Episode 1874 Scott Adams: Lots Of News About Fentanyl, Trump, Elections, And Affirmative Action
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
80% believe cheating will determine midterm results
Hannity's interview of President Trump
Fentanyl outrage and voiced solutions
Ida Bae Wells says I'm lying
Trump property values and clear stated disclosures
Is Rashida Tlaib on the side of America?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 wow, don't you look sexy today.
It's probably the coffee that you haven't had yet, but will.
And how would you like to take it up to stratospheric levels of awesomeness, the best thing that anybody's ever experienced ever in the history of the universe?
Yes. All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. The finest sip in all of the land.
You know the sun never sets on the simultaneous sip.
Somewhere around the world at any moment, there's somebody doing the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, it's true. Well, I have an alert.
This is sort of an early warning.
I like to catch problems when they're just developing.
Some people wait till it's too late.
Not me. I like to catch them early.
You've all seen Planet of the Apes.
The apes become sentient and intelligent, and I guess they were sentient.
But they become intelligent, and they take over the world.
Well, I'm seeing the same thing starting to develop, not with monkeys, not with apes, but with dogs.
I've been watching a lot of reels on Instagram, and I've determined the following.
There are two kinds of dogs.
One, dumb dogs.
That's the kind I have.
A dumb dog eats and poops and likes to take walks.
Basically, it's a dog.
But have you noticed that the reels that involve specifically husky dogs?
Have you seen any of those reels?
There's something about that specific kind of dog that's starting to worry me.
Because if you watch enough of these animal-related funny videos, you start to notice a pattern.
The husky dogs are very close to fully intelligent.
It's really weird.
If it had been one dog, I would have said to myself, well, that's one clever dog.
But it does look to me like the huskies have evolved to something that doesn't look like dog intelligence.
It's scary. I mean, some of them seem to just have full language skills.
They can't talk, but they can hear.
I don't know what's going on, but keep an eye on those huskies.
They're going to take over the world. Just before I got on, I heard about another medical cure that I can take credit for.
The weirdest thing about my career arc is how many medical problems I've solved for other people.
Like, a lot.
Thousands. Thousands and thousands of people.
And in a variety of different ways.
It's a whole bunch of different special cases that if you put them together would be a weird story by itself.
One of those special cases was I had an exotic, rare voice condition years ago which made it impossible to communicate.
I couldn't speak without my vocal cords clenching shut.
So for three and a half years, I sought a treatment for that.
And I found the only surgeon in the world who had an experimental, semi-experimental, he'd worked on it a while, voice surgery.
So I ended up researching that and getting the surgery, and now you can hear, I can speak.
And what I did was I said, wait, if I'm the only one who knows this is curable, and there are 30,000 people in the United States who have the same problem, I need to tell them.
So I did promotional stuff for People magazine, and I mention it often.
If you Google your voice problem, my name probably comes up, and then you can find my story.
And then you can find your own solution.
Well, I just heard from another one that the surgeon who did my surgery that worked, that surgery didn't work every time.
So something like 15%, 1-5, ended up with a worse result.
At least when I got the surgery.
But apparently that same surgeon has developed a newer one in which they don't have to rewire some nerves.
They just cut out a little piece of muscle that's causing a problem.
And this gentleman who heard about it from me is cured.
This is somebody whose entire life is completely different.
Because he heard about a doctor and the surgery and then he went and got it.
And now he's cured. Do you know how good that makes me feel?
Like I actually get to be part of the success story of thousands of people, thousands, who've just been cured of the biggest, one of the biggest problems I've ever had.
It's called spasmodic dysphonia, is the name of the voice problem.
And then the surgery is from a Dr.
Burke in Los Angeles.
Dr. Burke, Dr.
Gerald Burke. B-E-R-K-E. Not you.
B-E-R-K-E. So if you're looking for it, there he is.
Rasmussen asked a poll, a bunch of likely voters in the U.S., how likely...
Do you think there will be widespread cheating in the midterms that will affect the outcome?
So remember the words are widespread, cheating, and affect the outcome.
So it has to be big enough that it could change who got elected.
What do you think the general public thought of that?
Do you think that the Republicans maybe thought there would be trouble, but the Democrats said things would be fine?
Is that what you expected?
Well, 80% of the people who answered that answered that it was very or somewhat likely that there would be widespread cheating in the midterms that will affect the outcome.
80%. 80% of all the people.
I'm not talking about just Republicans.
That includes Democrats.
80% of all the people...
And that does leave about 20% who don't think that's likely.
Now, do you remember when people used to tell me that I was crazy for saying this non-politician who wanted to get into politics was persuasive?
Somebody named Trump.
You've heard of him. And I said, oh, you don't see what's coming.
He's not just persuasive.
He's crazy persuasive.
And people said, no, he's not.
He's not persuasive.
Nobody's going to believe the stuff he's saying.
It's crazy. 80% of the country thinks our elections aren't real.
That's all him. That's all Trump.
Now, you can say other people are saying it too, and that's true, but only because he said it.
If Trump hadn't kept this up, it would have died out like every other election where somebody says it's rigged and then they forget about it.
So, that's amazing.
Now, I believe that the way the question was asked has the most to do with how it got this big number.
I don't believe the country is actually this skeptical about the elections.
Here's what I think people were thinking when they answered the question.
I think what they were thinking is they don't trust the other side.
Don't you think? If you said, what are the odds that the other team will cheat, what would be the answer?
80%. What do you think are the odds that the other team, the team you're not on, what do you think are the odds that they would cheat?
Oh, 80%.
Whichever team you ask.
So I think that's all that happened.
I'm not sure this is actually a snapshot of some gigantic persuasive change.
I think it might be just a team play situation.
Could be in the way that the question was constructed.
That's one of the pitfalls with polls, is that the exact way the question is constructed will get you very different answers.
You think it's the same question, but it's not interpreted that way.
People will throw in their own assumptions there, whether you like it or not.
So I'd keep an eye on that, but I do think there's more skepticism than before.
How many of you saw Trump's interview with Hannity last night?
I guess the first major interview since the boxes at Mar-a-Lago were an issue.
And if you saw, how do you think he did?
Because I haven't seen him in that specific context in a while where he had to answer some questions.
I mean, they were friendly questions, but they were important questions.
I don't think Hannity avoided the big questions.
You could argue whether he hammered down on the follow-up as hard as he should have.
I don't think he did, but I thought he did a solid job.
I think somebody less friendly to the president, because they're famously friends, right?
Everybody knows that they're actually personal friends.
So you don't really expect the hardball interview, and as long as that's fully disclosed, you know, the president's my personal friend.
You know, that's not the biggest problem, right?
