Episode 1865 Scott Adams: Lots Of News About Democrats Misbehaving. The News Is Full Of Fun Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Democrats imported war on terrorism
Any excuse now valid to violate anyone's privacy
VISA, Mastercard, AMEX to flag gun store sales
Trump's threat to jail Hillary
Ukraine war update
Reparations concept vs economists
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Welcome to what will turn out to be one of the finest...
Situations you've ever been in.
I'm telling you, the news today, wow!
Wow! All kinds of news, interesting things to talk about.
Why? Because when the Queen died, it made all of the fake news have to wait a few days.
So now all the fake news is dumping because the Queen's situation has now settled down a little bit.
So... I just saw an important correction there on the locals' platform.
A group of turkeys is a flock, not a gaggle.
Good to know. My house was attacked by a flock of turkeys last night, which is a true story.
A flock of turkeys walked down the street, walked onto my house grounds, and just started shitting all over everything.
I think they just came there to use my house as their bathroom, and then they left.
So I spent the night, like, actually with a shovel, shoveling shit off of my driveway, because there were so many turkeys that attacked.
Anyway, if you'd like to take your experience up a notch, and I'm pretty sure you do, all you need is a cupper mug or a glass, a tanker gel, a stein, a canteen 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, the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go. Oh, what's going on over on YouTube?
I guess it's working. Well...
Here's a little update. I told you I'm doing some, I guess you'd call it body hacking, trying to figure out why I keep falling asleep when I write, but even when I'm not tired the rest of the day.
It's only when I sit down to write, I fall asleep immediately.
And so I had identified that I don't do it at a Starbucks, but then I started isolating the variables.
Is it being at a Starbucks, or is it the beverage?
Or is it the temperature at Starbucks?
Because they keep it pretty low. So, yesterday my experiment continued, and so I had my same beverage, an iced, some kind of iced coffee drink, and my same banana bread, and I ate and drank them quickly while I was in Starbucks, and then I quickly drove home and tried to write at home.
What do you think happened?
I could write fine. So it turns out it wasn't the location.
It was a little difference, maybe 20%.
I do think that there's definitely an advantage of being in a cafe, coffee shop situation.
I can definitely write better in those situations.
But staying awake, just the staying awake part, it was the beverage.
So I've narrowed it down so it wasn't temperature, it wasn't location, it wasn't distraction.
It was the beverage.
Now, it's the beverage plus the banana bread, so I suppose the next thing I would try is getting rid of the banana bread.
And I point this out not because you have an interest in my health, because I know you don't, really.
I point it out because this is such a useful process to try to figure out why do you feel the way you feel, And then, very systematically, try to change just the variables that you suspect.
And then monitor the change.
The first time I did this was to find out why I couldn't stay awake in the afternoon.
I wrote about this in my book, Had to Fail.
I would be fine and awake until about 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and then I couldn't even function.
I just couldn't even function for a few hours.
And I used to think it was because I had just eaten.
Have you ever heard that? You come back from lunch and everybody's, like, sort of tired, and you think it's because of what you ate and you're digesting, right?
Is that what you thought? Well, it turns out that only happens if you eat simple carbs.
So I stopped eating simple carbs, which I generally, in those days, I did have at least some for lunch.
And that's fine. If you take out the carbs, you don't get the crushing tiredness.
Now that was just for me.
Would that work for you?
I don't know. But my point is that my body and your body are not the same, so I have to do a test very methodically by changing variables and then measuring how things turn out.
So use that process.
It will change your life.
Now, I've described what we do here, this live stream, as a collective intelligence.
And by the way, I will get to the news.
There's lots of good news today.
And so yesterday I tested it.
I was bet $50 that I have ADHD. So I received a $50 bill in the mail, and I'm sure you're watching if you send it to me.
And the bet was that I could keep the $50 if I can prove I don't have ADHD, which was a hypothesis for why I was falling asleep on my laptop.
And so I asked the question to my Twitter followers, and I said, you've been watching me for a while.
Do you think I have ADHD? And the answer came a resounding, no, you definitely don't.
Especially from the people who actually have ADHD. The people who have it were very clear, you don't have it, because you've done too many things, they have deadlines.
I basically hit a deadline every day for 33 years.
There's no way in hell I have ADHD. But I do have concentration problems, but I think it has to do with how many things are going on.
All right. So do you all agree I don't have ADHD? But I want to add this little thought.
Imagine if you didn't have access to any medical professionals.
And the only thing you had is if you had a medical problem, you could go on some kind of live stream like I am and describe your symptoms.
And then the people on the live stream would say, oh, I had that same thing.
And my doctor said I had X. So go look into X. I solved the biggest medical problem I ever had without a doctor.
And it was because I searched around on Google until I found a victim.
So I found somebody who was suffering from the same voice problem, which I could quickly identify, because the way they talked was the way I tried to talk.
And as soon as I knew from the sufferer That they had the same thing I had?
I can say, I have the same thing.
It's definitely the same thing.
And it was. I got it confirmed later.
So it turns out that there was no doctor who could accurately diagnose my problem.
Until I knew what it was.
Once I had a name for it, then I could find the right doctor who knows what that name is.
And then they say, oh yeah, that's definitely it.
And there was no doubt about it once I had the name.
So how many medical problems could be solved by simply asking the public?
Now, I know what you're saying.
My God, that's going to get you killed because the public's going to recommend all manner of dangerous treatments, which they would.
But imagine you didn't have any health care.
It would be way better than nothing, wouldn't it?
Because lots of times the solutions are easy things that aren't going to hurt you.
Such as, don't eat simple carbs in the afternoon.
Well, just try it.
Or they might say, you know, you don't really know until you get this blood test.
Well, that would be one more thing you know.
Go get that blood test.
So, it could be very dangerous, but on the other hand, having watched how many times...
And by the way, I have also solved other people's medical problems just because they asked me.
And it's not because I'm a doctor.
It's because in some cases I had the same problem.
For example, my old tennis player years ago had horrible allergies, and so did I. But I'd made mine go away with Allegra.
Made a big difference. Not go away, but got it down to a manageable level.
And so I said to him, hey, why don't you try one of these over-the-counter things?
And then he did, and it solved one of his biggest problems in the world.
So, I know there are plenty of examples of doctorless cures, but somebody says, this is comedy gold.
Now, I'm aware that it would be risky, but it'd be interesting to test it.
If you could test it with some population, see if it helped.
But only if they don't have doctors.
So, Apple is changing their iMessage app Which is the thing that allows you to send a text message from an Apple user to another Apple user without using the network.
So it just goes through Apple's network.
And it looks just like a text message, but it goes through Apple's network.
