Episode 1868 Scott Adams: Find Out Why Republicans and Democrats Are Different
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Immigrants shipped to Martha's Vineyard
Biden trots out Fine People HOAX again
Ukraine war update
Christianity + free markets work really well together
Gigantic, obvious republican mistakes
Republican policy reframes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 one of the highlights of your entire life and I think it'll be special for me too.
If you think that yesterday was good, well ha ha ha on you.
Today, even better.
And wait for tomorrow. Tomorrow?
Oh! Tomorrow's going to be amazing!
But let's think about that while we have a cupper mug or a glass of tanker gel, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind that we will fill with our favorite liquids.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's coming at you now.
Go. Ah.
It's like knowledge and love all in the same sip.
You can barely tell which is the knowledge and which is the sip.
Well, I was happy yesterday watching on The Five as Greg Gottfeld was...
Talking about, and I think, didn't Trump say something about this?
That the only way to handle the homeless problem is to get them out of the cities.
There's plenty of space.
There must be government land, there must be a farmer who wouldn't mind using the land, and just let them camp.
Because the public is largely not under the impression Well, the public largely thinks that the problem is they don't have a house.
But the real problem is they don't want to be in a house.
So let them live the life they want to live.
Do their drugs, sleep in tents, and let them have the life they want, but away from the people who want a different life.
And it made me wonder, is that where we're heading with Democrats and Republicans?
Where we'll just have a country where Eventually you have a purely Republican state and a purely Democrat state and they look real different.
Are we heading to that?
We might be. Anyway, there's literally no other solution for the homeless.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that there's literally no other solution for the homeless, the ones that want to be, outside?
You have to keep them outside.
Just move them away from the businesses that they're destroying.
And Trump said that as well.
Now, why would that even be controversial?
Can you think of a reason?
Because I'm assuming that whatever support services exist in the cities could be, you know, poured out.
I don't know. I don't really understand.
Well, yeah, CHAZ was a problem because they tried to take over other people's place.
Do you know... What would he be?
Physicist and astronomer?
Neil deGrasse Tyson?
You all know him. Famous, I guess, astronomer.
Scientist. I saw a little reel on him in which he was explaining why he used to believe we were a simulation, like Elon Musk explains, but he's decided that we're not.
And I want you to hear a scientist's description Of why, logically, we are not a simulation.
And then you have to decide, has he debunked the simulation, or has he debunked scientists are smart?
One of those two things is going to get debunked now.
You ready? Either the simulation theory will be just destroyed, or it will show that famous scientists are really not that bright.
Really not that bright.
All right, here's his argument. That the simulation would assume that if ever there was a real civilization that built a simulation, that that simulation would eventually build its own simulation, and so it would be simulation on top of simulation, and the odds of us being an original simulation, the original species, are very low.
So that's the argument for the simulation.
Here's Neil deGrasse Dyson's argument why he no longer thinks that's reasonable, and he doesn't believe it.
Because he says, we can't build a simulation right now.
So we must be the original.
Because we can't do it.
Or, we're the last.
Now, if we're the last one, meaning that for some reason we're a simulation that doesn't know how to make a simulation, That still allows that we're a simulation.
So the first error in his reasoning is when he says we're either the first, meaning an original species, or we're the last simulation.
If we're the last simulation, we're a simulation.
So his own argument that he doesn't believe in the simulation because it's possible that we are one, doesn't even make sense.
There are two possibilities, and we already knew there were two possibilities.
We are one or we're not.
And then part of his argument is, well, we are one or we're not.
Those were the options before.
The next one is, and then the other part is, that we can't build a simulation now.
Imagine a scientist saying that, that we can't build a simulation that believes it's a simulation.
I could write that code myself.
Like, actually, literally.
I could write code that's a code that describes an entity, a person, and then whenever it's asked the question, are you real?
It will say, I'm totally real.
Yeah, I'm real. And then I won't be able to tell from the outside whether it has any internal thoughts.
But it's going to look like a simulation to me.
You tell me we can't build that simulation?
Now what about the better simulation, where the simulation actually believes it's real?
We could totally make that.
The reason that people think we can't make a simulation where the simulation believes it's real is always based on magic.
Humans have magic inside them.
And therefore, it's impossible to program something that also has magic in it, like free will and a soul and a spirit.
Magic, basically.
So, no.
If you start with the assumption, I'm a scientist who believes in magic, and now let me tell you why we can't be a simulation, that's not a logical argument.
And next, he assumes that if we can't make a simulation right now, That we must be an original species.
But wouldn't even the simulation have to wait a while before it built the simulation?
The day a simulation is created, do we create it at exactly the moment it can make another simulation?
Or do we create a simulation that has to evolve the way we evolved, at least a little bit, before it can make a simulation?
So none of his argument makes any sense.
It does open the possibility that we're not a simulation, but there's no logical cohesion to the argument at all.
So what do you think is the answer to the question?
And independent from whether we're a simulation, so I'm only talking about whether his argument is good, not whether it's true or false.
Is the argument good? It doesn't look like a good argument to me.
So that worries me a little bit.
So the immigrants being shipped by bus to Martha's Vineyard, so that the lefties can figure out what to do with all the immigrants who are coming in, continues to be hilarious.
Continues to be hilarious.
And the more you watch the Democrats complain, the funnier it gets.
And I don't think they realize that the more they complain, The more the Republicans like it.
Because they don't have anything.
All they have is you're playing pawns with human lives.
You're playing pawns by taking and shipping them to a nice place.
Now, Martha's Vineyard says the problem is we don't have a social infrastructure that can handle these people.
And then what do the Republicans say?
You mean just like Texas?
You mean just like Arizona?
You mean just like California?
That's the whole point.
If all of those states had plenty of resources to take care of them, we wouldn't even be talking about it.
The whole point is that nobody has the resources.
And yeah, we get that you can't handle a busload of 150, but And maybe Texas as a state, maybe they can handle thousands or hundreds of thousands.
That's true. But in both cases, there's a limit to how many they can take.
Maybe Martha's Vineyard's limit is 150.