I also didn't mind watching the Cuomo brothers on TV. I'm the only person in the world who said, that's fine, it's fully disclosed.
If you know it's his brother, You can handle that, can't you?
I mean, you might not find it entertaining, but if you know he's talking to his own brother, at least you can modify that in your mind to say, okay, don't believe that this is a real interview.
So the Hannity and Trump thing, I think, is more of an event than an interview.
Would you agree? It's more of an event than any kind of hard-hitting interview.
And that's fine. That's not a criticism.
It's completely fine.
Because there can be hard-hitting interviews.
Trump does those too. But as long as you know that Hannity and Trump are friends, you know what you're getting.
All right. Here's my take.
So Trump's explanation, I'm going to paraphrase here, because it was a long interview, but I'm going to paraphrase Trump's explanation of what was going on with those documents and those boxes at Mar-a-Lago.
And here's the funny part.
When you hear Trump explain it, now again, I don't know it's true.
I'm not saying I automatically believe anything about this story or any person.
I'm not saying that.
I'm just reporting what happened.
That Trump's explanation is the most obvious explanation.
What would be the most obvious explanation of all this?
He didn't have anything to do with what went in the boxes.
And he didn't know what was in there.
That's the most obvious explanation, and that's the one he gave.
The one he gave is the most obvious one.
Yeah, that wasn't my business to know what's in a box.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing, he didn't say that.
But the way he told it, it looked like he genuinely didn't know what kind of documents were even a problem.
So I don't think even Trump knows what documents are controversial in that group.
Doesn't that sound like the most reasonably true thing?
Now, I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying that if before you'd heard it, you'd say, what's the most likely thing?
Well, most likely, somebody who operates at Trump's level never got near a box and some tape or whatever they closed them up with.
Then the second thing he said, which he did not do a good job at, he did not do a good job at this, because he didn't word it right, but he could have.
He indicated that those documents were unclassified by the actions he took.
So he says directly there's no required process that he has to follow as president, when he was president, to declassify a thing.
And since there's no formal process, it cannot be said that you did the process wrong.
You simply had to have done something that declassified them.
And his argument is that moving them in a very obvious, direct way from the secured location to his home was a clear signal to everybody that he declassified it.
Now here's my question.
Can you declassify a box whose contents you don't know?
Does that even make sense?
What would it mean if he said, okay, obviously, all of these boxes I'm shipping right in front of everybody.
You all see it.
Like, we're not hiding it.
Look at all these boxes.
They're being loaded on the truck.
No secrets here.
So I would agree with him so far.
So here's where I agree.
I do agree that if there's no formal process, that his actions are clear.
If you take it out of a secure place and everybody's watching it, and then you move it to an unsecure place, that's de facto declassification.
I think that argument actually works.
What I don't know is can you declassify something that you don't know you declassified?
That's more of a problem, isn't it?
If you just said, well, if it's in those boxes, consider it declassified.
Now, if he has complete power, which I believe the Constitution allows him, right?
Is it the Constitution?
But he has complete power of declassifying.
So would that complete power include saying, I don't know what's in that box, but it's all declassified?
I think I would argue that he does have that power, wouldn't you?
I mean, it'd be weird, but probably true.
I don't know. It feels like a Dershowitz argument to this.
I haven't heard Dershowitz weigh in on this.
But I feel like Trump's take on this is probably what a Dershowitz argument would be.
That if your actions have caused an obvious declassification, then you should consider them declassified.
And here's the thing.
What if it's a gray area?
Suppose there's a grey area.
You know, I just described it, and maybe some of you said, yeah, that sounds...
I'll buy that. And then others of you said, no, no, I'm not going to buy that.
Then Trump wins, right?
Because there's no process.
If a reasonable person, me, I'm a reasonable person, some of you are reasonable.
If reasonable people, not all of them, but if some reasonable people would say, yeah, that argument works.
If it was obvious he was taking them, that's declassified.
Then I think that's all he needs.
Because there was no process.
All right. I thought Trump was, again, lacking a forward vision.
It's a weird situation because the forward vision is explicitly to go back to where we were.
So maybe he doesn't need to say it?
Because he's saying, you know, it's pretty obvious that he would...
Well, you know what Trump would do, right?
It's a strange situation, isn't it?
Because if it were anybody else, I would say, you better be telling us what you're going to do.
Don't just tell us what's bad about the current situation.
But in his specific case, you do know exactly what he would do.
You kind of do. Now, he claims that the Ukraine situation would never have happened.
If he were in charge.
Now, the first time I heard that, I said to myself, well, you never know that, right?
That would be hard to know.
And he says that he directly threatened Putin to not do military action when he was in office.
But here's the part you can't argue with.
With Trump in charge, America would be producing more energy.
True? True, right?
If America were producing lots more energy, would Europe be as threatened by the gas turn-offs?
I think not, right?
Now, I don't exactly know how fungible gas is.
Do you have enough tankers?
Could you move our excess over there, or would there be logistics problems you couldn't do it?
But I think there's an argument.
I'm seeing some no's.
I don't know what the no refers to.
But I think the argument holds that Trump would have kept energy prices modest and fuel more available and that therefore Russia's biggest weapon wouldn't have been available to them.
What do you think? I think that's actually a pretty good opinion.
I think that Trump's view that it wouldn't have happened if he had been president It's not guaranteed.
You know, you can't really do a what-if, what-if, nobody knows.
It's impossible to know.
But his argument does hold water.
It does. So we'll never know.
Russia has called up its reservists, those 300,000 people who probably are poorly trained and too old and don't want to go back to war, or at least don't to the military.
And all of the coverage...
Can you give me a fact check on this?
The news of all type in the United States is reporting that Russia is losing, and it doesn't look like that's going to change.
Now, that's not my opinion.
I'm saying that the reporting is now consistently across all media, Saying that Russia is losing.
It doesn't look like there's a way to change that, because their manpower thing looks pretty dire.
And Ukraine looks like nothing's going to stop them, because they've got support, they've got morale, and everything else.
Now, will you please acknowledge that I had the best military prediction about Ukraine in the entire United States?
Anybody? Are you ready to do that yet?
Anybody? No?
I see some no's. You're going to hold tight, aren't you?
You're going to hold tight. Remember what my prediction was?
My prediction was that Ukraine would outperform the military experts' predictions.
Will you give me that? Would you give me that Ukraine has outperformed the experts' predictions?
But they did not outperform my prediction.
Would you give me that? And would you give me that the reasons given have mostly to do with advanced weaponry provided to Ukraine, which was specifically what I said would be the key?
Would you give me that?
Now, here's the thing that might drive you crazy about me.
This sort of thing drives a lot of you crazy.
Because I do insist That you recognize that that was correct.