And now the new operating system will allow you to edit your iMessage after it's been sent.
Do you see any problem with that?
You can edit your iMessage after it's sent.
I immediately said, how is that going to work for couples?
And it took me about five seconds to see a divorce attorney on Twitter say, uh-oh, now I have to warn all of my divorce clients never to use iMessage.
Right? Because half of what you can prove in any kind of dispute is some message that somebody sent.
Once you can edit those, the whole divorce world gets turned upside down.
So if you're in any kind of a sketchy divorce situation, make sure the other person isn't using iMessage.
Well, have I ever told you that Mark Twain once said that people can't tell the difference between good news and bad news.
And there's so many examples of that.
Once you hear that, you say, well, that's not true.
Obviously people can tell the difference between good news and bad news.
Those are opposites.
Who in the world would not be able to tell the difference between good news and bad news?
People. Let me give you an example.
The inflation rate just came out, and it's 8.3%.
Good news or bad?
Well, you could say it's bad news because it's so high.
Or you could say it's bad news because the experts thought it would be a little bit less.
So that would be bad news.
Or you could say it's good news because it's less than it was last year at this time.
So which is it? Is it good news because it's less than last year at this time?
Or is it bad news because we thought it would be less?
And bad news because it's high?
Well, let's see what the stock market thinks.
If the stock market is up, it's good news.
If the stock market is down, and the stock market is in the fucking toilet.
So the stock market decided it's bad news.
Do you know what I think it is?
Good news. I mean, I read it as good news.
Why? Because it's direction that matters.
So the stock market is judging it by where it is.
I'm judging it by direction.
The direction is it capped, and it's slightly going down.
Now, it might jiggle around there, but what is not happening is it's not going to 20%.
Do you know how scary that would be?
If it were going to 20%.
The fact that it didn't change much is some of the best economic news you've ever received in your life, and the entire stock market said, whoa, whoa, it's bad news!
Or they thought that other people would think it's bad news, so they're selling before the idiots do.
I don't know. But it's hard for me to imagine that everybody, you know, not everybody, thought this was unambiguously bad news.
It doesn't look like it to me.
To me, it looks like the beginning of the turnaround.
We'll see. Well, apparently right about now, Congress is talking to Mr.
Zetko, the Twitter security guy who quit Twitter, with some whistleblower complaints about their security.
How interesting is that going to be?
How much would you like to see the Republicans grill this Twitter whistleblower about security?
Oh, that's going to be good.
And you know what's interesting? I find this fascinating.
That Twitter, being a gigantic tech company, obviously they can hire the very best people.
And yet, the person who would know the most about their security says they have big security holes.
Now, isn't it interesting that Twitter, a giant tech company that can hire the best people that they want, is not doing as good a job as all 50 state election systems that are operating somewhat flawlessly?
But you wish that Twitter could ever reach the level of excellence of our 50 plus, plus, I get it.
I like to say 50, but I know it's 50 plus.
50 plus states or 50 plus, you know, places that they have elections.
So that's kind of remarkable that all those elections are done so well when Twitter can't do it.
I don't know. I don't know what to think about that.
I guess Twitter's got a problem.
Eddie Zipperer on Twitter tweeted something aggregated by RCP, Real Clear Politics, that of the final 74 generic congressional vote polls in 2020, all 74 overestimated the Democrats.
All 74.
Now, I think what it means is overestimated how many there are.
I'm not sure if it meant overestimated how they would vote.
I think it overestimated how many there were.
But what does it mean when all 74 errors are in the same direction?
I don't know. It could be that they were all fooled by the same data.
I mean, it could be just that.
But it certainly raises a flag.
Here's a dog not barking.
I love the dogs not barking stories because it makes you mad when you hear them.
Because you think, oh, why did I not notice that dog not barking?
Here's one you didn't notice barking.
Where's all the fact-checkers for Corrine Jean-Pierre, the spokesperson for Biden?
Where's all the fact-checking?
So Fox News looked into the fact-checking, said PolitiFact has done just two fact-checks while the others have done zero.
They just stopped fact-checking.
Right in front of us.
They just stopped fact-checking.
What do you think it would look like if they actually fact-checked her?
They can't do it.
Because remember, Biden's entire proposition was, I'll bring you honesty and less lying.
If the fact checkers debunk his entire reason for being before the next election, it's a bad look.
It's a bad look. Correction of myself.
So I'm going to correct myself.
Don't you like it when I do that?
Correct myself and tell you the error that I made.
All right? So I told you the other day that the 81 million votes for Biden could be completely explained by population growth.
And some of you said, I don't think so.
All of it? That could all be explained?
And the answer is no. No, it cannot all be explained.
The other big factor is increase in mail-in ballots.
And the increase in mail-in ballots was driven by, you know, Democrat funding and processes and a big push for it.
But between those two things, they do explain why there were 81 million votes.
Now, you might say, but those mail-in votes were fraudulent.
To which I say, that hasn't been demonstrated.
Hasn't been demonstrated.
I mean, I haven't checked them myself yet.
But there's no court that said that they were a whole bunch of frauds.
So there could be something in there about, let's say, gaming the system.
In other words, you know, doing something to get people who were marginal voters or weren't going to vote to vote with a little encouragement.
I don't know how much of that's illegal, how much is legal.
But probably that explains everything.
Probably the number of voters is just explained by that.
Two factors. But again, I'm not there, so I don't know for sure.
Did you see Russell Brand did a fairly major sort of correction, apology video?
Apparently he got taken in by the ivermectin story.
There were a number of prominent tweets that suggested that ivermectin was approved by the NIH. It wasn't.
It was on the list of things that they're testing, but not on the list of things approved.
Now, it was interesting to watch Russell Brand handle that error correction, because he embraced it fully, so fully that I think conservatives thought it was too far.
It was almost too much apology.
It's like, okay, we get it.
You made a mistake. You completely copped to it.
You don't have to keep saying it.
But he really stood on it.
Like, he really pushed that button as hard as you can push the button on his own error to make sure we knew that it was an error and that he was coming clean.
Now, I thought that was very interesting, because he's trying to carve out a place of credibility, which is what I've tried to do as well, which is why when I make a mistake as prominently as this one, I like to tell you about it.
Because if I don't, you're not really going to trust that I'm telling you what I really think.
So it helps to be inaccurate and admit it, because then people will trust you more when you say, but I'm sure this other stuff is right.
It just adds to your credibility.
So I would say that his credibility goes up because he was wrong.
What would you say? That's my take.
I would say his believability and his credibility goes up because he admitted he was wrong.
And it's interesting how...
How we all know that, but you don't see politicians doing it much.
