can you reframe common sense?
I don't know why. I mean, I've said in my books that common sense is an illusion.
There's no such thing as common sense.
Common sense is what you say when you don't have a reason.
You know that, right?
You say it's common sense when you don't have a reason.
Trump for Speaker of the House I mean, that's a clever idea, because he could be Speaker of the House, but it just doesn't fit his personality.
Dow is way down again today.
Stocks are down.
Will he take your advice, who?
Fairness is common sense, right?
And fairness is an illusion.
Alright. Do you mean everything is fixed since the origin of the universe?
Yeah, the argument for no free will doesn't mean that everything is fixed since the universe.
It just means that even though some things might be random, it just means you couldn't predict them.
Anyway, that's boring.
Can DeSantis be both VP and Florida governor?
No. How low will crypto go?
Well, didn't everybody assume that most crypto would go to zero?
I mean, everybody believed that, right?
So the question is, would there be any that did not go to zero?
Would there be any winners?
I think Bitcoin will have value.
I don't know what else will, but I think Bitcoin will last a while.
Will Trump run if the House and Senate don't flip?
Oh, that's a good question. Would you mind to share the day that Justin died?
Not really. I appreciate that you would like to pray for him.
But no, I don't want to share that.
Nassim Taleb predicted the doom of crypto when it was at his highest level.
Well, Taleb is really good at Getting famous for saying things that are really obvious.
I'm not sure where he became an intellectual, because the things he's most famous for are just the most obvious things.
Now, it could be that they're obvious because he said them, like the black swan idea.
I think people knew That there would be big shocks that made most of the difference.
I'm not sure he added too much to that.
But it's a good concept.
The railroads might strike.
Oh, great. Read his books.
It's different than you think. I've tried to read his writing.
it's unreadable.
It's almost impenetrable.
Do ideas exist?
Interesting. Yeah, Taleb is well-respected at the highest levels of finance.
By everybody?
I don't know. Check the most recent video of Satoshi endorsing that.
Do you think it's worth reading the great books of the Western world?
Nope, I don't.
An issue with Naval...
People in my own are trying to best bash up on this one for this minute.
Oh, interesting. So here's a comment on YouTube.
It says, I'm a black man, first-time listener, and I have to acknowledge how people in my community are trying the best to backtrack from their support of this administration.
Everyone is silent now.
Yeah. I think that's, in a way, that could be the biggest story of 2024.
I think if Trump tried hard to get the black vote...
I think it would be historic.
I believe the black vote is completely available for a Republican who just tries.
Just try. Just put a serious effort into it.
In a Republican way.
You don't have to become a Democrat.
But just do it in a Republican way.
I think it's just a gigantic, gigantic possibility of a shift.
The Latinos, apparently, are coming along for free.
I'm trying to think about how many people I know were born in, let's say, Mexico or Central America, that I know today, And how many of them I would describe as, like, woke?
And the answer is none.
None. I'm not sure that they're Republican.
I don't think they would identify that way.
But if you looked at, let's say, their philosophies about things, it maps pretty close to sort of a Catholic sensibility, and so it gets pretty, pretty close to a Republican.
And you have a group of people whose, I would say, their view of life is work first.
Am I wrong?
The people who come to America, most of them, the ones that are coming illegally across the border, it's work first.
They're putting work above comfort, country, being near their family, Work first.
Now, if you're a Republican and you see somebody who's work first, you don't hate them.
You do not hate them.
You respect that.
Now, you might say, I wish you could spend more time with your family.
That'd be great. But these are people who are taking the hard choices.
And they're doing it for their family and for the future.
So they're very future-oriented.
They've connected what they do today to what the future will bring them.
It looks so Republican to me.
I mean, it looks super Republican.
And, like I said, they're not woke.
They're not dealing with, you used the wrong word.
They don't care about any of that.
So I'd be amazed if they are not mostly Republican in the future.
You're already seeing some shift.
But if the Republicans just tried a little bit, a little bit, they could just take a huge chunk of that.
By the way, Trump could just say what I said.
You know, the fact that we're trying to keep out people who put work first, You really have to ask yourself, especially when our biggest problem is a collapsing population.
According to Elon Musk and a lot of smart people, and it's my opinion as well, we have more risk from a collapsing population than anything else.
And here we have millions of people Who have a Catholic sensibility, work first, sacrifice to work, because that'll build us a future.
You don't want those people in your country?