I do insist. And the reason is, it's not because I made one prediction.
I make predictions regularly.
And if you don't track them to see when I'm right and when I'm wrong, you lose half the value of watching me.
You should have some sense of how often I'm right.
Now, I want to give you some examples of where the experts were wrong and I was right.
When the experts said, we're telling you don't use masks, and I said, no, the experts are lying.
I was the only person in the country, the only person, and you could check that.
There was not one person in the world who said on day one, you're obviously lying about the masks.
Now, I don't want to get into, do masks work?
That's a separate question for now.
And boring. We don't want to talk about that.
But we can all agree that Fauci lied about his opinion of masks, right?
We all agree he lied.
Because he says he lied.
I'm the only person who called that out.
I'm the only one. There was nobody else in the country who saw it from the jump.
I was like, well, that's obviously a lie.
Right? Somebody says, Bannon?
I don't think so. Now, I also predicted that the vaccinations would not work as vaccinations.
Am I an expert on vaccinations?
No. But did I get that right?
And I said therapeutics would be the main thing that makes a difference.
That's about as right as you can be.
I don't think you could be more right than that.
Somebody says I'm wrong 25% of the time.
That's probably right. That feels about right.
I would accept that, actually.
I think my predictions are wrong at least 25% of the time.
Because nobody can do this all the time.
Nobody's right all the time.
25% sounds about right.
So with my predictions, I guess it was a point I was going to make.
My prediction is not that I'm smarter than experts.
It's never that.
My prediction is that a non-expert can identify lying.
That's all. I say a non-expert can identify when an expert is lying, if you are an expert at identifying lying.
So I claim some expertise in identifying liars.
So when you see me disagree with experts, sometimes I'm just disagreeing with liars.
I didn't need their expertise, I just needed my expertise.
Right? So that's where it's a trick.
It looks like I'm pretending I'm smarter than experts, and I've never done that.
I've never pretended I knew more than an expert.
I've only pretended that my expertise is spotting experts lying.
Do you remember when it was common that everybody believed passion was the key to success?
Because the billionaires were telling you it was true.
And I told you, well, it's obviously not true.
But that doesn't give me the skills of a Mark Zuckerberg.
It doesn't give me the skills of a Warren Buffett.
It doesn't give me the skills of the people I was calling bullshit on.
I only needed my own skill.
Identify bullshit. Right?
That's my own skill.
All right. There's a...
So Putin did his little...
He did a video, I don't know what it was, a statement or a press conference or something, but did you see his awkward posture?
His right hand, the one that people have suggested has some Parkinson's or something, was very awkwardly on top of a table in a way that nobody sits.
Especially if you're going to be doing an extended leader interview, right?
His left arm seemed to have a little action going on, but his right arm was flat on the table, and then if you watch his thumb, his thumb kept doing this.
So it looked like he was trying to stop a motion problem.
Now you could have argued that his right thumb was sort of mirroring his left hand, so that when he was gesturing, you know, it was just sort of an automatic little thing that happened with the other hand.
But if you're gesturing with one hand, you're going to gesture with two.
He gestured only with one.
In my opinion, it's obvious that he has some kind of physical problem with that arm.
Would anybody agree?
It looks like Parkinson's, but I'm not a medical expert.
I can say if something looks wrong, I'm not qualified to diagnose it.
Would that stop me?
Probably not. Do you think he just overused his masturbation arm?
Do you think that's a possibility?
Now, so that's my first thing.
Second is, he does look like a leader who's in trouble and doesn't have an exit strategy.
Because his internal pressure must be really high right now.
And what's he going to do?
Is he going to have to use a nuke because he can't lose?
We do have a problem giving Putin an exit ramp, and until he has an exit ramp, why would he ever change what he's doing?
I mean, he's going to kill every last Russian soldier if he doesn't have any option.
So we'd better figure out how to give him an option.
I don't think the Biden administration wants him to have an option.
I think they want him to be taken out.
Now, have you heard about all the Russian associates of Putin who seem to be dying by falling down stairs and falling out of windows?
Have you heard about all that?
And they all seem to be prior people who are close to Putin.
And everybody says, well, obviously Putin is killing all these people who were maybe saying bad things about him.
But I have another hypothesis.
They stopped saying that they were critics of Putin.
Have you noticed that? It used to be a critic of Putin was murdered.
And you're like, well, obviously, Putin.
But then it turned out associates of Putin are being murdered.
Is that Putin? Why isn't it Ukraine?
Are you telling me Ukraine has not sent out death squads to kill all of his friends who live overseas?
And if they haven't, why not?
And I also wonder if the billionaire friends who lived overseas maybe have some function for Putin that we don't know about.
Meaning money laundering, maybe?
I mean, I don't know.
Is there something that Putin gains by having billionaire friends that he can control that live in other countries?
Yeah, I'll get to that.
What if it's the CIA? Now, I don't know if the CIA can assassinate civilians who don't have an obvious terrorist connection.
I'm not sure what the law is there.
But could the CIA simply start taking out all of Putin's associates who live anywhere in the world?
And if they're not, why wouldn't Zelensky do it?
Because most of the people who are being killed are people who are high enough profile that you'd know exactly where they live.
If you know where somebody lives and you're Ukrainian and you think they're on Putin's side, why wouldn't you kill them?
If this were World War II and Hitler had known associates who were billionaires living in other countries, I'd kill one myself.
I wouldn't even hesitate. If I were Ukrainian and I knew where one of these Putin associates lived, and I had access to kill him, I'd kill him, just for being a known associate of Putin during a war.
Is that too far? I mean, even as a civilian, if I could get away with it, I'd probably kill him.
Yeah, I would probably kill him.
So I think that if you understand it in the context of war, it could have been anybody.
Could have been Ukraine, could have been U.S., could have been NATO, could have been anybody.
But I don't think it's Putin.
If I had to guess, I think Putin killed a few, and then it made it easier for other people to hang every murder on Putin.
I feel like the U.S. is killing people, or Ukraine, or somebody.
We don't know. Just guessing.
There was some fake news that Russians are trying to leave the country through Finland's border, but apparently that was based on photographs of just normal lines at the border.
So Finland has said, there's no escape from Russia going on.
That's not happening. And maybe it's not.
So, And then there was a report that the Ukrainians captured dozens or maybe up to 200 tanks that were abandoned by the Russians because they were retreating so quickly.
Do you believe that?
It comes from a Ukrainian source in a fog of war, so it's totally believable, isn't it?
No. Yeah.
No. All right.
Let's talk about fentanyl.
So here's what I've learned by reading up on this lately.
So China apparently did try to crack down on their internal sources of fentanyl that were going to the cartels that were going to the United States under Trump.
