Episode 1900 Scott Adams: Obama Craps All Over Democrats, ESG Is Dying, Ukraine Peace Plan, And More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Scott Dworkin seems to think GOP plan was a secret
Boston University has created a COVID WMD
Inflation Reduction Act...increases inflation
President Obama's smart framing of wokeness
China indefinitely delays release of their GDP data
President Zelensky, persuasion brilliance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. It's good to see your smiling faces.
You know, you look a little bit better than last time I saw you.
Did you get some sleep?
Wow. Looks like you've been to the gym.
Good job hydrating, too.
If you'd like to take it up another level, get your hydration going.
All you need is a cupper mug or a glass of tank or chalice's dine, 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, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Ah, Uzbekistan in the house.
Silk Road. Good to see you.
All right. Now, would you like to hear all of the interesting things in the news?
That's why you come here, right?
Don't you? I have a question for you, anecdotally.
As you know, I've recently changed my Twitter profile to put BLM in my pronouns, and I appear there in a BLM shirt.
Have you noticed that since I went to full BLM, has the algorithm surfaced my tweets more often?
Go.
Have you seen my tweets more often in the past week?
Really?
Really?
I don't really believe that we can see that small of a difference.
But a lot of people say yes.
Alright, so they're probably, it looks like 60% yes, 40% no.
I don't know if this is true, because I'm just looking at the answers streaming by.
But if you thought that was true...
By, let's say, a 60-40 split, then I would conclude it's not true.
Do you understand that?
If all of you collectively gave your opinions and about 60% of you thought that I was more visible and 40% thought I was not, I would not conclude that I was more visible.
Because that's just about how much bias is built into the question.
Since we're all biased as hell about the algorithm, you know, if 90% of you had said yes, I would have been tempted to say, you know, it's just anecdotal, but 90%, you know, you can't ignore that.
Here's something I never hear.
You always hear people say, I know science and you don't.
And one thing I know is that anecdotal information is not science.
Right? You've heard me say that a million times.
Except that at some point, there is enough anecdotal evidence that you don't need any science.
Am I right? And I like to use this example.
If every time you walked outside, a baseball hit you in the head, and you looked around and you didn't even see a baseball game or a baseball field, But every day, for a hundred days in a row, you walk outside, and you look around, and you're expecting it, and then you go, okay, boom, and it hits you in the head again.
A hundred times in a row.
And there's no science whatsoever to explain it.
Would you change your behavior after getting hit in the head a hundred times in a row?
I think you would.
And I would suggest it might be the right decision, without any science at all.
So there is some point at which anecdotal evidence is better than science.
So there, I said it.
Anecdotal evidence is better than science at some point.
It's just not the onesies and twosies which are useless.
All right. So here's a typical type of story for 2022.
So there's these new leaked emails, and I think we knew something about this story, but maybe less detail, that Hunter Biden's real estate company, so this is Hunter Biden, received $40 million investment from a Russian oligarch, Yelena Baturina.
Whose name I'd just like to say three times, if I may.
Because it's such a fun name to say.
I'm just going to gratuitously say it two more times.
Yelena Baterina.
One more. This is just for me.
This is just for me. Please bear with me.
Yelena Baterina.
I just had to get that out of my system.
Alright, she's a billionaire widow of a corrupt Moscow mayor, so what could go wrong there?
And not only did she invest $40 million into the Biden real estate company, but gave $3.5 million to Hunter Biden for consulting.
Now, does anybody really think that that was a consulting fee?
$3.5 million?
No, obviously that was a gigolo fee.
She was paying him for sex.
$3.5 million might seem like a lot, but I checked her picture, and I'd say that was market rate.
It looked like a market rate to me.
All right. And let me tell you what the FBI is doing about this, given that there's voluminous evidence of possible Hunter Biden impropriety.
I've got that information.
What the FBI is doing...
Huh. Can't find it.
Let's see. What is the FBI doing?
Might be in here. No?
Anything? Anything? Is this on?
No? Oh, the FBI's doing nothing.
Nothing.
As usual.
This is why I feel like there's some kind of pendulum turning.
happen.
This next bit, I don't even understand.
So this was tweeted by a Democrat activist, Scott Dworkin.
If you look at his profile, he's big in Democrat stuff.
So he's like a real Democrat, super Democrat activist guy.
So a Democrat activist...
I was tweeting around a hidden camera recording of a Republican representative, Dave Schweikart, who was in an elevator talking to somebody and it got recorded.