If you said, who do you want in your country?
I'd say people who have some kind of moral background.
And they've planned like a reasonable plan for their future.
And they work really hard to make it happen for the next generation.
You telling me I don't want those people in my country?
I want lots of them in my country.
Lots of them. More the better.
Now, legally, of course.
Legally, of course.
In fact, here's how I would handle all of immigration.
I heard a lot of people complaining about giving illegal immigrants free phones.
I'd probably give them free phones.
You know why? Because they'll take them and you can track them.
You can track them.
If you give them a phone, you control them.
So I would want to control them.
And one way you could game the whole system is just say, let everybody in.
Just give them a phone.
If we find you without your phone, we're going to arrest you.
And just say, you can be here as long as you keep your phone.
And if you lose your phone, we'll replace it or whatever, if it breaks.
But basically, if you get separated from your phone, like, too far, for too long, it's not like if you forgot it somewhere, but if you try to get rid of your phone and get a regular phone, well, you go to jail.
Or you get deported.
But as long as we can keep an eye on you, because here's what you could do if you had an app.
So you need an immigration app.
Everybody who comes here illegally gets one of these phones.
Now remember, if the government is buying them, we're not buying iPhones.
You're not buying the $1,200 phone.
It's probably the $300 phone, I don't know, something like that, if you get them in bulk.
And then you put on it an app that allows them to get hired, By companies that need the labor, and also to get paid through the app only.
So you'd only be paid through the app.
You couldn't get paid any other way.
And then the app would be connected to something, or it didn't have to be.
And... I don't know.
I think you could just literally open the border if you gave everybody a phone.
Because the people who were doing bad stuff, you'd find them.
Now, of course, the criminals would get in that way, but I feel like they're getting in anyway.
If there's nothing you can do about the criminals getting in, maybe you just have to do something else.
All right. Just an idea.
I don't think it's necessarily the best idea in the world, but I'll put it out there.
Warren Buffett is 92 today.
Boy. You know, about...
Probably 20 years ago I sold my Berkshire Hathaway stock because I thought Warren Buffett couldn't last that long.
I thought that when he dies the stock will tank, even though there's no reason for it because the company would still be solid.
But I thought emotionally the stock would tank when he died.
Now he's 92 and he's still going strong.
So I guessed wrong.
How do you feel about surgically transitioning minors?
Really? Really?
What do you think I feel about that?
Surgically transitioning minors.
Like, just guess.
What do you think my opinion on that is?
Because that's not about LGBTQ. I'm very pro-LGBTQ, but that's not an LGBTQ question.
That's a child question.
It has more to do with how do you handle children going through phases and stuff.
Yeah. No, that's obviously wrong.
I won't even have an argument with somebody who says you should transition children.
To me, that's...
As soon as you say the statement, somebody wants to chemically transition children to another gender, I don't even want to have a debate about that.
That's just, no.
No. Right?
There's no details.
No. Nope.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. You know people who argue it online?
Well, let me tell you this.
Are there people that you absolutely can tell are not going to be happy in the gender they're in?
And can you tell if they're 13?
What do you think? Do you think there are some people that absolutely would benefit from the transition?
Some. No?
Nobody? Here's my view.
I believe absolutely there are some people who would benefit from the transition as children.
I do. Here's the problem.
You don't know which ones they are.
You don't know which ones they are.
So it has to be a solid no, no way, no how, nope, nope, nope.
It's exactly the same as Statutory rape.
Do you think that every 16-year-old who has sex with somebody who's over 18 is damaged for life?
The answer is no.
No. But should you therefore make it legal for adults to have sex with children?
No! No!
Because you don't know which ones are going to be perfectly fine and which ones will be damaged for life.
So that's just a no.
If you're dealing with children, there are a lot more situations which are just no.
So even if you spot that 13-year-old where you're positive and all the doctors are positive that this kid would be better with a transition, still no.
Still no. Because they can do it later.
Just wait a few years, remove all doubt, if that makes sense to me.
Because I don't think you want to take the chance of that one person being transitioned who shouldn't have been.
That's just way too big a risk, in my view.
So, no.
That's my answer. Even though I will allow, I will allow that that would be a burden on some people.
I will allow that there's no 100% clean answer.
But there is a clean policy.
Knowing what to do about it, I think, is easy.
But if you go further and say that will be good for everybody, that's a little too far.
You have to accept that somebody's going to pay the price for that.