Could be. Maybe Texas's limit is a few hundred thousand per year.
But they both have a limit.
If you act like there's no limit to what anybody can handle, you're just being a fucking idiot.
Everybody's got a limit. So welcome to your limit, Martha's Vineyard.
You just found your limit.
Just the fact that it's smaller than somebody else's limit doesn't mean anything.
It just means you both can't do it.
That's all it means. Have you noticed this?
It's hard to miss it, but every time Republicans and Democrats disagree, not every time, this isn't complete absolute, but it seems like there's a consistent pattern.
The Republicans are focusing on fixing inefficient systems, let's say the immigration system, and Democrats are focused on killing the messenger.
So, Republicans are trying to defeat a bad system to replace it with something more efficient, usually something free-market, something that has fewer regulations.
And while they're trying to do that, which presumably would be good for everybody, the Democrats' entire job is to say that the Republicans are racist Hitler assholes.
It's so different, isn't it?
We're not really even talking about what system works well, are we?
There's no conversation about what system works better.
There's only conversation that one group is Nazis.
One group has an idea for fixing things, and the other group says that group is Nazis.
That's it. All they have is frightening you about how their character and their preferences are going to be scary for you if they get power.
And somehow, we act like we can't notice this.
Maybe we should notice that only one side is even talking about governing.
The other side isn't even talking about governing.
I mean, it doesn't seem like it.
It's basically, even when they implement a system, the system is to insult the other people.
So, critical race theory.
You could say to yourself, okay, Scott, that's Democrats trying to improve the system.
But they've improved the system with the express point of insulting Republicans, basically, right?
So even their systems are built to insult other residents.
Really? You're building a system to shoot other messengers and insult other people?
Well, the Republicans are just trying to make things efficient so everybody can use it?
All right. Likewise, even though nobody says this directly, it seems as if Republicans think that money is created by hard work and smart risk-taking.
Is that fair? Republicans believe that money is created out of nothing by hard work.
I mean, that's not nothing.
Out of hard work and the right kind of risk-taking, you know, entrepreneurial risk-taking.
And Democrats believe that all the money that will ever be created has already been made.
And somebody has theirs.
If they can only get their fair share from the people who worked hard and took intelligent risks, then everybody would be in good shape.
And somehow, somehow, The election is close.
According to Rasmussen, the midterms are now in dead heat between the generic Republican and the...
I think it's like one point difference, but it's lost in the rounding.
There's basically no difference now.
Literally, one side, their entire message is, let's see how badly we can insult these other people who are in our country.
One side is working on systems improvement.
And it's a tie.
It's a fucking tie.
So there's your country.
The funniest story of the day is that Don Lemon is being moved by CNN from his evening program to a morning show.
I would like to give you my impression of Don Lemon explaining that his movement from a show in which he would get half a million viewers...
To a show in which he would be one of three hosts getting 125,000 viewers.
And being completely taken out of the political argument by being put on the morning when it's a different audience.
Now here's my impression of Don Lemon explaining last night that it's really a promotion.
Well, I had a choice.
I totally could have said no.
And it looks like a great opportunity.
And I'm totally...
No, people are saying I'm being demoted.
No. No, no, no.
Not being demoted.
It's like I'm being promoted, in a way, if you think about it.
Like, in a way. It's like a promotion.
Can I get that morning show that I've always been wanting but I never mentioned before?
And watching him do it...
It was fucking hilarious.
But here's the best part.
You ready for the best part?
I'm trying to imagine the new CEO, Chris Light, I think?
I don't know how to pronounce his name.
L-I-C-H-T. Licked Light.
Don't know. But I'm trying to imagine the new CEO planning how he's going to tell Don Lemon that he'd like to move him to the morning.
And then he realizes, the CEO realizes, oh wait.
Don Lemon's the guy who believes every hoax that's ever been offered.
He literally believes anything.
So the CEO told him he was getting promoted.
And he believed it.
So how do you demote somebody?
Who believes every hoax?
Every hoax. You tell them they got promoted.
And he can't tell the fucking difference.
The entire reason he's getting demoted is he can't tell the difference between good news and bad news.
Am I right? He's a guy who, by our observation, it is clearly obvious that he can't tell what's true and what isn't.
He doesn't know the difference between good news and bad.
So if you have an employee who doesn't know the difference between good news and bad news, you don't really need to worry about demoting them.
Because they'll think it was a promotion if you tell them it was.
I don't think anything could be funnier than that.
Using Don Lemon's own gullibility to demote him into thinking he got promoted.
I'm sorry. I will never be more entertained than by that story.
All right. Apparently Politico has new German ownership that wants it to shift toward actual news and away from being hyper-partisan left.
So now Politico is moving to the center and CNN is trying to move to the center.
We'll see. Is that some kind of a shift?
We'll see. Biden trotted out the fine people hoax again, and he's highlighting it again.
He didn't just trot it out, he's highlighting it.
The most easily debunked hoax of all hoaxes, you simply have to just read the transcript.
That's it. And it's debunked.
There's no extra explanation needed.
Nothing. Just look at the transcript.
Oh, okay, they left out that part.
If you don't leave it out, it says the opposite of what you said.
That's it. And the Democrats have so thoroughly succeeded in brainwashing at least their people that they can highlight it as a central theme years after it's been debunked thoroughly and their viewers can't tell the difference.
The Democrat base actually has no access to anything like reality, because otherwise you couldn't do this.
You could never get away with this if Democrats had access to the news.
Am I right? How could you possibly get away with this if Democrats had access to the news?
Now here's the real test, CNN, because I know you're watching.
There's definitely somebody from CNN watching this.
If you didn't know that the find people thing was a hoax, go look at the full transcript, and it's easy to see yourself.
Or you can just Google find people hoax, and you'll see lots of people debunking it, including me.
Now, CNN says that it's pivoting toward real news.
Do you think that those remaining as CNN... Would be able to debunk the fine people hoax under the new management?
Could they just say, he didn't say that.
Here's what he actually said.
And then just read his actual quote.
Could they do it? Could Politico do it?
Or maybe they have, I don't know.