And it must be the difference between if you're a politician, it dogs you forever, but if you're a media person, maybe once you do the apology correction, people go, oh, okay, you did what you can do.
So I think it's probably different with the political people.
Maybe the political people just should never apologize.
That's possible. Um...
So Fox News has made a big deal about this, and so has Tucker Carlson and some others on Fox News.
And I'm generally very reluctant to buy into a conspiracy theory.
But man, this one is starting to form up so solidly, it's hard for me.
I can't ignore that it exists as an allegation anymore, which is slightly different from saying I'm agreeing with it in full.
But the idea is that the Democrats intentionally, and intentionally is the part that I'm not entirely sure about, we can observe what happened, but it's the intentionality of it that I'm not entirely sure about.
That they imported the war on terrorism, because there wasn't enough external terrorism to keep them busy, I guess.
And they tried to turn it into domestic terrorism.
Hey, you've got a big domestic terrorism threat, so that they could keep intact their ability to monitor everybody, basically, and control you.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the Democrats are artificially pumping up the domestic terrorism threat so they can move the existing machinery from the external threat world to the domestic threat world with a good excuse and that then they can use those powers to really control the public and keep power?
So most of you are on board with that, right?
So do you believe that there was a meeting Where somebody had that conversation?
Like, actually, out loud, do you believe that they said that out loud?
If we can push this domestic terrorism thing, we can really get control of those Republicans.
It looks like it.
It looks like it.
Yeah, it does look like it.
If I had to bet on it, I'd say that there are enough people who are Democrats who have some control over this process that do think that Democrats are better off.
It feels likely that Democrats think that Democrats are better off with this situation.
But, you know, there are lots of different individuals who have lots of different complex thoughts.
I'm not entirely sure that the principal sat in one room and said, here's our plan.
We'll move the structure over to the domestic terrorism and then we'll really clamp down on the freedoms of the Republicans and then there's nothing they can do.
But they might have.
They might have.
I would not rule out that there was an actual meeting.
I usually do rule that out, but in this case, I can't rule it out.
It's within the realm of things we've seen before, right?
Would you grant me that it's within the realm of...
It wouldn't be on a character for the people involved.
It's completely in character.
Because after you've seen the Russia collusion thing, and after you've seen the Hunter Laptop 50 Intel officials, literally anything is on the table now.
There's nothing that you could say, well, that's out of bounds.
They're never going to go that far.
They created the Russia collusion hoax.
There's nowhere they won't go.
They'll go anywhere. The 50 people who signed off to say that the Hunter laptop was fake and it was Russia disinformation, they proved that they will do anything.
They must have known they were lying, some of them.
They proved they'll do anything.
You don't have to wonder anymore.
That's in evidence now.
They will do anything. Would they kill?
Do you think the Democrats would murder somebody if they could get away with it?
I think so. Yeah, I think so.
Now, of course, that's a horrible thing to say.
Yeah. Clapper called it the consensus community.
Yeah. I don't think they have that I know of, but I think at this point you'd have to put it in the option set.
So do you remember when Bannon told you that there were 30 raids on Trump supporters?
And did you think the 30 raids meant that they went inside the homes of 30 people?
And do you remember when I told you, no, that's too on the nose?
35, he said, whatever the number was.
35. Remember I told you it's too on the nose?
Turned out it was subpoenas.
So they may have been knocking on doors.
You know, to serve the paperwork, but they weren't going inside.
It was about paperwork.
However, that paperwork is pretty damn scary.
Because it turns out that they can use any fucking excuse to look at all of your personal information.
Let me say that again.
They're now demonstrating that they can use any excuse to look at all of your stuff.
And it appears that they're doing it purely for political punishment purposes.
It looks like they're creating a situation where supporting Trump means that all of your privacy will be lost in the future.
Right? If you were a Trump advisor and you were to start tomorrow, wouldn't you know that all of your private information would become public?
It would. Would you work for Trump knowing that all of your communications that have to do with anything will become public, or at least the legal system will see them?
I wouldn't. Working for Trump would be ridiculous.
They have so polluted the well that I would never take a drink out of that well.
No way. Now, I also feel targeted.
I've told you that before.
Now, I'm not part of the inner circle, so it's not like messages...
I'm not sending any messages to Trump directly or indirectly, unless he sees them in the media.
So I feel like I'm far enough away from his circle that I won't necessarily lose all of my privacy.
What do you think? Do you think I'm close enough to the inner circle, having no official role whatsoever, but do you think I'm close enough to the inner circle that the government can ask for all of my private communications?
I think they can.
Because all they have to demonstrate is that I had a conversation with somebody who was, right?
True or false, all you would have to demonstrate is that I had communication with people who were involved.
That's it. Because they only need to look at the other person's communication.
Have I ever tweeted at anybody or DM'd anybody who was on that list?
Well, I'm not going to tell you.
But not about this topic.
I can say for sure...
That I'm not aware of anything on this topic.
I'm also going to surprise you by saying something that you're not going to believe.
Prior to January 6th, I didn't really know anything about it.
I didn't know there was going to be any ugliness.
I may have heard there was going to be a protest, but it would have just been noise.
It wouldn't have caught my attention.
So I didn't even know January 6th was going to happen.
As it was happening, I was sort of Partly paying attention.
So, I just want to say publicly, if you look at all my private communication, there won't be anything on there about me knowing about any kind of January 6th business.
I can guarantee that there won't be anything there.
Now, is that the reason that they're doing it?
Do you think the reason they're asking for the communication is so they can find stuff?
I don't. I don't.
I think so nobody will work for Trump.
That's what I think. Now, they might find something, so they might have some hope, but I don't think they expect to find anything.
At this point, don't you think they already know that it wasn't planned as an insurrection?
At this point, they know it wasn't planned to be an insurrection.
They know exactly what it was.
If they find more email, it would just be people talking.
Maybe we should do this or maybe we should do that.
But what actually happened is pretty well known at this point.
So I do expect that they're going to come for me if I keep saying anything positive about Trump getting elected.
What do you think? Let me put this to the collective intelligence here.
Do you think they're going to come for me?
They, meaning, let's say, the Democrat media?
It would be mostly the media, not the legal system.
I think so. I think so.
How do you think they'll do?
If they come after me, do you think it's going to work?
Do you think they will succeed?
Well, they'll succeed with their base, meaning they will discredit me with their base, but I'm already discredited with their base, so it makes no difference.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Unless I'm cancelled from all platforms, they have a problem.
So I'm going to make sure I don't get cancelled from all platforms.
Because that does keep me safe.
Basically, you know what keeps me safe?
