Episode 1893 Scott Adams: Declaring War On The Cartels, Tulsi Gabbard Quits Democrats & Schiff Lies
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Sean Hannity's grotesque violation of Biden families privacy
Former Trump officials propose war on Mexican cartels
Tulsi Gabbard leaves democrat party
Adam Schiff accused of doctoring J6 evidence
Pfizer didn't check if their vaccine vaccinates?
What made Europe successful no longer exists
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the highlight of civilization, the thing that makes everything better in a hundred different ways, at least.
I've counted them. Would you like to take it up to a new level, an amazing level, a level that, I don't know, I don't know if humans have ever even experienced this.
But we're going to take it up now.
And all you need, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel.
It's a dine, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Well, that's the best I've ever said that.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go. Oh, somebody's in the gym and can't sip now.
We're not going to wait. But it's good that you're in the gym.
That's a very good thing to do at the same time that you are consuming coffee with Scott Adams.
Well, there's so much news today I can hardly begin.
Greta Thunberg, Says that she thinks that Germany should keep its nuclear power plants on because the alternative is burning coal.
Why did it take Greta until now to say that?
And the story went on to say that she's feeling good and, you know, she's in a good place.
Sort of mentally and emotionally she's in a good place now.
I'm really happy...
That Greta destroyed planet Earth, but then she's feeling good.
Because that's why we do it, right?
That's why you destroy the planet.
To feel a little better about yourself.
And she is, and so that's good.
On one hand, planet Earth has been destroyed.
On the other hand, Greta is feeling a little bit better about herself.
And I think that counts.
You've got to balance out the positive and the minus.
Honestly, I wonder how she rationalizes this.
Does she not look at the state of the world and know that that was her?
I mean, not all of it, but a big part.
How does she not know her culpability in all of this badness?
I don't think that her brain can process that, right?
In her mind, she'd probably move things forward and then other people just do other things.
Alright. I've heard some people say that one way to save the nuclear marriage is to make it harder to get a divorce.
How many of you think that's a good idea?
To make it really, really hard to get a divorce?
Anybody think that's a good idea?
That sounds like the advice you give to people who have never been in a marriage where they wanted to get a divorce.
I don't think there's anybody who ever wanted a divorce who ever thought that was a good idea.
So, my take is that there was a time in history when making it hard to get a divorce probably was a good strategy.
Because people didn't have a lot of options.
You know, you married somebody you knew.
That's it. Well, I know somebody.
I know the farmer's daughter next door, so...
I guess I'll marry her. I'm the only one she knows that's the right age, so I guess we'll get married.
I think in those days when people had very few options, maybe marriage was good to lock in.
But today, people are exposed to so many alternatives.
They've had a hundred lovers before they get married sometimes.
All kinds of stuff.
I just don't think people's brains Can be happy with one option for 60 years.
I just don't think we're that kind of people.
It's unrealistic in terms of who we've become.
It wasn't unrealistic in the 1800s.
In the 1800s, it might have been a survival necessity.
But at the moment, we've really changed in terms of what we've been exposed to and what we care about and how specific our preferences are.
So I don't know if that's the answer.
I saw a tweet by Joshua Lysak yesterday that kind of stuck with me.
I saw it again today so I thought I'd share it.
He was saying that he heard a podcaster saying the following thing the other day.
Quote, I can't get behind person A because they like to tweet from person B. That tells me everything I need to know about person A and none of it's good.
And Joshua goes on to say, imagine in Bidding you think this way in public.
Imagine thinking that you know everything about somebody based on who they tweeted.
And I agree with Joshua so much on this point because you've seen me make a point before that I sometimes, maybe once or twice a year, I declare in public my right to associate with people you don't like aggressively.
I'm not just going to associate with people you condemn.
I'm going to be all over them.
I'm going to slobber all over them.
Because fuck you. I have no tolerance for people telling me who I can and cannot associate with.
No tolerance.
There's no wiggle room there whatsoever.
It's like free speech. I mean, I'll give you shouting fire in the crowd at theater, but there are some things you don't negotiate on, and I don't negotiate who I can talk to.
I'm not going to negotiate that.
To prove my point, to prove that I will associate with people I don't even agree with, I retweeted Aaron Ruppar today, who was criticizing Sean Hannity.
Yeah, I did that.
I did that. I just retweeted Aaron Rupar because I agreed with his tweet.