Now the story is, and I'm not sure I believe it, the story is that they did actually try to crack down on it, and that they did succeed.
And that China's flow of fentanyl actually was vastly reduced for a little while.
But then the so-called Chinese cartel, drug cartels, found out ways around it, and they sent precursors instead of the actual fentanyl.
So they found clever ways to thwart the law.
Does that sound even a little bit true?
That doesn't sound even a little bit true.
Because if China wanted to stop it for international reasons, it wouldn't matter that they'd found a clever way to skirt the law.
China would have just dragged him in and said, stop skirting the law.
I know where you live.
You're going to be dead by Tuesday if you keep skirting this law.
And then they would stop skirting the law.
So obviously it had to come from the top.
So I don't believe that China ever was serious in any way about stopping fentanyl.
But apparently because of Pelosi and Taiwan, Pelosi going to Taiwan, China has stopped even pretending to enforce it.
So that's part of their pushback.
They're not going to enforce fentanyl.
Okay. So what do you do?
Well, here's some things that the Republicans are doing.
Governor Abbott in Texas signed an executive order declaring the cartels a terrorist organization, which I understand allows them to treat every fentanyl overdose as murder.
Now, the practical implications of that are not much, right?
Just because the cartels are accused of murder, and maybe the dealer locally is accused of murder, it might help.
It's way better than nothing, and it signals maybe a change in thinking.
And I think he's also encouraging the federal government to do the same, but they won't because it's Biden.
At the same time, I heard, but I'll need a confirmation on this, that there were 18 attorney generals in different states that want to classify fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.
One in particular, is it Wyoming?
Montana? I forget which country it is.
Iowa? There's one state that's serious about it.
All right, so now we've got the cartels being designated terrorist organizations.
We've got attorney generals wanting to classify fentanyl as weapons of mass destruction.
Where did those ideas come from?
Anybody recognize any of those ideas?
What was it, Missouri?
Yeah, I have my states wrong there, so just ignore my states.
Right. So then Matt Gaetz came out and said directly he suggests bombing the cartels.
And they said, seriously?
Seriously? Bombing the cartel?
So now it's actually out in the open.
So I've told you before what it is that I can do that makes a difference.
Here's one thing I can do that makes a difference.
If there's an idea that's too far, I can float it and see what happens.
When I first said, we need to bomb the cartels, that sounded pretty extreme, didn't it?
First time you ever heard it, it's like, whoa, crazy guy.
We're not going there.
That'd be crazy, right?
First time you heard it.
And then I keep saying it.
And then you start thinking, well, people are not pushing back as hard as I would think.
And then a politician can say it.
And they don't get pushed back either.
So I think it widened the...
It widened what we can talk about.
And that was an important first step.
It widened what we can talk about.
Now... How do we actually make a difference with the cartels?
Here's what I would do. Number one, I would give the cartels a date certain to get out of the fentanyl business only.
If you said on a certain date you have to stop doing everything illegal, of course they wouldn't do anything differently, right?
The cartels aren't going to make any change just because we complained.
But suppose you said, okay cartels, The drugs you're sending are a big problem, but the fentanyl you're sending is a weapon of mass destruction.
And we're going to just pave your fucking entire operation.
We're going to turn it into dust.
And you've got, until this date, to get out of just that business, just the fentanyl.
If you're still selling cocaine and heroin, we're still going to try to kill you for it, but we're not going to do it militarily.
We'll do it the old-fashioned way.
So there's the line in the sand.
If on this date you're selling one pill of fentanyl, we're just going to pave your whole fucking operation.
You're all dead. And nothing's going to stop us.
And just see if that creates a situation where they would be willing to negotiate.
Part two. Direct negotiations with the head of the cartels.
I don't know if we've ever tried that before, do you?
Direct negotiation.
And the direct negotiation should say this.
If you don't stop fentanyl today, we're killing you.
And it doesn't matter what it costs or how long it takes, we're going to fucking kill you.
You're gone. Your whole operation and all your children, all dead.
That's the negotiation.
Now, here's the thing.
With the cartels, they have the Putin problem.
They don't have their retirement plan.
The cartel can't just retire.
Now, it could stop selling fentanyl and still make plenty of money and still be a cartel.
So they do have a way to go if they don't want to escalate it to full warfare.
I don't think they do.
But you should also offer them a retirement plan that looks like this.
Roughly speaking, right?
This is just an example.
And it would go like this.
We'll give you stock In pharma manufacturing startups in Mexico.
So we'll move our pharma manufacturing to Mexico, because the U.S. is just too hard regulation-wise.
And we'll build some manufacturing there.
But it will only be the manufacturing part.
It's not the R&D and the high-end stuff.
It's just manufacturing. And we'll give the cartel heads, I don't know, 2% of the stock.
They won't have any control.
They won't have any management.
They just get some stock.
Just like anybody who buys stock.
And you say, here's the deal.
If you shut down everything illegal, we'll let you stay rich.
You can even own this stock.
And your family will be safe forever.
You'll have full pardons.
And your family can just live and you'll have your rich legacy forever.
But if you sell one more piece of fentanyl, you're all dead.
I know that what we're doing now doesn't work.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think that Trump could not negotiate with the head of a cartel?
And let me ask you the second question.
Is there anyone else in the whole world who could do that?
I don't know of anybody.
I mean, maybe I could.
But it'd be pretty hard.
Trump could. Because Trump is used to negotiating with gangsters.
You need somebody who's used to negotiating with actual murderers.
Trump does that.
Trump has experience negotiating with actual murderers.
Because if you're in construction in New York, you've had to.
There's no way he avoided those guys.
He had to. So he must have figured out some kind of way to live with the mafia through negotiation.
So apparently he knows how to do this.
So I would say that a Trump presidency gives you the only chance you have of negotiating with the cartels to do something about fentanyl.
It's the only one. Now, I told you that I'm going to push for a single issue vote for the presidency.
And the single issue...
I suggest, would be the fentanyl overdoses.
So that whichever party has the better plan for that just gets you a vote.
Now, you're not committed.
I mean, you're a free citizen in the United States.
You can vote any way you want.
But if you want anything to happen on fentanyl, you have to at least put out there the idea that you could move, you know, a million votes one way or the other based on who has the better fentanyl plan.
I'd like to see them compete.
So as of today, the Republicans have the better fentanyl plan.
Declare that they're terrorist organizations.
Declare that it's a weapon of mass destruction.
Those are good plans.
And then, you know, at least have the conversation about bombing them.
Matt Gaetz. So, if you voted today and you wanted to make the one issue, fentanyl, your primary reason for your vote, you would vote Republican.
But, let me be clear, they're not doing enough, they're just talking.
Talking and changing the definition of words isn't really doing anything.