Is you. Because it would cause too much of a ruckus if they came at me illegitimately.
So I do depend on you to keep me out of jail, basically.
All right. Speaking of guns, I saw somebody mentioning guns.
Visa is going to start categorizing gun purchases separately.
Now, I didn't even read that article.
I just read the title, and I said, what?
Visa's going to categorize gun purchases separately.
Why would they do that?
Unless it's step one.
Why would they? Right?
Unless it's step one.
Yeah. Your gun rights are basically toast at this point.
If they make it hard, and I think the public will do this, if it becomes too hard for a visa to stay in business, if they also service gun buyers, they're going to have to make a change.
And I think there'll be pressure on the banks and the financing entities to not support gun sellers and gun buyers.
Now, you won't even be able to do it cash only, because the gun seller will lose their You know, insurance, and they won't be able to transact business.
Yeah, if the government wants to really stop guns, it's going to go after the financial element.
And it looks like this change by visa is sort of foreshadowing that that might be happening.
Yeah. So, I don't know.
I'd watch out for that. The other day, I foresaw my own death.
Which might sound weird to you, but here's some context.
Every major element of my life I've seen in advance.
Now, I can't explain it, but I do remember, for example, my senior year of college, I woke up from asleep, sat upright in my bed, and saw myself in San Francisco.
I had no connection to San Francisco whatsoever.
I hadn't been there. I didn't know anybody who lived there.
It didn't have a special attraction to me.
There was literally nothing about San Francisco that said I should be there.
But I woke up and I just saw myself there.
A random city out of all the cities in the United States.
One day I went to my economics advisor.
And I said, I'm thinking of working, you know, maybe in the banking industry.
Where should I work?
He said, there's one bank that's really doing a lot more in technology, so that's the one you want to go work with.
It's really happening. It's called Crocker Bank, and their headquarters is in San Francisco.
Now, I was in New York when I heard this.
So that was number one.
I was like, really?
Really. And he didn't give me two recommendations.
He gave me exactly one.
One recommendation of where to work, and their headquarters was in San Francisco, the place I'd seen.
Now, was that enough?
Was that enough to get me to San Francisco?
It was not. It was not.
I came to California, and I stayed with my brother in the LA area, and got a job at Union Bank that had nothing to do with San Francisco.
So I get a job, and I'm going to start on Monday at Union Bank.
I get a call from an ex-girlfriend, and she says, you're in California?
You should come visit me for the weekend.
I'm in San Francisco.
So I flew up for the weekend, and she said, you don't want to work and live in L.A., L.A. is terrible.
You want to live and work in Northern California.
So I said, but I have a job.
Like, I don't have any money, but I have a job there, so I've got to go back and get money.
And she said, well, why don't you try to get a job here?
And I said, well, I brought my plane ticket, blah, blah.
I said, I'll tell you what. I'll try to get a job on Monday in San Francisco.
If I get a job on Monday, like my one day that I try, I'll live here.
So I walked into Crocker Bank in San Francisco, downtown San Francisco, and I stood in line at the teller, you know, for a teller, like a customer.
And I got up to the line and said, I'm looking for a job.
Can I work here?
And the teller said, just a minute.
Went and got a supervisor.
The supervisor talked to me for five minutes and hired me.
And I lived in San Francisco.
I'm still in the Bay Area.
Now, I saw that as clearly as I can look at these monitors in front of me.
I can't explain it.
I have no explanation for that.
I also saw one day the home I would be living with, not in San Francisco.
So I saw past San Francisco to a home that I'd never seen, but I saw in great detail.
There were some glass doors out to a swimming pool area.
It was a nice sitting area, you know, just off the pool.
One day, my longtime girlfriend and I at the time, after Dilbert started getting big, started looking for what would become my first, you know, high-end house.
I was in a little condo at the time.
And we looked at house after house, and all of them were like, eh, eh.
And then one day we walked into a house, and it was that fucking house.
It was that house.
It was the house I saw.
And I stood there in that room, and I looked down at the pool, and I turned to my girlfriend at the time, and I said, this is our house.
And she said, you know, I like it too, but she loved it too.
Which was important, because it was the only one that we both liked.
But it was a very competitive market then, and people were offering above asking price.
So I said, all right, here's the offer I'm going to make, and it was lower than you would have thought.
I forget if it was above asking price or not, but it was well lower than what I think both the broker and my girlfriend thought I should offer.
And I said, don't worry about it.
We live in this house.
That's our house. You don't even have to worry about how we get there, because we're already there.
I made an offer.
My girlfriend went crazy because it wasn't high enough, and somebody else was going to get that house.
It was the only one she liked.
We got the house, and we lived there for years.
One day, In college also, I woke up and saw myself standing in front of a huge audience.
And I didn't know why, but the audience was there for me.
And I didn't know what my function was, but I knew that I was owning them.
I knew that the audience was being entertained or enlightened or something.
Now, at the time, I had no career ambitions that had anything to do with talking in front of an audience.
I didn't have any public ambitions.
I just thought I'd be working in a business somewhere.
One day, I became a public speaker.
The crowds got bigger and bigger until one day, 5,000 people in the room.
And I stood in front of 5,000 people, ready to do my thing.
And I thought, damn it, I saw this.
I always wondered why, but I saw it.
Now, when I say I saw these visions, I don't mean like I had a dream.
These are awake, totally awake.
But it pops into my mind, and it's not like an imaginary thing.
It doesn't feel like a memory.
It doesn't feel like I concocted it.
It's like I'm looking like I had a photograph, and I can just see it.
Same with cartooning.
I saw it. And every day when I wasn't a cartoonist, I would walk out to my mailbox and I would check my mailbox and I would be puzzled because something lucky hadn't happened yet to make me a famous cartoonist.
And then one day I walked out to my mailbox and there was a letter from a cartoonist.
Who I'd asked for some advice a year before, and he'd given me some advice.
And I'd taken his advice, but I sent him some samples, and they got rejected, and I just quit.
And a year later, he sends me a letter and said, I was cleaning my office, came across your samples you sent a year ago, and just wanted to make sure you hadn't quit.
And I had quit. And because of his letter, I took my materials back out of the closet, started back in, and Dilbert was born.
So my whole life, I knew my mailbox was the beginning of my cartoon career.
And it was. It was.
I can't explain it.
In 2016, when Trump announced I've given you a tremendous number of reasons why I thought he would become president, like his persuasion skill, etc.
Let me tell you the real reason.
Those are not the real reasons.
I always give them as my reasons.
They're not the real reasons. I don't give the real reason because it's not believable.
Here's the real reason.
I saw it. I saw it.
When he ran for re-election...