Politico might have. So this is a question for CNN. If CNN wants to prove that they're serious, They have to debunk the find people hoax.
Anything short of debunking that means that CNN was never serious, never serious about finding the middle.
Because that's just a fact that that was a hoax.
Yeah, and the bleach thing, too.
But the bleach thing, at least they have some tortured argument why they're really right, even though they're obviously wrong.
But with the fine people hoax, you just have to read the transcript.
It's right there in plain language.
If they can't debunk that one, they're not serious about being a real news network.
Well, over in Ukraine, five Russian-installed officials, meaning...
I guess that means...
Probably Ukrainian people that were Russian puppets.
But five of them were killed in the occupied Ukrainian territory.
Now, they weren't all together, so there were five different assassinations of people working with Russia to keep occupied.
And let me read to you about the Russian military successes on the ground.
You've heard that Russia has sent some missiles and taken out a bunch of infrastructure in Ukraine, but have you heard about the news about the Russian military on the ground and all of their successful military actions in the last couple of weeks?
What? No? You haven't heard the news about the Russian successes on the ground?
There haven't been any.
As far as I can tell, has it been how many weeks?
When was the last time Russians had anything like an increase in territory?
Three weeks?
Five weeks? But they've been losing territory for two weeks?
Oh, today? Is there something happening today?
Oh, the Wagner Group is surrounding Bakhmut in Donbass.
Are you saying that the Ukrainians are in the Donbass?
That would mean that they've already pushed into there.
The entire Ukrainian offensive is now trapped behind floodwaters from the dam.
Oh, now that would be interesting.
Because part of the news was that Russia took on a dam.
Was that strategic?
Was that a battlefield strategy or just punishing?
If that was a battlefield strategy and it trapped the Ukrainian...
Wow.
It's both. Wow.
Did the dam take out any military when it broke?
Forces are now stranded on the East Bank.
Oh my goodness.
So that's today's news, right?
I didn't see that news.
So I guess the only place you can get news like that is Twitter and Telegram, right?
Interesting. So now things are going to get interesting.
But have the Russians retaken any territory?
So it sounds like they're trying.
They swept away the pontoon bridges.
The Donbass is like the south in the USA. It's been news for a few days.
Does it seem like the regular news has a little blackout on Ukraine?
Or they just don't know what's happening?
Is that what's happening? They don't have as much original reporting?
Because I'm not sure we can believe anything.
Well, I'll go read up on the updates in Ukraine.
But I'm going to stick with my prior statement that although the Russians may have done something strategically good, they have not yet changed the nature of the war.
So we'll see. Maybe they will.
You know, I saw the story about the, maybe it was the Wagner Group, who were using Russian prisoners as recruits and saying, you know, there's a video, I don't know if it's real, it looked real-ish, but they were saying, hey, you Russian prisoners, you can get NGL if you go fight for six months.
And this raises an interesting question.
Are not all of the military in the Russian army at the moment prisoners?
Because what does it mean to be a prisoner?
You're still a prisoner if you're working in the chain gang, right?
If you're doing clean-up on the side of the highway, you're still a prisoner, even though you're not in the cell at that moment.
But if you don't have a choice, and you're not fighting for anything that's to your benefit, such as defending your own country...
Aren't you just a prisoner if you're in the military?
If you don't want to be in the military, but you can't leave, and you're not fighting for something that's in your benefit, you know, just like the prisoners cleaning up the trash on the road, they have to go back to jail.
They're not going to be driving that road, so it's not for their benefit.
To me, I don't really see the difference between the Russian military and prisoners.
Who are forced to work.
And I wonder if the Russian military is starting to see that themselves.
Meaning that once you get past the officer level, which is a career, when you get to the actual fighting people, are they not saying to each other, why are we here?
What's in it for us?
Now, of course, they know that if they try to desert, they'll be killed by their own team.
So they don't want to do that.
So they're in prison.
They can't leave, and there's nothing in it for them.
What do you call that?
Okay, do they get a paycheck?
Maybe they do. But they're still in prison.
All right. I talked to a...
Woman born in Russia yesterday, and she still has, you know, family in Russia, and so I asked her, what's the mood in Russia?
Have any of you done that?
Because most of you probably know somebody who knows somebody who lives in Russia, right?
Have you gotten...
So let me tell you what I heard, and then you tell me what you're hearing.
Number one, the older Russians are more supportive of Putin.
The reason given, and this is just, you know, by one person's observation, is that Putin has been priming Russia for this move into Ukraine for so many years that the older ones just sort of got used to this being, you know, Russia's fate or something.
So the old ones say, okay, Putin made us prosperous.
And Putin raised Russia's standing in the international community.
True or false? I mean, until Ukraine.
True or false? Let's say true.
So the older ones are like, okay, we've seen bad times and we've seen good times, and Putin brought us better times.
So they're pretty supportive.
The younger ones, less so.
So that was the first thing I needed to know.
The second thing is that even the older ones seem to now realize that this is going to set Russia back 20 years.
They might still support it, but even in supporting it, they know that Russia just got pushed into the biz bag for a long time.
If everybody understands that Putin is degrading Russia for the next 20 years, that's gonna be bad for morale.
Really bad for morale.
All right. This is very surprising.
You'll be so surprised by this.
Oh, how surprised you will be.
Hold on to your chairs, because you might slide right out of your chair in total surprise at this next story.
Who would have ever seen this coming?
The most unusual, unexpected, surprising thing that could ever happen in America.
A former high-level FBI agent who was involved in the...
Russiagate hoax.
So he was a big investigator in that.
He's being investigated now for colluding with Russia.
Yeah. That's right.
A former high-level FBI agent who worked on the Russia collusion hoax to frame, basically to frame Trump for colluding with Russia, is being indicted.
He's not guilty. He has not been found guilty.
So remember, innocent until proven guilty, even the FBI. Even if you met at the FBI, innocent until proven guilty, but indicted for colluding with With Russia, specifically some Russian billionaire.
Don't know the details.
Now, are you surprised that a high-ranking member of the FBI was colluding with Russia while working on the Russia collusion hoax?
Nope. Nope.