So Republicans still round to zero of actual impact.
But the way they're talking and the way they're sort of leaning is very superior, very...
I mean, it's not even close, compared to what the Democrats are offering, which is essentially nothing.
So I'm going to keep hammering on this, and I'll try to convince as many people as possible to at least commit to making it a one-issue vote.
What you do when you get into the voting booth...
That's up to you. You can use any criteria you want.
But if you could publicly commit that you would vote for whoever could figure out a plan to solve the fentanyl, maybe you get them to compete.
Because Republicans are not going to do more than they just did.
Because now they're ahead, right?
They have the advantage on fentanyl persuasion, so they don't need to do anything at all.
Except talk. Because they have the advantage in talk.
So as long as they're ahead, they don't need to push.
But what if the Democrats say, oh shit, they're ahead.
I'd like to get those million swing votes that will vote for one topic.
Maybe they can come up with something that's strong.
And maybe I'd even like it.
And if I do, I'm going to push for a Democrat.
Let me say it directly so you're not surprised.
If the Democrats come up with a better plan for fentanyl, I'm going to push the fuck out of it.
Don't give me a hard time about it.
I'm just warning you in advance so that you don't get too shocked.
All right.
So I was hoping that when I tweeted about making fentanyl a single-issue topic for voting, that enough people would retweet it that it would look serious.
I did get thousands and thousands of retweets, which is very high for a retweet for me.
But I think we need at least a million.
I think we need to credibly say we could move a million votes To whichever side had the better fentanyl policy.
Why? Because there are a million people in the United States who have been directly affected by the fentanyl overdose.
Do you see that? There are at least a million people just like me who have somebody they know and was close to them who died from fentanyl and see that there's nothing being done to stop it and it's growing.
I want all of those million people who have ever experienced any fentanyl death to say, you can do something about this.
All you have to do is commit in public, on social media, that you're going to vote for the side that has the best fentanyl plan, and you'll worry about the other stuff next time.
Right? You'll worry about the other stuff next time.
And you know what? The Republicans are still fucking up big time.
I mean, their messaging is just so bad.
So bad. So you've got the Republicans who are looking to get tough on fentanyl, which kills young people mostly.
And they have not rolled it into their protecting the young.
The message that the Republicans have, it's just right in front of them.
All you have to do is just sink your teeth into it.
Like, you've got this big plate...
Of perfect persuasion, just served right up.
You are the party, you Republicans, are the party who absolutely, in every case, is looking out for the kids.
Now, I'm not arguing that all of the ways you want to do that are the best ways to do it.
Those are separate questions. But there's no doubt about who's in it and serious about protecting kids.
Everything from abortion.
Again, we're not arguing who's right or wrong about that.
But there's only one side that is clearly about protecting the young.
And the other side is about protecting the adults.
That's a very clear distinction.
Fentanyl. If the Democrats are not trying to crack down on fentanyl, they're not protecting the young.
Not even close. And then you look at school.
Republicans have the advantage there, too.
You look at economics.
Don't young people want to You know, get into a world that has good economics.
I mean, basically on every level from energy, economics, school, abortion, no matter what you think of abortion, right?
So I'm not giving you my abortion.
I don't have an opinion on abortion because I have a cock.
That's my view. But the Republicans have this slam dunk, absolutely killer persuasion opportunity to just say, in every single case, Democrats will We'll put their own selfish needs above children, and we'll do the opposite.
We'll take care of the future, and they're just taking care of their weird orange hair.
All right. We've gone from sentient husky dogs all the way to that.
All right, so how many noticed that I got a little attention on Twitter yesterday?
Because I mentioned in a comment to somebody, it was just a comment, that I had lost two careers in the corporate world for being a white male.
And I've said that quite a few times in public.
But this time it attracted Ida Bae-Wells, Who called me a liar.
And she said in the tweet, she said, you've been propagating the same lie for years.
It would be illegal for your bosses to have said that, meaning that I couldn't get promoted because I'm white male.
It would have been illegal for your bosses to have said that, and no one believes you.
You've been propagating the same lie for years, which means she's been aware of me for years.
So, this isn't the first time that she knows that I've made this claim.
And she says, it would be illegal for your bosses to have said that, and no one believes you.
So, now her real name is, yeah, Nicole Hannah-Jones, and she goes by this historical name.
I'm not sure exactly when she uses which name, but it's the same person.
And she's the author of the 1619 Project, if you haven't heard of that.
So, what did I do when she called me a liar?
Well, she also asked for evidence and some other prominent black folks came into my tweet feed and they said, you keep making these claims that we all know are lies.
So, black adults who are well-educated, at least the ones in this conversation, these are well-educated black adults, do not believe that white men have been discriminated in any widespread way in hiring in America over the last 25 years.
Is that mind-blowing or what?
Because it's the most well-known phenomenon I can imagine.
But reading a number of their comments, there are a number of educated black adults who believe that that's a conspiracy theory, and that I'm one of the conspiracy theories, I guess, spreading it, because I'm making a claim that they say is a complete lie, And that I never was told that I can't be promoted because I'm white and male because it would be illegal to do so.
Now, is that not obvious cognitive dissonance?
Here's how you tell what cognitive dissonance is.
Cognitive dissonance is where you say something that's absurd and everybody can see it.
Who in the world could be a black adult advocate for black concerns, like Ada Baywals or Nicole, whatever she's going by?
How can you be somebody working in that space and believe that corporations don't break the law because they would be afraid of getting caught?
How can you possibly think that's a thing?
There's nobody who's worked at a major corporation who's unaware that they break laws routinely and are completely aware of it.
So let me tell you, in case anybody's wondering, how could somebody tell me this directly in a corporate world without worrying about legal ramifications?
And I'll explain that to you.
If you weren't there, it's very easy to explain.
And they also asked Scott, if this is true, you would have sued.
Do you think that's true?
That if my claim had been true, I would have sued.
That's the obvious thing I would have done.
Do you know why that never really occurred to me in any serious way?
Because I don't see myself as a victim.
And when I describe the events as they happen to me, I don't put them in a victim frame.
I simply describe them.
Because it's important to know.
It's part of the context of the whole conversation.
And the black people who were criticizing me on this, they were blaming me for acting like I was a victim.
But that never happened.
That's a complete imaginary take.
There's no point where I complained.
I simply described.
And do you know why I don't complain?
The reason I don't complain is for exactly their point.
The black critics who said, you know, I wasn't a victim, were completely correct.
I agree with my critics.
I never felt like a victim.
And do you know what I did when the first employer told me I couldn't get promoted?
Do you know what I did? I just put out my resume and got a much higher paying job at another company.
So did I feel like I was a victim?
And do you know what happened to everybody in the company I left right after I left?