I predicted that he would win again.
I didn't see it. I didn't see it at all.
To me, the real election was just as opaque as everybody else.
I mean, I had opinions, I had thoughts, but I didn't see it.
His first election?
I saw it. I just saw it.
I have always wondered about my own death.
And I've also been thinking recently about whether I should move, whether I should sell my house, because I'd always planned that this would be the house that I would die in.
I mean, that's why there's an elevator, and that's why it's built so you don't have to leave it, like even if you're on house arrest.
And the other day, while completely awake, I saw my death.
Now, I didn't see the cause, but it looks like natural.
Because I saw the scene of approximately the time of my death.
I saw where I was, which is in this house, by the way.
So I will die in this house.
So now I know that I don't sell it, because otherwise I wouldn't be here to die.
I don't know when.
It might not be that far from now.
But because in the scene, the...
The scene looked modern day.
Now, it's going to look modern day for a long time, because the house doesn't change, but that was my death.
Now, I was also pretty okay with it.
I was okay with it.
I was at peace. Not only seeing it, but probably as it happened, or as it will happen.
Now, I'm not going to tell you what else was around it, because that part you're going to have to wait.
But there's something else around it.
But you'll wait for that.
Anyway, we'll see if that comes to pass.
So if anybody is younger than me, and someday in the future, you hear that I passed, find out if I was in this house.
It's going to freak you the fuck out.
Because I will be. Well, it looks like the Democrats have a two-pronged strategy that I have to say is brilliant.
And I mean that. It's really, really strong.
And the two parts are this.
They're going to reframe election skeptics to look like traitors.
Already done, right?
Already done. And then they're going to make sure that the election looks as sketchy as possible.
Then, they can punish everybody who says that it was sketchy.
So they can get their sketchy election and punish the people who found out or were complaining about it.
It's kind of brilliant.
They've actually set it up so all the components are in place.
As long as they have the DOJ. It's kind of brilliant.
They can just put in jail anybody they want for complaining at this point.
Do you know what the people in Hong Kong are doing?
To protest. They're holding up blank pieces of paper.
Do you know why? Because in China, if you put a protest on a sign and hold it up, you're going to go to jail.
But if you hold up a blank piece of paper, not yet illegal.
So they're actually protesting by holding up blank pieces of paper.
They're also doing that, I believe...
In Great Britain, relative to the Queen's funeral, right?
I believe that's where it started, actually.
I think they held up blank pieces of paper, because they couldn't...
Some people held up paper that said, not my Queen, or something like that.
And then that was actually illegal.
So, this holding up of blank pieces of paper, I feel like this is coming to America.
Because our ability to speak out about things that look sketchy to us is shrinking daily.
And I don't know how, no matter what happens in the next elections, the next two elections, I worry that the people who have the most doubt about that are gonna get cancelled.
I think they're gonna get cancelled.
So, and here's my question.
If we know that the mail-in ballots are gonna be the big variable, Why are Republicans not doing more about mail-in ballots?
Like, to get more Republicans to use them so that they'll get more votes.
and gather them and do every mule thing that the Democrats do that's legal.
legal.
So, I have to look at that comment.
All right.
So that's what's happening.
It looks like the elections are...
All elections look sketchy if you're on the losing side, right?
Famously, the Democrats thought that the 2016 election was stolen because they lost.
Surprise. So what do we do about that?
Like we as a country, not as a Republican.
But what do you do about the fact that the Democrats have set this perfect trap?
You can't question elections without being an insurrectionist or a traitor, and then the elections will in fact be non-transparent.
At least not completely transparent.
Well, if the...
Let me say it directly.
If the Republicans don't go nuts on mail-in ballots and, like, really put all of their energy into getting Republicans to vote with mail-in ballots or any other way, well, they deserve the loss.
Because you know the game.
You know what it takes to win.
If you know what it takes to win and you don't win, that's on you.
All right. So Joel Pollack was reporting in Breitbart that the DOJ is refusing to release Biden administration plan to intervene in the 2022 election.
What? What?
Now, Joel uses the word intervene, which is technically correct, but apparently they have some kind of plan, in their words, to improve the integrity of the election.
But wouldn't you like to see that plan?
What does it look like when Democrats want to improve the integrity of the election?
That is so sketchy.
Oh wait, I can't say it's sketchy.
Because I'll be labeled a traitor and then cancelled.
Totally appropriate. They can hide it if they want.
Go ahead and hide that stuff.
It's okay with me. So yeah, that's the sketchiest thing in the world.
Hmm. Hmm.
I'm going to tease this, but I can't give you the details yet.
I've seen the details, but it's embargoed until a little later.
But Rasmussen is going to give you some poll results pretty soon that show the priorities of the media versus the priorities of the voters.
Do you think they line up?
Do you think the priorities of the citizens are similar to the priorities of the media?
What do you think citizens care the most about?
Eating. Eating.
Basically, economic issues dominate citizens.
So economic issues are everything from inflation to blah, blah, blah, blah.
Gas prices.
What would the media think was the sexiest story?
Do you think the media wants to tell you your inflation is 8.3 every day?
It's not very interesting.
Well, so the media likes things that blow up and are sexy.
So it likes foreign wars, it likes climate change, it likes, you know, Issues of fairness and equity and stuff like that.
So yeah, there's no correlation between what the public wants and what the media thinks of the top stories.
Surprise! Here's what I think is Trump's primary problem.
I think he violated an unwritten agreement that you don't threaten to put in jail your competitor when you're running for office.
And he directly told Hillary Clinton he would put her in jail if he were president.
He said it in public, to her face.
Now, I'd forgotten about this.
But there was a memo or an email that we do know about that was sent in October of 2016 from Clinton to Donna Brazile, I think was her campaign manager, and this is what Hillary said, quote, if that effing bastard wins, meaning Trump, we're all going to hang from nooses.
You better fix this.
Fix this? You better fix this?
Is that how you talk to a campaign manager?
Fix it doesn't sound like the right word, does it?
I feel like we need to change our strategy, or we need to go harder against it, or we need to rethink what we're doing, or we need to work harder, or we need to have more events.
But who says fix it?
Fix it suggests there's a lever to pull, as in actually fixing it.
Right? Yeah, it's a little bit mob boss.
You know, they always say that about Trump, and I make fun of them for saying that.
So I'm not going to say the mob boss thing, but you can see how somebody would say that about this.
Now, here's my take.
Who would do the Russia collusion hoax?
Who would do that?
I mean, that is such a risky play, especially when you get caught, and they did.
Who would do that?
Well, who would do it if somebody was afraid of going to jail?