How do you feel about that?
Knowing my audience, if you know who he is, you're saying to yourself, what could he have possibly said that you agreed with?
Apparently Hannity played an audio on his show of Joe Biden trying to...
Talk to Hunter about his drug addiction and saying that he didn't know what to do, but he loved him, etc.
Now, if you've heard about the video but you haven't heard it, you don't know the story.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
If you read that there was an audio but you haven't heard it, you really don't understand the story.
The hearing, it changes everything.
When you hear the genuine concern and the genuine love and the genuine helplessness of that call, it humanizes both of them.
First of all, it humanizes them.
So I feel much closer to both Joe Biden and to Hunter Biden.
Because of that call. Now I have, you know, most of you know, I have some personal connection to the topic of fentanyl.
Not mine, but my stepson who passed away.
So I really felt that.
And I asked myself, what was the point of Hannity running that?
I didn't see the whole segment, but was there any redeeming purpose of that?
Because what I saw was a grotesque Violation of privacy.
Just grotesque.
Did you see something else?
Did you see something that was newsworthy?
Because that was...
Because just reading about it and then listening to it out of context...
Because remember, I saw it out of context.
Was there any context that makes that okay?
Somebody says it's a war.
Sorry. Not good enough.
Yeah. Yeah. All right, well, you got a little quiet on that one.
So I'm going to back Aaron Rupar on this against Hannity, and I don't really care what you think about it, just in case you wondered.
Here's the thing. I blame conservatives for the ongoing fentanyl problem.
I blame conservatives.
Here's why. Because conservatives have a fantasy of what can be done about it.
And I think Hannity displayed that fantasy.
I don't think Hannity would play that unless he believed that there was something like having better character could have helped Hunter.
Like if he tried harder or did the right thing, he'd be better off.
I feel like you wouldn't run that video.
Now, this is mind-reading, right?
Yeah, exactly.
It's mind-reading. But we don't have an alternate explanation of why you did it, right?
We're missing an alternate explanation, so we'd have to speculate.
But it would be speculation.
Yeah. I don't know.
This whole thing was super creepy to me, and I didn't like it that one bit.
And I think that conservatives don't understand that addiction is not a choice.
Do you get that? How many of you understand that addiction is not a choice?
I mean, there's certainly a choice when you first got into it.
That was a choice. But you know that once you're addicted, the choice goes away.
It's just a medical problem after that.
So, alright.
And then also conservatives think that building a fence is going to stop fentanyl.
Maybe 5%.
All right. So there's a group of former Trump officials, they're called, I'll name them in a second, who are proposing that the U.S. declare war on Mexican cartels.
So that's a thing now.
Who was the first person who told you we should declare war on the cartels?
Where have you heard that before?
Yeah. Yeah, that was me.
Do you know why these four people can say this out loud?
The four people who are named are Russ Vogt, Ken Cuccinelli, Kash Patel, and Mark Paoletta.
They're proposing it so that they can shut down legal ports of entry if needed and basically give them a little more leverage.
Now here's what I think I do.
For the country. I don't know for sure, but it looks like it.
Can you give me a sanity check on this?
And usually when people say, give me a sanity check, they don't mean it literally.
This time I actually mean it literally.
This is literally a sanity check.
Am I crazy? Because it looks like this, and another story I'm going to tell later, it looks like I've been playing the role accidentally of the canary in the coal mine.
Meaning, if I don't die, then somebody else can say it out loud.
And I believe I said out loud we should attack militarily the cartels in Mexico, even if it requires occupying Mexico.
Whatever it takes. Now, did you notice that I didn't get cancelled for saying that?
Not only did I not get cancelled, but I didn't get as much pushback as you would imagine I would get.
Did I? And then when the news came out that Trump had mentioned it in a private conversation when he was president, he just floated the idea, and whoever told the story said that they dismissed it.
Ah, dismissed it. But it got in your head, didn't it?
It was in your head.
Once you start thinking about it, wild ideas don't sound so wild anymore.
Everything's wild the first time you hear it, you know, if it's outside the box.
But I think that my talking about it made it easier for somebody else to talk about it.
Am I crazy? You tell me.
Am I crazy, or did I prove that you could say that in public and survive it?
I don't know. I mean, literally I can't tell.
Because I might be just imagining any kind of connection to this.
I don't know. Hard to know.