That is not surprising at all.
I'm sorry. If you think you're going to surprise me with that, you're going to have to work a lot harder.
That is right on the fucking nose.
Do you know what Republicans always expect?
Now, I'm not a Republican, but I know what they expect.
Do you know what they always expect?
That if Republicans are accused of anything, what's that mean?
What's it mean when a Republican is accused of a specific crime?
It means the Democrats are doing it.
And they're doing it right now.
Every fucking time.
Boy, the first time I heard that theory, that whatever they accuse you of, I think Tucker probably said it first, whatever they accuse you of is what they're doing, I said to myself, wow...
No. I mean, no.
That's just, you know, you just notice it because there are a few cases like that.
So a few prominent cases don't make any kind of a pattern, right?
It's just confirmation bias.
They're not literally accusing you of the crimes they're doing right now.
They're not literally doing that.
But they are. They are.
They're literally accusing the Republicans of the crimes they're doing right now.
And the beauty of it is that from a persuasion perspective, it really works well.
Probably the single best way you can make yourself look innocent is to preemptively accuse somebody else of the crime you just committed.
The best way you could look innocent of starting a fire...
Well, no, that's not true.
Because I think arsonists actually do report the fire, don't they?
That's a bad example.
They do report it, right?
Is that true? Arsonists report?
They're the first on the scene, but do they report it?
There's also the people who volunteer to help look for the lost little girl, usually the guilty ones.
Anyway. So that's happening.
There's a poll on Christianity, which used to be 90% of the country.
I think when I was a kid, 90% of the country identified as Christian.
And now it's in the 60s.
And if the trend continues, and these are not people who are not religious.
They're simply not Christian.
So many of them are non-denominational.
So they might say, I'm spiritual.
I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't have a specific religion.
Although I would call that Christian.
So it looks like Christianity is going to be a...
A minority of the people in this country if the trend continues.
What do you think? You think the trend will continue or reverse?
I think it'll continue.
Because it's correlated with what?
You're going to hate this.
What is a decrease in religion correlated with?
Yeah, it's correlated with education.
Now... I'm pro-religion.
Just in case you forgot, I'm very pro-religion.
Because it seems to work.
My observation is that the people who have a religion and practice it and wrap their life strategy around it do pretty darn good.
Pretty darn good.
And now you could argue that it's the liberal education that's causing people to be less religious.
Probably. Probably true.
But there will be less of it.
Now, here's why that worries me.
Independent of what religion got it right, we're not arguing that, Christianity works really well with free markets, doesn't it?
Have you noticed how well that works?
Christianity plus free markets is your best combination.
It's not an accident that the United States did well.
It's when we combined the two most powerful forces.
Christianity plus free markets.
Because if you have free markets without the Christianity, what do you get?
What do you get?
Free market with no Christianity.
Massive corruption. How do you do a deal?
So the reason that I might do a deal with you is that I know that you're worried that God is watching.
It really helps.
I would definitely do a deal with somebody who wore their religion on their sleeve, so you can really see that they're religion.
I would definitely do a deal with a religious person, Christian, specifically.
I'm not ruling out other religions, I'm just talking about Christianity.
I would do a deal with a Christian before I would do a deal with a non-Christian.
And I'm not a Christian.
It's just an observation that they have that little extra God-is-watching-you thing that works to my advantage.
So I would definitely discriminate against non-Christians in a business deal.
Is that even legal?
That's not legal, is it?
I just realized that's not legal.
But I would definitely do it.
You know, I wouldn't do it overtly, but I could see that I would be biased by it.
You know what I mean? Like I wouldn't go out of my way to turn somebody down for not being a Christian.
I wouldn't do that. But I'm sure I would be biased by a Christian business person.
Because they'd have just that little extra somebody's watching me thing that works for my advantage.
Yeah. All right.
So scientists are using AI to come up with new proteins.
I guess the old way of dreaming up a new protein was, you know, massive trial and error for years.
And then if you're lucky, you got some combination that would be a new protein.
Whereas the AI can just say, ah, how about these hundred new proteins I just came up with right now?
And they could be awesome.
Now, I don't know How big a change that is.
Because I'm not scientifically literate enough to know how big a deal it is if you can design your own proteins.
But it feels like it's pretty big.
Doesn't it? Is there a scientist here?
It feels really big.
It feels really big.
So here are some of the things that AI will change forever that you don't see coming, right?
Number one, energy.
Do you understand that one?
Do you know why the energy market will be completely transformed by AI? Because AI can design, well, it can operate a new design for a nuclear power plant that will be continuously adjusting to optimize the reaction and reduce the chance of any problems.
It's something we couldn't do before.
You need AI to really rapidly make changes to keep everything stable.
So it probably will be one of the key technologies for solving climate change.
It will invent things.
In 15 years, there's always people who believe that AI is the next flying car, meaning it's never going to get here.
But flying cars are going to get here.
By the way, you know that flying cars are guaranteed in the future, right?
We're always waiting for them, but they are guaranteed.
Because batteries will just keep getting better and that's all you needed.
You just needed an electric flying car.
Because AI can also keep your flying car stable.
Right? You can keep your flying car stable with AI, and then all you needed was a battery that was light enough and powerful enough, and you're done.
All the other stuff is just engineering, like basic engineering.
The two hard parts are the AI, to keep everything stable, you know, when there's lots of moving parts, and the battery.
solved.
They're both solved.
So that's the big deal.
So we'll be making people We'll be designing more efficient networks.
We'll probably find better ways to keep the lights on, maximize the grid.
I mean, the number of things that AI could potentially do is just insane.
All right. That may be just about everything I want to talk about.
They're just being Christian.
So this business of making Democrats face their own policies is really good.
It's really good persuasion.
But I think the Republicans...
Here's my basic take.
Democrats have opened up this five-lane highway of opportunity for any Republican.
What would it take for a Republican to stay on the highway?
Just don't make gigantic obvious mistakes.
That's it. Just don't make gigantic obvious mistakes.
And what are they doing?
What are the Republicans doing instead?
They're making gigantic, obvious mistakes.