So it feels like the Russia collusion thing was sort of a...
to put pressure on Trump to get him out of there, or at least discredit him in case he came after Hillary.
I feel like everything...
That's being aimed at Trump is all because he threatens to put Democrats in jail.
What do you think? And I think if he had not said he was going to drain the swamp and put people in jail, that there wouldn't be nearly as much pushback against him.
Because I don't think it's about policies.
It's also about policies, but I don't think that's what's really happened.
I think he broke the unwritten rule by saying he would literally put Hillary in jail.
Now, I don't know if he meant it, but I do think that everybody at that level has broken enough laws that they could go to jail.
So she may have broken a law we don't even know about.
Now, it's my opinion that all billionaires are If they have complicated businesses, they're all bending a law up somewhere.
So if you look hard enough, you're going to find something for anybody who has a complicated life, I think.
And it may not even be intentional.
It could be accidental. But I think that was Trump's big error, is literally making it about jail for the loser.
As soon as you make it...
If you tell me you're going to put me in jail if I lose, what am I going to do to win?
Anything. Yeah, let me say that clearly.
If you threaten me credibly with going to jail if I lose the election, there's nothing I won't do to win the election.
I would cheat. To stay out of jail, of course.
I would cheat like a motherfucker.
I would cheat like you've never seen cheating.
And would I feel bad about it?
Nope. Nope.
I would not feel bad about it if I were keeping myself out of jail.
So that's the situation we're in.
Did you see there was some video, I guess, Trump allegedly was going golfing, but then went out on the golf course with, I guess, Hannity and some other high-end people.
And it looked like maybe a strategy conversation, and he just needed to go where he couldn't be observed.
So something's brewing in Trump world.
Probably something to do with his announcement, I would guess.
So Hannity, on his program last night, did a live scroll while he was talking of all the legal allegations against Trump.
Now his point was that there's so many of them that it's obviously a ridiculous effort to just get them any way they can.
Now the Democrats look at it and say, oh my God, this backfired, Hannity.
What you did was show a list of all of Trump's crimes.
Two movies, one screen.
Right. So if you're a Democrat, you see Hannity admitting all these crimes of Trump.
That's what you see. If you're a Republican, you see that there's so many of them that they're obviously ridiculous.
Like, even if you imagine one was true, or even more than one was true, it's obvious that most of them are not because of the sheer quantity of them.
I mean, he couldn't break that many laws unless he had, you know, 25 hours in a day.
So, when I look at it, I go, oh yeah, that's pretty convincing that that's bullshit.
And they look at it and say, well, look at all those crimes.
So here's a-- well, there's a question for me.
So, it's illegal to incite people to riot.
I'm not sure I knew that before this January 6th business.
Did you know that? It's illegal to incite people to riot.
Now, I did 10 seconds of research to find out that The situation in which it would be illegal is very tightly described.
But there's still some wiggle room there.
And the tight description is the riot has to be imminent, not a conceptual riot, right?
So it would not be illegal, I think.
I think. It would not be illegal for me to say, hey, you guys should go start a riot.
Because there's no imminent riot.
It would just be me talking.
That would just be free speech.
But if there's one forming, like you can see a riot forming, and then you say, hey, pick up those bricks and throw them at those people, then I guess that's incitement.
Right? So you're telling somebody to do a dangerous thing in the context of something that is literally, obviously dangerous.
And then you're getting them to do something even more dangerous.
Like Ray Raps, yeah.
So my question is this.
This is a weird legal standard, isn't it?
Since when am I responsible for your crimes?
Because that's what this is.
This is me talking about you committing the crime, and I'm not hiding anything from you.
In this case, there's no fraud involved.
I'm just saying, I think you should pick up that brick and do something bad with it.
Right in the middle of this thing that looks like a riot forming.
It seems to me that everybody is being influenced by somebody.
You could always find out who influenced you, who incited you.
If your spouse does something terrible and then you punch them, and here we'll make it either gender, either way, so it's not about men beating up women, it's just about domestic violence, either way.
So if somebody hits a spouse, Do you get to say, yes, I hit my spouse, but look at how my spouse incited me.
My spouse said, look, hit me, hit me, go ahead, hit me, and then did these terrible things, and I wasn't going to, but I got incited into doing it.
Now, that wouldn't work at all, right?
That's not a argument.
So where does free will come in?
At what point does your free will Which I don't think exists, so that's another question.
But how do you have a legal system that sometimes says it's completely your fault, but in this case, this one case, it says, well, it's also the other person's fault who gave you the idea.
I'm not sure it should ever be illegal to give somebody an idea.
What do you think about that?
Now, it would mean that people who incited riots would go free.
And I'm accepting that as the cost of getting rid of it.
I don't think people should ever be going to jail for words.
Now, if the words are yelling, you know, fire in the theater, okay.
Because your words cause the damage.
If you say something untrue about somebody and it damages them, okay.
But those are really direct damage, and it's your words that are doing it.
But if your words cause somebody else to do the crime, And they know it's a crime?
No. I have a problem with that being illegal at all.
Here's a Ukraine update.
So Russia knocked out power in a bunch of places.
I think there's some water facilities that might have been at risk too.
Ukraine is still having battlefield victories, but we don't know if they're substantial yet.
It's possible that everything that they're reclaiming is the stuff that Russia didn't care that much about, and they just reinforced the stuff they care about, and maybe it's a big nothing in the end.
We'll find out. But the fact that Russia knocked out Ukraine's power stations, their domestic power stations, suggests that Russia was out of options.
Do you feel that?
That going after the citizens so directly, because Russia was trying to get some influence on Ukraine that would be lasting.
And you don't get lasting influence if you directly attack citizens.
You want to go after the military only.
But attacks on the power station is an attack directly on the citizens.
Is that the first time they've directly attacked citizens?
No. You know, indirectly, because it's turning their power off.
Have they directly attacked citizens?
Well, they have shelled...
I don't believe the story is about shelling schools and shelling hospitals, because usually there's a military facility in there that's intentionally trying to draw some fire.
So I don't believe all those.
But they have shelled population centers.
They've also pulled back from it, so it didn't go too far.
So here's my point.
I think that Putin is signaling that he can't simply win militarily on the ground where the battles are.
It looks like he had to do something to show that he still had strength, but the only thing he could do was something that was sort of in a different domain.
It's like he's given up this domain.
Because all Putin would have to do is push back the Ukrainians in one part of their counteroffensive.
And then the whole narrative changes.
Putin only needs one minor victory in all of this counteroffensive going on, just one victory, to show that the Ukrainians can be defeated.
And instead, instead of producing one victory, he sent off these expensive missiles and attacked the residents, citizens of Ukraine.