They were all fired right after I left.
Because Wells Fargo bought that bank and then eliminated my department.
They were all fired.
I was the winner.
So the reason I don't think of myself as a victim is I'm the only one who won.
I got a big raise.
So I go to my new job.
And I get, you know, put on the management track and it looks like things are good.
I'm finishing up my MBA at night.
I'm a superstar. I'm going to be a corporate superstar.
And then they brought me in and told me directly, directly, we can't promote you because you're a white male.
Just, I think it's a courtesy to let you know.
Now, why didn't I sue my boss?
Because he was a friend.
And what he was doing was illegal.
You don't want your friend to go to jail.
Do you? And my friend, my boss in my last job, the one who also told me I couldn't be promoted, was also my friend.
Right? I mean, a boss friend, co-worker friend, right?
But a friend. How many of you would put your friend in jail?
Because they were just doing what their boss told them.
In each case, the bosses were not making their own decisions.
They were actually apologizing for them, to me.
They were saying, I apologize, but the order has come down and I'm just enforcing it.
Right? Right, I was told in private, I think it was probably my direct boss or somebody else was in the room.
It might have been somebody else in the room, I can't recall.
All right. No one was going to go to jail for that.
Well, it would have been a legal problem.
I mean, they would have had to testify and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But when the second company told me I couldn't be promoted, did I feel a victim?
Well, in a minor way.
But then I just quiet quit.
I immediately quiet quit.
Do you know why I quiet quit?
That means you just go to work, but you don't do much work.
Because I could. I had the option.
And then as I quiet quit, it opened up time for me to work on other projects that had a bigger upside.
And one of those projects was the Dilbert comic, and it worked out.
So do I feel like I was a victim?
Hell no. I was a white man in America who could get a job at any corporation.
I basically could work anywhere.
White man in America is a pretty good deal.
Have I ever said it wasn't?
No. It's not a victim problem.
White man in America in the 80s and 90s, pretty good deal.
Pretty good deal. You know what was a better deal?
In one way, just one way, black person in the 80s or 90s.
Because if you had any qualifications, you could get a job anywhere.
Anywhere. It was the easiest thing in the world.
Now, let me bring us all together.
May I? And by the way, I offered Ida Bay-Wells, I offered her on Twitter, I said that I would work with her if she wanted to write a feature article to debunk me, and I'll help her research it.
And I said that it's not about me.
This was the widespread effect at the time.
I was just one person. But I told her I'd work with her and help her research it.
And then whatever the result was, even if the result is that it was a conspiracy theory.
What if my one situation fooled me into thinking it was widespread, and it never was?
Wouldn't that be interesting? Which would be also moving the ball forward.
I'd be okay with that too.
It would be embarrassing for me, but that doesn't bother me.
I don't mind being embarrassed.
I'm in. So if Ida Bay-Wells wants to work with me, I will not only be an honest participant, I won't try to sabotage it or do anything clever, I'll actually try to get to the truth.
What really happened? No matter what the truth is, I'll just try to get to it.
Because that would be fascinating.
I'd love that. But I'm going to offer this that's even better.
I'm going to tell you how to bring everybody together.
The first way to bring everybody together is to admit that this phenomenon I described is true.
And we can do that by researching it, and find that it's true.
But then you have to interpret it, and that's the hard part.
The proving it's true would be trivial.
That would be easy. The second part is reparations.
Because am I not owed reparations for being discriminated against?
And all the white people who didn't get jobs because they were discriminated against?
No, I'm not serious.
I'm just putting that out there to be a jerk.
If I felt like a victim, sure.
But I don't. Here's where we can all come together.
Strategy. And education.
There is one place that every person in the country agrees, and only one place that I think, and that's children's education needs to be better, and also adult education for job training.
Doesn't everybody agree on that?
That's the one place we could all come together, right?
The black population, the Republican population, absolutely same page.
Now, what to do about it?
There would be differences.
But why can't we come together on the fact...
And I think it would be an easy sale to say that choice and free markets make things better.
But this is where I would come together.
I would forget everything else for the while.
Because if you talk about everything all the time, then it's just reasons for fighting.
But we can find the one place where we all agree.
In my opinion, systemic racism is real and a big problem.
And its main source is that we can't educate our children properly.
So if you're already behind, you have to stay behind.
Because our system doesn't allow you to easily catch up, unless you're lucky.
I was lucky, I guess.
So, that's what I suggest.
That if we're going to find any kind of unity, we do it over children's education.
That's where we can do it.
Interestingly, the black people who criticized me did not think I should put any weight on my lived experience.
Now, it seemed to me that when we were arguing about police brutality against blacks, That even when the statistics didn't maybe support a narrative, that the argument was, well, forget your statistics.
This is our lived life.
Our actual experience is this fear, these problems.
We see it everywhere.
This is our existence. You can't deny our everyday existence with your data.
It's not a bad argument.
I'm using the same one.
What if my data is wrong?
It doesn't change the fact this is what I lived.
And why would you diminish my lived experience?
Alright.
It's funny how many of my critics were overtly racist in their comments to me.
And overtly racist, I mean, the reason that they thought I was lying was that I'm white.
They didn't say that, but it's obvious.
It's pretty obvious that they thought I was lying because I'm white.
How am I supposed to take that?
And do you think they even knew it?
That it was obvious that it was a racial comment?
And here's a Twitter user named Mekka, M-E-K-K-A, who also accused me of lying, asked me to name the corporations, which I did, Crocker National Bank and Pacific Belt.
So he doubted I could name the corporations.
And I'm trying to track down my actual bosses.
So I remember one of the names of one of the bosses, but I don't know how to find her.
The other one, I have a first name, and I almost can remember the second name, but both of them would be in their 70s.
I don't know if they're even alive.
I'll try to hunt them down.
But my case is not really the situation.
The real situation is whether it was widespread.
And at the same time that I was talking about this, people were commenting.
I was just tweeting their experiences.
And one of them was a job posting from the University of Florida, I think.
And the job posting says explicitly that it's part of a cluster hire strategy for improving their diversity.
Which means that if you're a white male, they don't really want you.
It says that.
And that's today. And what happens when black people read that?
Do they say, oh, that looks perfectly legal and honest?
It's completely illegal.
It's illegal, and they're publishing it in public.
Not only are companies not worried about discriminating against white males, they're so not worried they can do it publicly, and have been for 25 years.
And somehow, the black critics who were giving me a hard time yesterday, somehow they've never noticed that this discrimination is public, and always has been.
It's right in front of you.
You can just go look at it.
All right. The other thing that I think made it hard for people to understand my point that I was discriminated against is I got this argument.
Oh, Scott, are you telling me that if I were to check those two companies, I wouldn't find any white men in charge?