They're hammering on abortion to make that a key thing that people are thinking about.
They can't possibly work for Republicans.
I don't care what principle he was operating under.
If we're talking strategy, I just don't think that was a strategy.
Now, Yeah.
Doesn't it seem to you that when the whole country appears to be falling apart, and when things were working well under a Republican, it should be the easiest thing in the world?
But I feel like Republicans can't stop themselves from making crazy arguments.
Does anybody feel that?
A lot of you lean right, if you're watching this probably.
But do you feel that Republicans shoot themselves in the foot?
They'll make their strong Republican argument for free markets and getting rid of regulations and stuff.
Stuff that sounds pretty solid.
And then they'll just throw in something that's batshit crazy.
Yeah, self-sabotage, it looks like it.
Just like Trump, yeah.
The only thing that could keep Trump from regaining the presidency is Trump.
But Trump is completely lacking a positive message, as are the Republicans in general.
What is the positive message of the Republicans?
We'll take you back to 2020.
That's the message, right, for 2019?
Yeah, we'll take you back to 2019.
Aren't you all fired up about that?
Oh, we're going back to 2019.
I can't wait. That is the least inspirational message you could ever have.
Let me tell you an inspirational message from a Republican.
We're going to solve climate change.
And I don't even care if it's real, because we need the energy and we need it to be clean and I'm going to make nuclear my focus and I'm going to get rid of the regulations that are blocking the new builds.
Just embrace their topic.
Just say, look, you guys, you made your sale.
We're going to go serious with green energy, but we're not going to do it the stupid way.
We're going to do it the smart way.
Because even Elon Musk says you're not going to get away with getting rid of nuclear.
So I'm going to agree with the smartest guy in the world, Musk, about energy probably.
We're going to go crazy on the thing that's green energy, the best one.
And we're going to solve your climate change for you.
Even if you don't believe it's real.
Because I'm going to give you so much cheap energy that's clean that if climate change isn't a problem, you'll forget you're ever worried about it.
You're just going to be glad you had your cheap energy.
I will make you forget that climate change was a problem.
Because whether your problem is you don't have enough energy, or your problem is that you're putting too much CO2 in the air, I'll solve both of those problems, and I don't even care if one of them wasn't real.
You can argue all day whether climate change is going to destroy us in 80 years.
I'm going to make sure it's not an option.
I don't know if climate change is real.
I'm no scientist. I'm going to make sure there's no risk, though, because there's smart people who say it is a risk.
So I'm going to make sure there is no risk, and I'm going to do it for free.
And what I mean by free is I'm going to do what you wanted me to do anyway, which is give you lots of reliable, clean energy.
It's also going to solve your climate change problem.
And if you Democrats think that climate change was a hoax, keep thinking it.
It doesn't matter. The problem's going to go away either way.
I'm going to solve your problem even if it isn't real.
I'll solve real problems.
I'll solve imaginary problems.
You send me a problem and I'm going to work on solving it.
And I'm going to let you work on whether I'm an asshole.
How about you guys think about that?
Go back to your rooms if you don't want to be part of the useful solutions.
If you don't want a system that works.
If you don't want a world that works.
Why don't you go back to your rooms and then think about how big of an asshole I am.
Because that's all you're fucking good for.
If you're not going to help, go back and complain to each other about how we're all Nazi fucking assholes while we're trying to save your children's lives.
I'll be working on that.
You work on what a bad character I have and that thing I tweeted once.
You go work on that.
Prove to the country that you have no fucking value while I'm working on saving the country.
Now you tell me The Republicans can't win everything.
How hard would it be?
They would just have to not be stupid.
Somebody on Locals is saying that what I just said was brilliant.
It's not. My whole point is that it's easy.
It's not brilliant. You just have to do what Clinton did brilliantly, which is accept the other person's argument and then top it.
Rejecting the other person's argument just keeps them over there fighting with you.
You have to embrace their argument and then top it.
That's what I did with climate change.
I embraced it, and then I gave you a better solution than they were giving you for the problem that you don't even think is a problem, in some cases.
By the way, I think climate change is real, and I think it doesn't matter.
Because everything you need to do, you need to do anyway.
We need some clean, reliable energy.
There's only one way to get it.
Two ways, if you say solar is part of the answer.
And I think it is. I think it is.
How about this? How about your president?
You say, you know what? The only way to solve the network problem is more people have to have a solar battery at their house.
Now, I think Musk would agree.
Because I think there's a way...
If enough homes had their own solar backup power that could feed the grid when the grid needs it, I believe there's a way to protect the grid without completely redoing it.
We also need to completely redo it.
But in the short run, if you said, hey, let's get everybody who can afford it these solar batteries.
If you're rich enough to get a solar battery, do the country a favor and get one.
How about that message? I'm not asking poor people to do anything differently.
We're just trying to keep the lights on for you guys.
But if you can afford it, the house battery will pay for itself.
So I'm not asking you to lose money.
I'm asking you to do what makes sense for yourself in a free market.
But know that this specific thing that you're doing for yourself, getting a house battery, Whether it's Tesla or some other product.
There's a bunch of them now. That that thing will be good for you, but it's going to be really good for the poor people.
Because we're keeping everybody's lights on and keeping the prices down.
Yeah, like a Tesla Powerwall, but there are competitors to that now.
So, how easy is it to make these arguments?
Now, abortion...
Here's what the Republicans have done wrong with abortion.
Are you ready? Now...
And I remind you that you will not hear my opinion of whether abortion should be legal or not because I leave that to women.
You can argue with me all day.
I just want to make the point that I'm not arguing what should or should not be.
Leave it to women. And here's what Republicans have done totally wrong.
They've allowed the Democrats to paint it as a male versus female issue.
Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
The incompetence from the Republicans to allow that to happen?
Unbelievable. There should never be a Republican male who talks about abortion again.
You want to be smart?
You want to be smart?
The first time Trump says, you know what?
How about men just stop talking about it?
There are plenty of Republican women.
Let's find some Republican women who want to take the argument and just get the fuck out of the argument.
Get the men out.