To me, that demonstrates he's out of options.
Now, are you worried about a nuke?
Tactical nuke? Here's my opinion.
You can't ever nuke your own country.
You can't nuke your own country.
His entire argument is that Ukraine is basically owned by Russia.
That's his argument. You can't nuke your own country.
You cannot nuke your own country.
Now, unless you're crazy.
Now, I can't rule out crazy, but you can't nuke your own country.
You can't.
Not and expect anything good to come out of it.
Because the nuclear fallout will just sit there, like, close to forever.
How can you manage a country Where you just nuked part of it.
You can't manage that country.
It's over. It's game over.
You nuke your own country, or the one that you call your own country, you don't stay leader.
I don't see that Putin would take that chance, unless he's crazy.
Now, shall I confess a blind spot?
My blind spot was I didn't think he would attack Ukraine in the first place.
And I said that publicly a number of times.
Even when he had amassed huge forces on the border, I still said, no, it would be suicide.
He's not going to do that unless he's crazy.
And then he did it.
Now, I thought he was crazy because I thought the Ukrainians would do a much better job militarily than apparently the military thought.
So I thought it was crazy on the surface.
But apparently most of our military didn't think it was crazy.
They thought Putin would take over Ukraine in days.
So maybe Putin thought the same thing.
So he wasn't crazy for invading Ukraine because he was operating under the same information that both sides were, which is that it would be somewhat easy.
It just wasn't.
But when you talk about nuking your own country...
Which is what Putin would say of Ukraine, that it's all part of Russia.
That's not something that you could be fooled by somebody else's opinion, right?
So I think Putin was a little bit fooled by the fact that even his enemies thought he would succeed.
If your enemies think you'll succeed, that's a pretty good endorsement for going ahead.
But there's literally no one who thinks Putin would be better off Or could even find advantage with a nuclear tactical nuke.
I just don't see it.
But keep in mind, I was wrong on a very, very big Putin prediction that he wouldn't invade.
So you have to put that in my balance.
When you're weighing my credibility on Putin, you should weigh in mind how wrong I was on that one thing.
But also why it was wrong.
So there was a small story that I think is a big story.
There was a story about a citizen in the Russian-occupied area who, when the Russian troops took over, one of the Russian soldiers came over to one of the Ukrainians and said something like, well, we liberated you from the Nazis.
And then the Ukrainian citizen, he's the one telling the story, he said, can you point to one?
Where are the Nazis that you liberated us from?
Because we don't see any.
And then the soldier was confused.
And then the citizen explained that he said to the soldier, you see that house that you just destroyed?
That was a Russian's house.
He just moved here from Russia.
You just destroyed a Russian citizen's house.
And then he basically started laying the guilt on him.
Now imagine being that Russian soldier when you thought you were there for a reason.
Then once you won, you had some casual contact with the locals.
And the locals say, what the fuck did you just do?
Imagine being 22 and having a 45-year-old Ukrainian citizen...
Come up to you and say, you little stupid piece of shit.
You've been completely fooled.
You're over here killing us and you don't even fucking know why.
Show me a Nazi.
Show me one Nazi. You just killed my son.
You just killed half of this fucking village, you little piece of shit.
We're Russians. We're you.
I mean, we're not Russians, but we're basically the same people.
You don't even know why you're here.
Right? Isn't the conversation gonna go like that?
The Ukrainians are not gonna be going after the Russian soldiers with just hate.
Hate wouldn't get it done.
They're gonna go after them with empathy.
Empathy gets it done.
You know why? Because everybody has empathy for themselves.
And the Ukrainians are the Russians, effectively.
They're not Russia. They would like to have their own identity.
But when they're standing there talking to each other, they're the same fucking people.
And they know it.
When they're talking to each other, they're the same people.
And they can't understand why they're there.
So I think that the weakness in the Russian military is because the locals shamed them out of fighting.
I believe the locals have shamed the soldiers out of fighting.
I think that's going to be the big story.
Not necessarily the mothers.
I think it's going to be the fathers.
Because when I heard about what this one Ukrainian said to this one soldier, and, you know, this may be exaggerated or something, but this would be devastating.
Put yourself in the head of the soldier.
You've just been like, you risked your life, you've been killing people, maybe you saw some atrocities, and then you conquer it, and the people you conquered say, why are you even doing this?
We're not your enemies.
Why are you even here? We are you.
So I imagine it would be pretty devastating to morale at this point.
That's my take on that.
Have you ever wondered about why reparations haven't gone further in terms of a policy?
Have you ever wondered about that?
Because there are a lot of things that I thought wouldn't go very far but did.
Climate change. You know, the CRT stuff.
There's a lot of stuff I think, well, that's not going to go very far.
And then it just goes all the way and becomes a law sometimes.
But reparations haven't really gone anywhere, have they?
I have a theory. Why?
Would you like to hear the theory?
Of course you would.
It's because once you handed it to economists, everything would blow up.
Because economists, you know, unless they're totally in the bag for one political party, are just going to look at it and compare it to things and be objective.
Here's how that conversation would go.
All right. Let's take our precedence.
First precedent is there were reparations for Japanese interned prisoners during World War II. Now, I have a closeness to that topic because I've personally known people who were in those camps.
And I knew them well.
Like, they're people I associated with a lot.
They were the older relatives of my ex, my first ex.
And they were actually in the camps.
I was alive, and so were you.
Many of you were alive while there are still living American citizens of Japanese descent, American citizens who were in prison camps just for their ethnicity.
In your life, in your life, they're still alive.
Now, the ones I knew, I don't know if they're all alive.
At least one of them would be young enough to still be alive.
Some of the other ones, I think, have aged down since then.
Yeah, George Takei was in the one.
Now, they got reparations.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, I need a fact check on this, the only people who got reparations were people still alive.
The people still alive.
There were no reparations to descendants.
Maybe there should have been.
But there weren't. So in terms of precedent, there were reparations for living people have happened.
Now, there are no living people who are slaves.
So the first reason for reparations, they're still alive, that goes away.
So then you're just down to a pure economic argument about systemic racism and actual racism and how much of an economic disadvantage that caused.
Here's how that calculation would go.
First, you'd say, how much did black people lose, however you want to count that, because of slavery?
So how would you calculate how much they lost because of slavery?
Well, I have a degree in economics, so I'll give you a starter.
You first have to compare it to something.
So the first thing I would compare it to is the people who stayed in Africa and did not become slaves.
So you say, how is their economic situation today?
You compare it to the average black American who did descend from slaves.
If the blacks who stayed in Africa and did not become slaves were making millions of dollars a year and the average black American was not, you'd say, well, there's a good argument.