Anyway, I think that if they get this pushed through, which, you know, the odds are against it, but maybe if there's a Republican president someday, they'll have more success.
But I think this would set the stage for a direct military attack on the cartels.
That's not why they say they're doing it.
They're not saying they're doing it for military direct action, but that's what a war is.
If you declared a war, you've effectively authorized military action.
So, good work on that, all the ones working on that.
Question, if the draft were ever reinstated in the United States...
And let's say the threat was one you didn't think was worthy of your time, such as something like the Vietnam War, where people of good conscience could say, I don't think this is in our self-interest.
Would you ever consider, if you were male, identifying as a woman so that you would not have to register for the draft?
Would anybody consider doing that?
Would you consider identifying as a woman so you don't get drafted?
Oh, I would. I'd do that in a heartbeat.
Of course I would.
I wouldn't hesitate for a second.
Why? Embrace and amplify, my friends.
Embrace and amplify.
Those are the rules.
I did not make up the rules.
Moreover, if you're applying for a college scholarship or, let's say, a job at a corporation, why would you identify as white or a white male?
Why would you do that?
I suppose you might try a few times as a white male and see how it goes.
Maybe if you get your job, you're fine.
You might have a special talent or something.
But if you were competing with the rest of the world, why would you identify as white if you don't have to?
The rules are very clear.
You can identify whatever you want.
So why would you identify the one that gives you fewer rights as an American citizen?
Effectively. It'd be crazy.
You know, a lot of people think that I joke when I say I identify as black for the benefits.
That's not a joke. I identify as black for the benefits.
And should people think I'm white and give me some benefits for looking white, I will take those benefits.
Thank you. So I can get benefits both ways.
Why would you do it the other way?
Why would you identify in the way that gets you the least stuff?
I don't make the rules, I just play them.
If it were illegal to identify as some other thing than how I feel, then I wouldn't do it.
I'm big on following the law.
But if the law encourages me to identify in the way that makes my life the most fulfilled and meaningful, then I'm going to do it anytime I want for any reason whatsoever as long as there's a benefit.
So that's my take.
So Tulsi Gabbard has announced she's leaving the Democrat Party.
And here's what she says in her statement.
I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.
It gets better.
Here's the money shot.
Who divide us by racializing every issue and stoke anti-white racism.
Actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms.
And then she goes on.
Tulsi Gabbard actually said in public, out loud, full-throated, that she's leaving the Democrat Party because they're anti-white racists.
Gotta stand up for that.
Standing ovation. Now, here's my next question.
Did I make it safer for her to say that?
Have you been watching me for the last month?
I feel like I canaried that coal mine, did I not?
I feel like this is the second coal mine I canaried, and I can't tell if there's any connection.
It feels like there's a connection, doesn't it?
But it could just be the zeitgeist.
You know what the zeitgeist is?
The zeitgeist is this sort of non-scientific idea that people suddenly reach the same conclusions at about the same time in different places for their own reasons, but there's something about society that made us all decide at the same time.
So I guess in some sense there's a scientific hypothesis at least.
And it could be that.
It could be just everybody reached the same point at the same time.
But I think it helps to see somebody not get killed for saying it out loud.
And I hope I was useful.
But it's not something I can claim credit for.
Who's texting me?
Oh, good. All right.
So that's really interesting.
Now, I think nobody's surprised that Tulsi had some problems with the Democrats.
But the fact that she left them stating anti-white racism as one of the key reasons, that is one of the gutsiest things I've ever seen.
Have you ever seen anything that gutsy?
Like, what was the last thing you saw that was that brave?
I actually can't think of anything right now.
Well, yeah, Trump, maybe.
Kanye, maybe? Yeah, okay, Kanye.
But, you know, here's the difference.
Kanye's an entertainer, and provoking is his job.
He provokes for a living.
Where politicians are typically not that kind of thing.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, maybe Matt Gaetz.
So there are a few people who have bucked the system.
I wonder if Kanye made a difference to Tulsi being able to say that out loud in a full-throated way.
I mean, wearing his white lives matter.
I think maybe all of this is in the mix.
Here is the least surprising story of all time.
What would be the least surprising thing you could ever hear in the news?
Schiff lied.
Adam Schiff lied.
Or specifically, he's being accused of doctoring evidence of an email on January 6th.