You don't think Trump could win the entire election by just saying, you know, I think it's a little distasteful to have men talking about abortion.
We have strong feelings, but let's let the women take the lead on this.
I think we'll get a better outcome.
Seriously, how hard was that?
Have I already made myself president?
How hard was that? The Republicans completely could turn the conversation around by, now, let me ask you this.
Before you heard the Pence rule, that Pence would say he wouldn't go to lunch or a dinner with a woman unless his wife was there as well.
When you first heard that, you thought, oh, that's extreme, maybe.
Some of you thought it was brilliant from the start.
But the more you think about it, it just becomes a better and better system for keeping everybody happy.
Right? And you probably thought that you couldn't make that happen.
But I'll bet you Republicans all over the world, when they heard that Pence was doing that, I'll bet you, because I did.
I'm not a Republican, but even I said, you know, I'm going to adopt that standard, which I have.
Except when I'm single, I would never have a meal with just another woman, if that was the only person there.
So I adopted Pence's standard as soon as I heard it, because I thought, you know, that does make sense.
So now imagine...
Now imagine Trump or Pence or whoever's running for president as a Republican.
Imagine them coming out and saying, let's let the women take the lead on this.
We have very strong opinions, but for political purposes and really for the benefit of the country, let's just let the women take the lead.
You get the same result, right?
Because the Republican women are on the same side as the Republican men, mostly.
Now, give me another issue.
Let me do another one. What's another issue in which Republicans are weak?
What's their weakest issue?
The border? You think Republicans are weak on the border?
No. Republicans have the advantage on the border.
So Republicans have the advantage in education, health care they do not.
Health care is a problem.
What would you do with health care?
I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd say I want health care for everyone and we need a plan for it.
Because I would embrace the other side's argument and then I would top it.
I'd say, we can get there, and to be a great country, we should have a plan to do it.
But it shouldn't be forced.
It shouldn't be communism.
It shouldn't be socialism. We should have a plan, and that plan should be to use technology and AI and maybe telehealth and free markets and less regulations.
And basically, you make an argument that you need to get to 100% coverage.
You need to. And just say, we can do it better.
We'll get there through free market.
That's how you do things. The Democrats also want to cover everybody, but they just want to take the money out of your pocket to do it.
It would be easy to win all of these arguments, and the technique should always be the same.
Instead of rejecting the other person's argument, you embrace it, and then you top it.
You're absolutely right, but your solution for it is wrong.
Here's the solution. Yeah.
GOP should say we are the party of solutions.
We want better systems for education, better systems for healthcare, better systems for whatever.
And just say the Democrats are the ones who just want to insult us while we're working.
And if the Republicans could frame the situation as, Republicans have nothing but insults, and then just keep saying that, while saying, here's our plans for how to make things better, and Republicans basically just have insults.
Every time the Democrats would insult, then the Republicans would no longer need to address it.
They could dismiss it.
Say, well, this is why we're running.
So here's a typical question that the news would say.
The news says that they're calling you Hitler.
So instead of saying, I'm not Hitler, you're Hitler.
Don't Republicans usually say that?
I'm not Hitler, you're Hitler.
How does that work out?
It doesn't. How about this?
Well, you know, we're working on this plan to fix this problem, and the Democrats are mostly working on a plan of how to more cleverly insult us.
And if you think that working on a plan to more cleverly insult citizens is where you want to put your energy, you have that option.
But I hope you'd work with us to improve our plan, which, admittedly, will never be perfect.
We'll have to work on it, do a little A-B testing, a little tweaking.
And if you don't like it on day one, work with us.
We'll try to improve it.
But you have to work within the rules of what makes sense.
Free markets, less regulation.
Do you know why ESG looks like a nightmare to Republicans, but looks like the best thing in the world for Democrats?
It's this. Republicans look at the system and they say, wait a minute.
We had a system where there would be a company competing for its shareholders and it would do whatever it could as an independent company within the law to maximize.
And then that worked. We had the most dynamic economy.
So that's a Republican system.
And then the Democrats are people who only exist to insult other people.
And they say, we're gonna insult you in three different ways.
We're gonna call you a racist, because you don't have enough equity and inclusion.
We're gonna call you a science denier, because you're not doing enough about the environment.
Basically, we're going to come up with some insults, and then we're going to destroy your system by creating this confusing set of entities that are judging you and trying to determine whether you're worthy of investment and buying their products.
So basically, all Republicans know that if you add this extra burden of three different preferences, like, it's not even one thing.
It's not even just about the environment.
It's about government, governance, plus the environment, plus social responsibility.
So there's all these murky things.
If you put that on top of free markets, is that a better system or a worse one?
Every Republican knows that's worse.
Now, it's hard to explain why it's worse to people who don't understand the systems Have to be designed to, you know, work with human characteristics, etc.
So you're always going to have the Democrats saying, let's find a new way to insult people.
I got it. We'll say that they don't have enough diversity, therefore they're racist.
How else can we insult people?
I got it. They're not doing enough for climate change, so therefore they're science deniers.
But basically, the Democrats are always looking for the angle to insult you.
And the Republicans, if they framed it correctly, would always be looking for the way to make a system that works for everybody.
And invite the Democrats in.
Invite the Democrats in.
So it would be so easy.
All right, give me another one. Give me another place the Republicans are weak.
On drugs? No.
On pot? Yeah, pot would be easy.
Here's me being a better Republican about marijuana.
The federal government should get out of that.
I'm dumb. All Trump has to do is just say the words.
Let the states do that.
The federal government should not be making marijuana illegal.
So easy. Now, by the way, am I proving to you that the Republicans do have a five-line highway and they can't seem to find the highway?
They're over on the sidewalk over there talking about abortion laws that won't be passed.
It's like they're not even on the highway.
How do you not find the whole highway?
It could not be easier to win if you're a Republican this time.
And they found a way to lose.
By basically being drawn into the Democrats' frame, defending themselves and arguing, you did it too, stuff like that.
I do think the shipping of the immigrants is horrible.
Now, the Republicans are arguing that these people are being used as pawns in every case.
Unfortunately, they're being used as pawns in every case.