Are you telling me that there were no white men getting promoted at those two companies, Scott?
Really? Really? So in the 80s and 90s, You're telling me that these two big corporations, they didn't have any white men in management, right?
That's what you're telling me? No.
I'm not telling you that.
I'm telling you that they were all white men.
That's the whole fucking point.
Who do you think was screwing me?
It wasn't black people.
Did you hear me blaming any black people for what happened?
No. Every bit of it was a cock-sucking, motherfucking white guy.
Every bit of it. Now, in the case of my direct boss, it was a woman, and I was told by a woman, but it wasn't her decision.
The decision came from a motherfucking, cocksucking, racist asshole white guy.
If you think you can out-hate racist motherfucking white guys, you think you can hate them more than I do?
Good luck. Good luck.
We're on the same side.
Which is the weird thing.
If Ida Bay Wells knew anything about me, if you know I'm on the same side, we have the same enemy.
Motherfucking asshole, racist, ass covering, weak, motherfucking, cocksucking, idiot, white men.
They are my enemies.
Because they're the ones who discriminated against me.
It wasn't women. Not once.
I don't believe I've ever been discriminated against, I can remember, by a woman.
I can't think of one time I've ever been discriminated against by anybody black, anybody brown.
I can't think of one time.
But white men?
Oh, fuck!
White men are the worst.
Have you met any white men?
They're fucking awful, discrimination-wise.
And the reason they do it is it makes them look like heroes.
I just saw some CEO valiantly white knighting how hard he was going to work for whatever, ESG goals.
And I thought to myself, that cocksucker, he can do that because he's already the fucking CEO, right?
Once you're the CEO, yeah, you can be really woke about the people who don't get to be CEO because you already got that job and the next one's going to have to be black because, well, you got that job, so you ruined everything.
You ruined everything by being the CEO. If the CEO who was saying he wants to fix anything cared about any of that shit, he'd quit his job and give it to a black man or LGBTQ or something.
By the way, how much trouble do you think I'm getting in for even wading into this topic?
Because at this point, all the controls are off me.
You know that. I'm a free man.
I am a free man.
Because whatever's going to happen to my comic career is going to happen anyway.
You know, newspapers are going to fall apart.
But once you've reached a point where it can't get worse, it can't get worse.
I have enough to retire, so it doesn't matter.
I get to say what you can't say.
So it's not just even the F you money.
That's a big part of it, of course.
But it has to do with also just being done.
There's a very big power to being done.
Have you ever noticed that in your life?
There are times when you're like, I really should do this, I want to do this.
But now I'm actually done.
I'm done pretending that I have a different opinion than I really do.
Because I've pretended for 25 years.
I don't need to anymore.
Yeah, I just decided, exactly.
I've decided that I'm going to go down.
If I go down, it's going to be in flames.
It's the only way I want to go.
I don't want to scurry away whimpering.
If this career is winding down, and it is, I'm at that age where careers wind down, I'm just going to light up everything that needs to be burned.
I'm just going to put a match to every piece of gasoline I can get to, but only productively.
So here's my promise.
I'm not going to do it just for fun.
I'm going to do it productively.
I'm going to only put a match to the gasoline that needs to be torched.
In my opinion. Yeah, productive gasoline.
Is this you getting bored?
Yes. Yes.
Yeah, so that's actually a good question.
Somebody asked, is my seeming change of attitude about me being bored?
And the answer is yes. But I'd add something to that.
It's not having a family.
So if I were living with a little family unit, I would put 100% of my effort into protecting that.
And whatever I had left might go into the world.
But at the moment, you own me.
I have donated myself to the public.
And that means I can do what is for the public good, and I don't have to worry about anything else.
So I'm going to try to do the following things for you.
I'm going to try to make fentanyl a lesser problem.
I'm going to try to find a way to come together In terms of the division.
Mostly racially.
I don't think we need to come together in political parties.
But racially, yes.
And LGBTQ, yes.
And men and women, yes.
So all the personal ways we need to come together, we need to do that.
But having political parties that are opposed, that's probably a useful conflict.
Alright. What do you think of this Letitia James coming after Trump?
Trump talked about this on Hannity last night, and I don't know all the details, but it's sounding like there were two different valuations for different Trump properties.
One is what they tell the bank, and then...
I'm sorry.
I may have a detail wrong, so let me back up.
Trump said that the management estimates, the estimates that management themselves put on the properties, Came with gigantic disclosures that say these are just for management.
Don't depend on them.
Do your own research if you wanted to know what we're worth.
Which is what you'd say to a bank.
Now, Hannity said something that I'm so angry at myself for not having thought of the same thing.
Just the most obvious thing, Hannity says.
He says, since when does a bank take your word for what your building is worth?
That's never happened in the history of banks.
And as soon as I heard that I was like, wait a minute, how could there possibly be fraud?
Because the process requires the bank to look into it on their own.
It requires it. It's not even optional.
There's no bank who doesn't do their own independent look at the value of property.
That's not a thing. Have you ever tried to get a loan on your house?
Do you think they're not going to look at the house?
Of course they look at the house.
That's the most basic thing any lender would do.
And why I never thought of that, like why that never occurred to me as the most important fact in all of the story, I don't know, it just escaped me.
But thank you to Hannity, because it took Hannity to surface that fact.
And as soon as I heard it, I was like, oh, this is obviously bullshit.
If you put those two things together, That the management disclaimers had more than a page of don't trust this.
This is management's estimate.
If you know that every management values their assets higher than every bank, what does that tell you about this case?
Every management, there's probably never been an exception, every management values their own properties higher than a bank does.
Why would that be? Because they do it for different reasons.
The bank is picking...
Generally, there's an argument for a range of value, right?
If you're subjectively looking at buildings and saying, what are these valued, there's usually a range from the lowest it could be worth to the highest it might be worth, and that could change over time.
So you're estimating, right?
It's not even so much what it's worth today.
You also have to estimate, will it still be worth that during the course of the loan, because that's your collateral.
Now, which of those two things, the top of the range or the bottom of the range, would management naturally and quite reasonably take as their estimate?
Management would take the top of the range, because they want to tell you they're doing well.
And it's within the argument that's not crazy.
It's like there's a range that reasonable people could put on this.
So management will always take the top of the range every time.
Not just Trump. Every management, everywhere, all the time, they're going to take the top of the range.
Now what's the bank do?
The bank has to protect their loans.
And the most devastating thing is if you don't get paid back.
That's the worst. So when the bank looks at your assets, do they take the top of the range or do they take the bottom of the range?
Of course they take the bottom.
And they determine the bottom on their own.
They don't take your word for it.
They don't take management's word for what the bottom is.
They calculate that on their own.