Apparently Schiff actually attributed a lawyer's email to Jordan, Representative Jordan.
Now, if you see an email that comes from a lawyer, clearly it's a whole different frame of reference than a politician.
So imagine how damning that would be To imagine that the politician said what the lawyer said in confidence.
And that is messed up.
You don't even need to know the details, do you?
That is messed up.
And he also changed some of the words, apparently.
So I think the email was changed, and then the author of the email was changed.
And he presented this to the American public as part of the January 6th thing.
Now... Do you think there'll be any penalty for that?
Because I think not.
Because he's been getting away with it for now years, right?
He literally can just make stuff up, present it to the public, and there's no blowback at all.
It doesn't cost him anything.
It's amazing. You know, and Mark Levin and people are saying he should be disbarred.
Disbarred? He should be impeached.
You can impeach...
House of Representatives, right?
Right? Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
I'm seeing a no and a yes.
No, but similar. There's some kind of sanctioning, censured thing.
You can be censured?
Censored? Yes, censured, not censored.
Yeah, okay. Well, Republicans are going to have no time to govern if they become, if they get power, they're just going to be having hearings about all these Democrats.
Rasmussen did a poll to see how much people trusted electronic voting machines.
What do you think? Before I tell you the answer, do you think that an electronic voting machine is more or less secure than manual paper ballots?
Is a voting machine more or less secure?
More or less? Same?
Less? Less? Depends?
Less? Less.
So many of you do distrust voting machines.
I think it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Here's why. I think your odds of getting caught if you tried something with electronic machines might be a little higher under some circumstances.
It would depend who did it.
If it were some insider, maybe that's hard to catch, so that would be the biggest risk.
But maybe if some hacker got in, the insiders would catch it.
I don't know. I don't think we know.
But I can see why you could go either way.
But here's what the Rasmussen results were.
39% of likely U.S. voters think electronic voting machines make it easier to cheat.
39%. So that's basically all the Republicans.
So Republicans, I think, don't like electronic voting machines.
I forgot to look at the cross tab, so I'm just making that up.
I don't believe it's just Republicans, but probably primarily.
That's my guess. All right, Florida is now not recommending vaccines for males 18 to 39.
I thought we've known that for a while, haven't we?
Haven't we known that for a while?
And would you be surprised that a new study or some new information has come out?
Now, I have to warn you in advance, I'm going to get really mad at some of you.
Okay? Not all of you.
But I'm going to get mad at some of you because this is going to trigger you into mind reading and accusing me of shit I didn't do.
So when you mind read me and accuse me of some shit I didn't do, I'm going to go off on you.
Are you ready? Because I know you will.
Because there's somebody in this group who's going to mind read and then falsely accuse me of something.
Are you ready? So let's just do this because I'm feeling a little aggressive today.
So let's just fight this out.
So apparently a Pfizer director has now admitted in public that they did not test the Pfizer vaccination for stopping the spread.
Well, wait, what?
Let me say it again because you probably thought you heard it wrong.
Pfizer's vaccination, which was designed and marketed to stop the spread of COVID, according to a Pfizer director, they did not test whether it works to stop the spread.
Does it feel like you're hearing me wrong or something?
Right? Do you believe that?
Do you believe that they did not test to see if a vaccination acts like a vaccination?
Do you think that they didn't test the primary purpose of it?
Well, Owen Gregorian on Twitter saw that tweet, and he tweets us, even this is a lie.
Nobody develops a vaccine and does not test whether it stops transmission.
That is correct.
That is correct.
Nobody develops a vaccine and doesn't test to see if it stops transmission.
You can conclude from this, not with 100% certainty, But anybody with business experience, all of you who do not have big business experience, stay quiet for a moment, okay?
So just for a moment, I'm going to ask you, only the people who have big business experience tell me what happened.
They did test to see if it spreads.
The initial information showed it didn't work, so they stopped looking at it.
Tell me I'm wrong.
They of course tested it.
The initial information said it didn't work, and now they're saying they never looked.
You know that's what happened.
Am I right? And again, everybody with big company experience, do you think they didn't test?
You think they didn't run any tests?
So, I feel bad because Owen Gregorian basically told me what I should have seen immediately, which is, of course they tested.
Of course they did.
Now, it's possible that this one director is just wrong or lying or misspoke or something.
That's possible, too. But, oh my God.