Secondly, if they're illegal, I have no moral qualms with using them for political purposes if the political purposes are well-intentioned.
In this case, I think they are, to have a secure border.
So I don't mind that illegal aliens are being used as props To make a political point.
I don't have any problem with that at all.
Because it doesn't seem especially cruel to the people involved.
Do you think that the people who ended up at Martha's Vineyard are going to have a worse time making it than the people who went into the mess of all the other migrants and everybody's trying to find the few opportunities and stuff?
I don't know. I suspect that they'll all have food and a warm place to sleep.
You know what would be hilarious?
If Obama actually did open up his mansion and let him stay there.
That would be such a baller thing to do.
Because it would sort of just change the argument.
You'd be like, okay, didn't see that coming.
Did not see that coming.
He could do it. Because he has multiple houses, right?
He could just say, yeah, until the problem is worked out, put those migrants at my...
Martha's Vineyard House.
He could. It's not going to happen.
It won't happen. All right.
Give me another one. What's another Republican weakness?
Guns. I don't know that guns are going to be an issue.
I'm trying to remember.
I don't think it's in the top five, is it?
I don't think guns are in the top five.
And I believe that Democrats are buying them as quickly as Republicans are.
If you tell me Democrats aren't buying guns at a pretty high rate right now, I don't believe that.
I feel like guns could be ignored.
Because the Republicans already have the better argument.
Although I think that the...
Here's what the...
Here's what the Republicans do wrong on guns.
They let Biden define it as it would be citizens against the military of the United States.
That will never happen.
Nobody's talking about citizens with their little guns taking on the military.
But they let Biden define that as the problem.
Do you know what it would be more like?
Did I tell you that five Russian-backed officials were murdered just yesterday in Russian-dominated territories in Ukraine?
That's what happens.
What happens is every time the, let's say, illegitimate government, who was trying to take your guns or whatever they were trying to do, that as soon as they install a puppet, there's not enough security in the world To protect that puppet.
Like Ukraine. So in Ukraine, every Russian puppet will probably be murdered.
Probably every one of them.
Eventually. You know, it just takes a while.
But it looks like they're just going to kill every one of them.
Because they can. There would be nothing that could stop them from getting every one of them.
Because you're not going to let every official have an underground bunker.
Right? So, and you don't have to get the top people.
Like, you don't have to use your handgun to get to the President of the United States who's become a dictator and taken over the country.
You only have to get to the, like, the mayor, like, the people who are just sort of keeping the lights on.
Just get to them. Kill them all.
Which is exactly what would happen if the US tried to turn into some kind of a dictatorship and install puppets everywhere.
We would just kill all the puppets.
Because it would be easy.
Everybody has a gun. So there's no way that...
There's no way our government could, let's say, take over and then actually control the public.
Because to control the public, you have to at least control, let's say, the chief of police.
Right? You'd have to at least get the chief of police.
Do you think every chief of police is going to be able to protect their own home?
No. Everybody knows where the chief of police lives.
Where their family lives.
You couldn't possibly be a chief of police and turn against the public in the United States.
Maybe you could do it somewhere else, but you can't do it here.
Because all we need to know is where you live.
They're not going to send...
And then, let's say they send the military.
Let's say they can get enough military to show up in your little town.
I mean, I don't know how that would be possible.
There wouldn't be enough of them. But all you'd have to do is see the face of any of the military people, right?
Would they all have to wear masks?
They better. Because if you see the face of a soldier who has turned on you in the United States, you're going to take his picture.
And then his family's in trouble.
Because they're going to find the family.
So there isn't any way that you can turn against the public on a retail basis.
And it's not going to be a war between our guns and their nukes.
But somehow, the Republicans have allowed Biden to define it that way.
Because it's hard to explain what I just explained, right?
But here's the way I'd explain it.
The next time Biden says, you know, you're not going to be able to fight against our tanks and our nukes, I would say this.
We're not going to be fighting against them.
We're going to make sure that the chief of police in our town doesn't go to your side.
Right? You only need the chief of police.
Because if you get the chief of police...
What are they going to do? Are they going to send the military into every town in the United States?
Couldn't do it. You couldn't do it.
You only have to threaten the life of the police chief, which you could very effectively do if all of your citizens had guns.
Do you know who else would threaten the life of the police chief?
The cops. Why would all the cops just suddenly join the dictator?
That's not going to happen.
They're patriots, right?
So you can install as many puppets as you want, but we'll kill them as fast as you install them.
I mean, even I would kill a puppet.
If they put a puppet mare in my little town of Pleasanton, I'd kill them.
I mean, if nobody else would, I'll take that job.
So, there's just no way you could take over the United States.
Too many guns. You got really quiet when I started saying this.
By the way, does everybody buy the argument that the guns only need to be useful on the local level?
Because that's all you need to control your town.
Right? So somehow the argument should be the reason that Russia won't be able to control Ukraine in the long run is because there will be enough guns there to kill all of their puppets.
So here's the quick version.
We're not going after your nukes, fuckhead.
We're going to kill all of your puppets.
You don't think we can get to your puppets?
Yeah, we don't have to get to your senators or your secret military army.
We don't have to get to that.
We don't have to get to your inner circle.
We're just going to make sure that if you put somebody in our town, we'll just fucking kill them.
All right, what else?
What else?
I think the argument for education is just so strongly Republican now.
Race. Alright, let's talk about race.
What could the Republicans do to own race?
Easy? Easy.
Easiest one. You ready?
First, you embrace the other side's argument.
Systemic racism.
My God, it's bad.
Yeah, that's bad. The systemic racism is really something we need to work on.
So let's get rid of the school, the teachers' unions.
Because that's the only way you're going to fix things.
And you make the teachers' unions the primary source of continuing inequality.
And you say, look, Democrats, join with us.
We'll work on the biggest problem first.
If we can solve the biggest problem, then maybe we'll have some momentum to work together on the second biggest problem.
But we could definitely work together on the biggest problem.
And the biggest problem is, instead of Republicans ignoring that there is a systemic and built-in disadvantage to the black population, could you just fucking say it?