So in every case where you see a major company like Trump's, Getting a bank loan.
In every case, what you should expect is that completely legally, management is saying, we accept the top of the estimate for our value, and the bank is saying, you know, we play it cautious, so we're all guessing, so we're going to take the bottom of the estimate to make sure this is a good loan.
Now, here's the next thing.
Apparently, Letitia James said long before she had the job, when she was campaigning for it, that she was going to sue Trump every way she could.
And she said it repeatedly.
And she said that before she had any evidence of any crime, that she would sue him repeatedly with no evidence of any crimes.
And then she got the job.
And then she brought this case, which as we look at it, if you know anything about banking and anything about management, I don't even see an allegation here.
It's supposed to look like the bank had a lower valuation than the management.
That's the only way it's supposed to look.
It should never look any other way.
That's the only way I should look.
And she's decided that's evidence of a crime, apparently.
Now, I don't know the whole details, but that's what we're told, that it's based on that.
Now, as Dershowitz says, that the Trump team should be motioning to have her removed, at least from the prosecution.
How in the world could you have a legitimate prosecution when the person doing it said in advance they would prosecute him no matter what the evidence was?
That's the end of the prosecution.
So, yeah, it's a civil case.
I'm a little confused about the criminal versus the civil element of that.
So, yeah, I have some murkiness on that question.
All right. So, I take Dershowitz's opinion, as I always do, as the better one in every situation, it seems like.
And I agree that Trump doesn't have any real risk here.
But the Democrats need to have at least one Trump-is-in-trouble story going at all times, right?
So once this one collapses, it probably will, they're just going to queue up the next one.
And it won't have any more legitimacy than this one.
They just have to have one that's sort of running at all times.
There always has to be one. Yeah, and if it's not him, then they'll use his friends.
Well, Mike Lindell is...
Yeah, whatever. Alright.
Yeah, Dershowitz says it doesn't pass the test of being even legitimate.
And I agree, it is not legitimate looking.
Are they stories I forgot?
There are a few major stories that I haven't touched on.
And when I watch the five, they'll mention them sometimes.
And they'll say, oh, I should have talked about that.
Any major story?
Yes, I did see that I made the news yesterday in a number of publications.
For being the voice of anti-ESG. And I'll say it again, if you're trying to explain to somebody what's wrong with ESG, the way you do it is you say, they have very good goals, but they don't understand systems.
And it's a terrible system to put society's goals in between the management and the customer.
It's good to have those goals, but you don't want to enforce them from a third party outside.
It just breaks the system.
So the free market wouldn't be able to handle that much friction.
Yeah, we already talked about that.
We talked about the 18-year-old that was run over for political reasons, because it was a Republican and a Democrat murdered him with his car.
And I think we talked about that.
And it's another example of that.
I'll tell you, some of my most...
my weirdest provocative predictions about Republicans being hunted...
Why do they always use old photos in the articles?
The reason is there are not any new ones.
So when I did a lot of publicity early in my career, There were tons of photos that were taken, and sometimes the photographers will retain the rights, and they'll put some of those photos on public stock photo services.
So then the news people will go to a stock photo service, because they have owned the rights to use any of that stuff, and they'll use whatever photo they have rights to.
Now, if I were like a presidential candidate, they would send a photographer out every time there's a story and maybe get a new picture or something.
But since most of the pictures ever taken of me that would be copyright available are older ones.
Right.
Companies get appraisals to support their financing and then banks do their own appraisal and there's naturally a difference between those two.
*sniff* Alright, what do you think about NLP overrated?
Oh yeah, Jamie Dimon's response to Rashida about...
So, Rashida, what's her last name?
Rashida Taleb?
So she was grilling some CEOs, I guess, in Congress, and asked them what they would do about getting greener.
I guess the specific question was, would the banks be willing to make loans to people who were in the energy business, that old, dirty energy business?
And Jamie Dimon said, yes, and to do otherwise would be the road to hell.
You know, I don't always agree with everything that J.B. Diamond says, but you have to admit, he is a straight talker.
And he could not have said that any more clearly.
And Rashida Taleb, and I have to wonder if she's actually on the side of America, don't you?
Like, actually legitimately.
Now, usually when we talk about our political opponents, we like to talk about them being traitors and they're not on the side of America, and that's just hyperbole.
Because of course they are.
I don't believe that AOC is not on the side of America.
Do you? Maybe some of you do.
Well, if you say she doesn't have good policies for America, that's different from saying she's not on her side.
But what Rashida Taleb is pushing is so destructive to commerce in the United States that you have to wonder if that's even serious in terms of helping America.
Because I don't see how it could.
It looks like she was working for another entity.
It looks like she's working for a foreign power.
It doesn't look like just disagreement on politics.
It looks like trying to destroy the United States.
That's what it looks like. But you can't read her mind.
Could be some other reason.
I have The Great Reset.
I haven't read it so this is a season where people are sending me books and I'm getting a little behind there's somebody who wishes they hadn't transitioned I don't know how much attention to give the people who transitioned their gender.
How do you say that?
Do they transition a gender?
I guess that's a definitional thing.
But there will always be people who regret every decision.
There are people who regret going to college.
So the fact that some people regret gender or sex change, whatever it is...
Oh, it's gender-affirming surgery.
Okay, that would be the polite way to say it these days, right?
So there's always going to be somebody who wishes they hadn't done it.
There are people who joined the military and wish they hadn't.
I mean, there are tons of people.
There are people who had a baby and wish they hadn't.
People who got married and wish they hadn't.
I don't know if that's the standard we should use.
The standard we usually use is that we allow free citizens to do dumbass things because to do otherwise would take their freedom away.
And I don't think that it matters that there are higher suicide rates, if that's true.
I don't even know if that's true. I don't think that matters.
Because we do let people make mistakes.
And we do let people make choices that we wouldn't make.
Maybe you think it's a mistake, maybe they don't.
No, that's not 40%.
I don't believe that.
Too much talking today?
Yeah, that's what I do.
This is pretty much just talking.
Alright. That's all for now.
I'm going to go do some other things.
I hope my day is as weird and awesome as yesterday.
How many of you thought I had a bad day yesterday?
If you were watching any of the action.
I didn't have a bad day yesterday.
In fact, if you were to score the quality of my whole day yesterday, A+. A+. It was an awesome day.
Yeah, when they feed the energy monster, the energy monster is not unhappy.
What Ida Bay Wells did is gave me the opportunity to have a much bigger platform.
Thank you. Am I concerned that a bunch of people think I'm a horrible person because they misunderstood some stuff I said?
That's every day. I'm so used to that.
Energy sponge. Energy vampire.
Yeah, maybe more of an energy vampire if you know that reference.