I mean, if this were true, which seems highly unlikely, well, either way, somebody needs to go to jail, don't you think?
Based on what we've seen so far...
Now, you know, of course, everybody's innocent until proven guilty, so I'm not accusing any specific person.
But what we've seen based on this strongly suggests somebody needs to be in jail for a long time.
That won't happen. I saw a tweet by David Maritosko talking about lithium and Ukraine and Russia.
And David says that lithium oxide deposits in Ukraine are more important to Russia than some people understand.
Because remember, the mystery about lithium is that it's everywhere and also rare.
That's why we're all confused about it.
Because those two things are both true.
It's everywhere, like there are tons of countries that have plenty of lithium, and it's rare.
Now we know it's rare because the price of lithium has gone up, I don't know, 10 times or something.
So the price is very clear that it's rare.
So how could it be everywhere and still be rare?
And the answer is it's hard to mine, apparently.
I don't know the details, but between the environmental catastrophe it causes and, you know, how hard it would be to get it approved and maybe even where it is, stuff like that.
So it must be just really hard to do.
So that's why there's a shortage.
But as David Martosko points out, and I didn't know this, this is good information, Chinese companies have applied this year for exploring and mining permits, especially in Donetsk.
And Putin, this is again David saying, Putin knows that if he doesn't get them, meaning the rights to the lithium mining, if Putin knows that he doesn't get them, China will.
Now, I don't think lithium is the whole reason for the Ukraine problem.
Because you've got the empire building, the history, all kinds of reasons.
But I think lithium is one of them.
I think it's one of them.
So Europe is doomed, according to Europe.
So there was a speech by a European Union top diplomat, this guy, Joseph Borelli.
And he was talking about Europe, and he said this, That Europe's security was provided by the United States, and their prosperity was provided by cheap Russian energy and Chinese goods.
And that that world doesn't exist anymore.
So that the world that made Europe successful doesn't exist anymore.
Because they don't have the US to keep them safe, and they don't have Russian energy, and they don't have cheap Chinese goods, perhaps, in the future.
That's a pretty bold and dangerous, but maybe true, statement.
I've never, yeah, just the way he framed that is just, wow.
So, you know, I told you I'm writing a book on reframes, how to take something that is a familiar situation and just sort of twist it so you can deal with it better.
This was kind of a shockingly...
It's like a slap in the face, isn't it?
Like, I read this and I was like, oh, maybe I have to worry about everything over there.
Like, they could be in serious trouble.
I don't think so. I think that they will adjust.
You know, the Adams law of slow-moving disasters suggests they'll find ways to protect themselves and be prosperous.
But it might take them a little time.
So Adam Schiff was also getting on in other news.
He was saying that Saudi Arabia is being bad by, you know, not giving us more oil.
And that we shouldn't depend on Saudi Arabia in the long term for our oil, because, you know, that's a sketchy thing.
Now, let me ask you this.
You remember the Khashoggi thing, right?
So Saudi Arabia, obviously, murders Khashoggi, a critic, and then cut him up with a bone saw, and carried him out in bags, and then denied they did it.
And what does President Trump do?
He acts like he's taking their word for it.
And I say acts like, because obviously he knew what happened.
So Trump goes easy on Saudi Arabia, and then what happened to Trump for going easy on Saudi Arabia?
He got just killed for that.
He just ate shit for months and months.
The critics were just jamming polls up his butt and slapping him in the head.
He really took some abuse.
Do you know why he did that?
Why did he take all that abuse and be contrarian to most of the rest of the world?
Because he wanted Saudi Arabia to owe him a favor!
Soon after that...
...accords, which required Saudi agreement.
Now, imagine if Trump were in power.
Saudi Arabia still owes him that favor.
Because that one doesn't go away.
That favor does not go away.
Because all it would take is Trump to say, you know, maybe he did kill Khashoggi.
It would take one truth message from Trump saying, you know, as I think about it, maybe they did kill Khashoggi, right?
I mean, they still owe Trump for protecting Saudi Arabia, the crown prince specifically.
I think if Trump had been president, he would have gotten a different response when asking the Saudis to pump more oil.
What do you think? What do you think?
Yeah, Khashoggi wasn't necessarily a good guy.
So I'm not saying that Saudi Arabia didn't have a reason.
I'm just saying you shouldn't cut people up with bone saws.
All right. I think it was 100% Biden's fault that Saudi Arabia said no, because I think Trump would have gotten a yes.