Would it kill you to be a Republican and say, yes, it does look like there's some lasting disadvantage that's reaching into the black community?
Would it kill you to say it, even if you don't believe it?
Because I know the counter-argument would be other groups have troubles, there are other poor people, some poor people make it out, therefore everybody can make it out.
What about the Asian population and the Jewish population?
Why are they doing well?
So you could argue it away, right?
But it's the wrong approach.
That's not how you win.
You don't win by telling the other side they're wrong.
You win by embracing their argument and topping it.
Embrace it and top it.
You can't be beaten if you do that.
That's an unbeatable strategy.
Embrace it and top it.
Denying the problem loses every time.
I think that loses every time.
You can only get your own team to deny the problem.
You need to accept it, reframe it, and top it.
LGBTQ, you talking about the trans sports things, specifically?
I don't think anybody cares about LGBTQ. In terms of the election and the voting, nobody's going to vote on that, are they?
They might vote on the young people and the education and the school part, but beyond that, there's no real issue, is there, with the LGBTQ community?
I just don't think people care about it enough, except for the children issue yet.
So they care about that.
All right. The FBI. I don't know.
Does anybody trust the FBI anymore?
Do you think Democrats really trust them?
I don't think so. All right.
So, have I made my point that if a Republican followed my advice of embracing the other argument and topping it, That it's a five-lane highway of just easiness.
You can just stroll down the middle of a five-lane highway with no traffic.
Go into the White House.
But whoever the Republican president is, what will they do instead of what I just said?
Probably tell a bunch of lies.
It doesn't matter who it is.
You could say it's Trump or somebody else.
It'll probably be just a bunch of lies.
And it's the worst technique.
Because then they get fact-checked, and then the other team says you're a bunch of liars, and then they have lots of material to say you're a liar, and then they're happy because they have something to criticize a person about.
As soon as you lie, you make it about you, right?
Am I right? If you talk about your policies...
Then they're sort of forced to talk about the policy.
But as soon as you stick a lie in there with your policy, the lie is the only thing anybody's going to talk about.
And then the lie is about you.
And you just took the focus off of your excellent plan and put it on your bad character.
Oh, I want to solve the fentanyl crisis right now, if I could.
I did this yesterday in the man cave talking just to the local subscribers.
By the way, local subscribers who saw my idea for the fentanyl persuasion, was that persuasive?
Those of you who saw it?
Because I won't repeat it unless you liked it.
Did that? Okay.
I'm getting yeses there? All right.
Here's the problem with fentanyl persuasion so far.
Here's me doing a bad job of persuading you that you need to do something about fentanyl, okay?
Blah, blah, blah, statistics.
Blah, blah, blah, big alarming number.
Blah, blah, blah, worse than some wars.
Blah, blah, blah, coming from Mexico.
Blah, blah, blah, comes from China.
Now, that gets you right off the couch, doesn't it?
Statistics. Or how about I show you a graph?
Here's my graph. Look at that line.
That line was going like this, but now it's going like this.
It's a line. Beware of my line on my graph.
Run away. There's a line on a graph.
Nothing. Here's how you deal with the problem.
You get your AI, which can now make artistic renderings of anything.
And you program an AI to create a new visual piece of art every day.
And you tell it to make a photorealistic, not an artistic version, but like a photorealistic, like it was a photograph, picture of a pile of 300 dead Americans.
Like a different pile of corpses.
And you do a different pile every day.
You just tweet it. And you say, here are the people killed by fentanyl today.
Today. 300.
Because if you hear onesies and twosies and, you know, my stepson died and, you know, your brother's cousin died, it's horrible on a small level, but it doesn't make you act.
Do you know why the Holocaust is such a persuasive part of our being?
It's because of the visuals.
It's the visuals. Do you know what the other so-called Holocaust don't have going for them?
Pictures. Pictures.
You know, we always hear about the, like, Armenian...
Wasn't there some Armenian holocaust, right?
I've never seen a picture.
I've heard statistics, and they're alarming, right?
But if you don't have the pictures, you're not scaring people.
So let's use AI to create literally a pile of corpses every day.
Tweet it down. I'll retweet it.
I'll retweet it every day.
And we will make it a big enough problem so that the United States decides something to do about it.
And by the way, if I were a Republican, I would say I would attack the cartels in Mexico.
And I would make the Democrats argue that that's a bad idea.
Because I don't think they can.
The trouble is, it would lure them into your frame.
They don't want to be there.
And I don't, you know, this could backfire because it's pretty radical.
They call it racist.
Racist.
They call everything. And if they call it racist, then what do you do?
You say, well, here's another example where Republicans are trying to fix a system and the Democrats are busy trying to figure out what would be the most clever insult for the people who are trying to fix things.
Now, let me just check with you, because when I'm talking, I'm not reading the comments at the same time so well.
Have I proven my point that Republicans have a real easy argument for everything?
For everything. Point proven?
I see a no.
I'd like to know what the no person thinks.
All right? And are you angered at how easy it is?
Does it piss you off a little bit?
Because it is this easy.
I'm pretty sure it is this easy.
But we don't have anybody executing at that level.
And I don't think I'm qualified.
I wouldn't be qualified to run for office.
But I don't know.
It looks easy to me.
All right.
Yeah, you know, was it...
I think it was a Cernovich tweet.
I haven't mentioned him the entire live stream, so I think I need to.
Cernovich had a tweet about, it's very real that people are afraid of succeeding.
I think that's the way he put it. Something like that.
That people who seem to choose paths that would guarantee failure...
And they seem to be doing it intentionally.
Have you noticed that?
Is that your impression?
That some people will choose a path that's just clearly self-destructive.
Yeah. I think that's real.
I don't know what's behind it, exactly.
Afraid of success?
Yeah. All right.
So, my beloved audience...
I'm going to take my leave.
I think this was one of the all-time, all-time best live streams.
Not only have I changed politics in America by showing the better way to do it, but I believe I've made great strides in solving all of our largest problems by showing that if they're treated as systems problems.
And you can swipe away the dingleberries that are doing nothing but insulting you cleverly.