You know, if we left them in their natural habitat, they'd be millionaires just like the ones they left behind.
But if the Americans are actually better off the descendants of slavery than the people who are the descendants of people who are not slaves, In the same area, the same country, whatever.
Then the argument would be that there's no reparations.
But that's not all.
You would also have to say what has happened relevant to it all.
Now, one of the problems with the systemic racism is that it pushes or, let's say, incentivizes some amount of crime In the population that's disadvantaged.
So wouldn't you have to also add in the amount that was transferred from white people to black descendants of slaves through crime?
And that's a pretty big number.
It was estimated up to $2.6 trillion per year just in the United States.
$2.6 trillion.
So what you do is first you'd You'd calculate how much white people have stole from black citizens, which is a lot.
It's probably billions. Then you'd calculate how much have black citizens stolen from white citizens, and then you'd take the difference, see which one's bigger.
See where I'm going?
You couldn't possibly calculate anything...
Let's say rationally and responsibly without opening up so many cans of worms that you couldn't handle the blowback.
If you were to look at it objectively, nothing would be owed.
If you looked at it objectively, nothing would be owed.
That's why you can't do the calculation.
Because it works as a talking point and as a political point, but if you actually tried to calculate it, It would be very embarrassing.
It would be very embarrassing.
Because it wouldn't work out the way anybody's expecting it to.
Now, I'm saying this as somebody who is very experienced in financial calculations and predictions and stuff.
It's what I did for a living.
Now, find me an economist who disagrees with what I just said There's your challenge.
My belief is that anybody with an economics background is going to see the same pitfalls that I see.
Maybe a few more. They might even see a few more.
But you can't take that to actually law and calculation because if you did, it would reveal something you don't want to reveal.
It would sort of blow the story out of the water.
Well, Germany is in trouble with power, as you know.
And they're still planning to shut down a nuclear reactor.
Do you know what the German citizens are doing because they know that they might run out of gas coming in from Russia?
What would you do? If your home is heated by gas and you know you might run out, what would you do?
Tell you what I'd do.
I'd go to Amazon.com and I'd order myself a nice electric heater.
You know, the kind that you plug in and it heats one room.
Just in case. Now what happens when a gigantic number of Germans buy electric heaters just in case?
Because that happened.
That's happening right now.
The Germans are buying electric heaters as fast as you can buy an electric heater.
Now what happens when they plug them all in?
Well, at least they don't have to use that gas they can't get from Putin, but then they're going to have to use the electricity that they don't have because they closed their nuclear plant.
So watch out for your unintended consequences.
I think Germany's going to muddle through.
I think they'll recover.
They'll find a way to sustain in the long run.
But it's going to be an ugly season.
Alright. I'd like to just show you my homework that I'll be working on.
This is my drum pattern that I'll be learning today.
That people plugging in their electric cars all at the same time will be impossible because it would be too much of a drain on, let's say, California's grid.
But, aren't we missing an opportunity here?
Here's what I think.
Imagine an electric car in every garage in California.
Just hypothetically.
Now imagine that we still have a power problem.
Still power problem.
Now imagine that your electric car, when you go home at night, it's still got some power in it, that you drive home at night, let's say it's 6pm.
From 4 to 9pm is your peak electric usage hours.
So you come home around 6, plug in your car, but your car...
It's used as a power source.
So instead of powering it between the critical times, you use whatever's left in it to power your house.
And maybe that's enough to limp through until 9 o'clock, and then you recharge your car.
Now, that only works if you're not going to use your car, right?
But you know if you're going to use your car.
Like, you usually know by...
And also, you don't have to drain the whole car.
Maybe you could drain your car down to 20% capacity.
And 20% would get you to the grocery store and back.
You wouldn't have to worry about anything.
But am I missing something, or are we ignoring the fact that if everybody had a Tesla, just as one example, everybody would have a pretty substantial backup battery sitting in their house?
Yeah, so everybody would be charging at the same time, but if they're doing it in the evening, It's not going to be that big a deal.
You have to charge it first.
Yeah, you have to get it going, of course.
Now, I also saw a scary calculation that said that if we wanted to build all these electric cars, it's not possible because there are not enough reserves of rare minerals anywhere in the world to be even close to the number of cars we need because of the batteries.
Do you believe that? Do you believe, smart people are saying this, that the total known, you know, that we could commercialize, is nowhere near, it's like, I don't know, 5% of what you would need to have enough electric cars to make a difference.
Yeah. I'm going to go with I think they'll figure it out.
I told you there are ten battery companies right now that are making batteries, at least one of them, with no rare materials.
So that might be the only change.
The only change might be that the existing batteries turn into a different kind of battery.
It could be. Illegal gang threats.
Are there illegal gang threats going on?
Cernovich tweeted, somebody says.
I don't know about that.
They recommend outdoor charging in case of fire.
I wish they would let the market decide.
Well, I think the market is going to decide on electric cars because they already sold enough of the market on climate change.
And I don't know how many of you have ever driven a Tesla, but I haven't, by the way.
But I've been in them.
I haven't driven them. My understanding is that once you drive one, you say to yourself, well, this is the best car I ever had.
That's what I hear. So that would be the reason that people get them.
In California, the reason that people drive a Tesla is it's the best car.
Did you know that? So where I am, there's Teslas everywhere.
I mean, we're just swimming in Teslas.
If I walk outside, there's a Tesla going to drive by.
But the reason people have it is the same reason Californians mostly have iPhones, right?
In California, it's rare to find somebody who doesn't have an iPhone, an Apple laptop, and a Tesla, or at least one of those things, right?
And the reason that all three of those are purchased is that they're the best ones that people think they can buy.
Like, there's nothing better than a Mac laptop.
There's nothing better than an iPhone.
There are things that are roughly as good, but there's nothing better.
And there's nothing better than a Tesla.
Like, you can get your Mercedes, but if you're sitting in your Mercedes and somebody pulls up with a new Tesla, there might be a difference in the cost.
Not that much, actually.
But there might be a difference in the cost, but I don't think the Tesla person is looking over at the Mercedes and saying, ah, Wish I could have one of those.
That's not happening. The Tesla is the more desirable car.
For techies especially.
So the technical people are totally geeking out on the engineering of it.
So if you're really into good engineering, I guess that's another reason to have a Tesla.
Or a German car.
Yeah, it's sort of a status and I care and all that, yeah.
All right. I believe I've delivered the finest entertainment you've ever had in an hour and 24 minutes.
I don't think there's anything that could be better than what you've just exhibited.
I don't have the Mustang anymore, to answer your question.
That was always for my stepdaughter, so that's her car.