We don't know. There's no way to know.
But the situation is strongly suggestive that Trump would have gotten a yes.
I don't know. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I feel like I forgot something important.
Is anything else happening today?
Oh, yes.
Why did I skip this for some reason?
So there's a new study out that supports Florida's recommendation to not vaccinate young men.
And the new report suggests that it's dangerous for young men to take the vaccination.
How long did it take people to rip up the new study?
About 10 seconds. Do you all believe the new study because it agrees with what you already believed about myocarditis?
Of course you do. Did you notice the study doesn't have a name on it?
I'm watching the internet, and people absolutely bought this study, absolutely bought into it, and then somebody else in the comments says, it doesn't even have a name on it.
It's not only not peer-reviewed, but the person who wrote it doesn't even want you to know who it is.
And apparently this sample group was small and there were other problems.
So... Yeah, so I think we've reached a point where we can say with complete confidence there's no such thing as a scientific study on COVID that we can believe.
How many would agree with that statement?
There's no such thing as a study.
And here's going to be the...
I'm not against science.
Because remember, science is not about one study.
So there's nothing I'm saying against science.
I'm saying that science requires lots of studies.
Because it's the lots of studies that get some study to check the bad work of the other study, and then they fight it out.
Over time, you get close to the truth.
But as soon as you say, a study helped me, well, you're not in science.
Science would say, don't believe one study.
So I'm pro-science by saying, don't believe that study.
Everybody agree with that? So if I say, don't believe the study that says that the vaccination is dangerous, Don't believe it.
That's consistent with science.
And it doesn't matter what the study said.
Could have said it was good for you.
Could have said it was bad for you. Could have been a good study.
Could have been a bad study. In all of those cases, you should not believe it.
Because that's not how science works.
Science doesn't work by believing studies.
It's the opposite of that.
Actually, it would be closer to say science is about doubting all of your studies.
How about that? That kind of works for me.
When you say a good, quick definition of science is doubting all of your information.
Doubting all of your studies all the time.
Because it's the doubting that allows you to crawl forward.
It's not the believing.
So it's the doubting that's the active part of science, not the believing part.
I think that's a good way to say it.
Alright. Ladies and gentlemen.
Do you feel something's changing?
Do you feel like there's just something big-ish changing in the world, and you can't quite put your finger on it?
That's what it feels like to me.
I feel like, until the pandemic, every year was sort of a reasonable projection from the year before.
You know what I mean? Like, you know, it wasn't 1996, pretty close to 1995.
They didn't seem that different to me, if you were around then.
But this year doesn't feel like anything.
There's nothing about this year that I can identify with any prior experience.
And I've been around a while, right?
And remember when...
Is it true Trump is back on Twitter?
Are you seeing a rumor about that?
There's no... If Trump were back on Twitter...
My entire feed would be lighting up right now.
So I'm going to say that's not true because there's no way that only one person would be asking about it.
So I'm guessing that's not true.
But I imagine it would be.
I imagine it would be if in the moment that the sale is completed, if it is.
Are there fake Trump accounts?
Probably fake accounts.
I see repeated comments that Cernovich retweeted a DeSantis ad that switched you from Trump to DeSantis.
Eh. Yeah.
You know, I don't think it matters that X number of voters would prefer DeSantis over Trump.
How will that ever matter?
The only thing that matters is whether Trump is running.
If he runs, he'll get nominated.
All right. So what feels different is that this is the first time we all understand we can't believe our experts and our science.
I believe that we used to walk around in a zombie-like fog of hypnosis in which we thought that when the experts told us something, it was probably true.
And when the government told us something, it was probably true.
I mean, sometimes not, but probably true.
And when the science said, here's our new study, we would say to ourselves, well, it could be wrong, could be, but probably true.
Now what do you say? Probably not true.
If I see a scientific study, I say probably not true.
At least two-thirds not true.
I don't know if that's actually a good number, it just feels like that.
And if I see the government say anything, I say, not true.
Doesn't matter which side. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican.
I just automatically say, oh, you're leaving out context.
It's not true. So what do you do in a world where you don't believe anything?
You have to rely on your systems.
You have to hope that your systems get you through, because our brains are not capable of navigating our current situation.
But our systems might.
So one of the systems is the election system.
And I'm going to make this point again, because this is such a good build-up to it.
The point of an election is not to pick the best person.
That is an illusion.
The point of the election is to be able to move forward.
That's the point. Especially when you have elections that end up being close.
You know, if somebody's winning, you know, 52 to 48, That means the public didn't really know who was going to do the best job.
That's a jump ball.
And that's what most of our elections are.
It's the public not really knowing who would do the best job.
They might have some preferences of some policies, but they don't know who's going to pull it off overall, the best job.
They don't know. But we do know we need to move on.
We can't have a dictator, so we need to get a new president.
Our system compensates for a complete inability to reason.
And that's what a good system does.
Total inability to reason.
Tulsi is setting up to be Trump's VP. That's what it looked like, didn't it?
It looked like that, didn't it?
How much would Trump love Tulsi Gabbard as a VP? I think he'd love it, wouldn't he?
Because both of them would have been Democrats who became Republicans.
Boom. Trump always says, and this is one of the things I always appreciated about Trump's honesty.
Even when he says things that make you cringe, if they're honest, you're still like, okay, at least it was honest.
And one of the things he always says that makes most of us cringe, but is honest, is that looks matter.
And I know that he would say something about Tulsi being attractive.
Because it matters. It does matter.
And he likes that central casting kind of thing.
It's kind of perfect.
Have you tried the Gary Payton strain of weed?
I haven't, but it sounds good.
She didn't say a party affiliation.
That's right. So there's no indication that Tulsi would be a Republican.
But there's also no indication that she's rejecting it.
One assumes that she's independent.
But would there be any reason an independent couldn't be his VP choice?
I imagine that would be a problem, but not legally.
It wouldn't be a legal problem.
Her progressive gun-grab rules are out for a Republican ticket.
No. No.
Not as Vice President.
See, that's the magic of Vice President.
The Vice President doesn't have to have the same policies exactly as the President.
As long as Trump has a policy you're okay with, it'll be like Pence.
Pence had some opinions that did not agree with Trump.
But as Vice President, he was a great Vice President, in my opinion.
I think Pence will never get the credit he deserves for being a great Vice President.
I just don't want him to be President.
Yeah, one of the great ones.
And he was great because of the problems he didn't make.
His unforced errors were close to zero.
I mean, I don't know how you do that for four years when everybody's watching.
Yeah, the VPs can become president.
But I think that she would know that to get continued support from her own base, she'd have to be compatible with the base.
Or convince you to change your mind.
I doubt that's going to happen.
Yeah. Yeah, it's not a big problem if they're not exactly policy-aligned.
They could be 90%, and that's good enough.
DeSantis is a better choice?
DeSantis is not a better choice for a VP. How many think DeSantis is a good choice for a VP? To me, that's the worst idea.
You never pick a VP that the public will say, you know, I'm just saying, if you reverse that party, if you put DeSantis at the top, you don't want to have that conversation even once.
But, imagine Tulsi Gabbard being a vice president for Trump, hypothetically.
Would you say to yourself automatically, I think Tulsi should be the actual president candidate?
Probably not. Probably not.
Some would. Some would, but it wouldn't be a big conversation, would it?
I don't think it would be a big conversation.
It would be, you know, something you'd yak about.
All right. I think that's a good situation.
That's a good situation.
If Tulsi is VP, what happens next time?
Well, VPs don't usually become president, do they?
How often does a VP become a president?
One in four? One in four, maybe?
What's the ratio? Of vice presidents becoming presidents.
Yeah, so there's Bush Senior.
What was the one before Bush Senior?
Ford, that's a special case.
Well, Biden's, I don't know.
Biden's a special case too.
Johnson, Johnson's a special case.
Okay. Yeah, so it seems like it's more of a special case situation where something happens to the president.
Yeah. I don't think you want somebody as strong as DeSantis in the VP spot.
You do not. Now, suppose you had DeSantis as chief of staff.
How about that?
What if DeSantis were chief of staff?
That.
I don't think he would take that job, but that would be kind of amazing.
But I can't see him taking that job.
He's more of a leader than a chief of staff guy.
I think he needs to be a leader.
It would be a strong package.
Well, Trump can't share the limelight.
That's why a chief of staff would be potentially a good way, because the chief of staff doesn't get that much attention.
All right. Chief of Staff is a leader, a leader behind the scenes, but not a leader that the public recognizes unless they really pay attention.