And he was caught on this undercover video and he talked about if the GOP wins in the election, they take control.
He was talking about how the GOP would want to break up the FBI and impeach members of the Biden administration.
And a Democrat operative thought, I gotcha.
I gotcha now.
Boy, they're never going to vote for you now that you're willing to break up the FBI and put in jail some members of the administration.
Not in jail. I'm talking about impeachment.
Now, am I wrong that the Democrat misjudged The reaction to that?
Because I looked at it and I said, oh yeah, that's exactly why Republicans are going to vote for Republicans.
Because they want exactly that.
Am I missing something?
Does this story sound like bad news to Democrats?
If you're a Democrat, you say, oh no, they're going to break up the FBI. What Democrat thinks that?
Are they afraid that the FBI will be modernized or What?
And how about impeaching members of the Biden administration?
Well, don't you think that even Democrats think there's going to have to be something there or there will be no impeachment?
Remember, the Democrats think that the Trump impeachment was valid.
So they actually think impeachment is like a real thing where real evidence comes out and a real decision is made.
So if they think that impeachment is a real thing, They shouldn't be too worried about somebody trying it unless somebody's guilty of something.
Otherwise, it'd just be an embarrassing situation like January 6th.
Well, the George Floyd family is considering a lawsuit against Yeh because Yeh said in public that he believes that George Floyd more likely died of a fentanyl overdose than from the actions of the police.
Now, I read this story and I just started salivating.
Do you know why? Please, please do the lawsuit.
Please do. Because I don't think they thought this through.
Think it through. If they do the lawsuit, Kanye gets to relitigate the question of the fentanyl and George Floyd system.
And I don't know how this works, but if enough time has gone by, and it's, you know, Kanye or Ye, who is part of it, they're going to have to do discovery.
They're going to litigate just that part of it again.
So just the one question, was it the fentanyl or the knee, imagine that being a new case.
And what if...
What if the reason the George Floyd trial went the way it did, just if, was because the citizens and the jury and the judge, and basically everybody involved, knew if they didn't get a conviction, the whole city would go up in flames.
Right? So I do not think that Derek Chauvin got a fair trial.
Or anything like it.
It has nothing to do with being white.
If you reverse the races, I would say the same thing.
It doesn't matter who was the person or what was the situation.
If one verdict would have a riot and the other verdict would not, if one verdict could get you killed, literally killed, as a juror, and the other verdict would get you praised, what are you going to do?
But what if Kanye ends up in this trial?
He wouldn't ask for it, but what if he ends up in one?
And he gets to try it in an unbiased place after time has gone by and the George Floyd anger has subsided a little bit.
What if he wins? What if he wins?
See, the George Floyd family is probably under the assumption that they would certainly win, or at least they would certainly win on the facts, the facts being it's been proven, blah, blah.
But correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the original autopsy...
Weren't there some notes where the original autopsy doctor said, under normal circumstances, if they came to your house and found you dead...
With that much fentanyl in you, they would say that was a fentanyl overdose.
But because of the other situation around it, they decided it wasn't.
I mean, all Kanye has to do is show that note and then just keep showing it.
And here it is again.
And here it is again. Because if the coroner, or whoever did the autopsy, I guess it's the coroner, if the coroner also has some doubt...
At one time. Isn't that sort of enough to show that a citizen could have doubt as well?
I mean, I think Ye gets away with it just by showing there's some question about whether the experts got it right, right?
You would have to know the experts got it right in order to know that Ye got it wrong.
I don't know, that would be an interesting trial.
That could change everything.
It could change everything, except it would take, you know, a year and be a huge waste of time.
All right. I think it was Wall Street Journal noted that black Americans are less like other voters in the sense that most voters are looking at economic stuff as the top issue.
Black voters also say economic stuff is the top issue.
But according to the racist and bigoted Wall Street Journal, I'll explain that later, they say that black voters are not just obsessed on the economics, like other voters, but also have equal weight to things like health care, education, and public safety.
All right? Here's what's wrong with that.
Do you see the racist part of that?
Did anybody see that this story is totally racist?
Let me say it again and see if you see it.
So the Wall Street Journal says that most voters, I'm paraphrasing here, says that most voters think the economy is the number one thing, But black voters sort of spread their interest.
They also think the economy is a big thing.
But they also think that health care, education, and public safety, which are characterized as social things in the article, those are social things and not economics.
Do you see the problem?
Is it just me? These are all economics.
It's just a bunch of economics.
Here's the other way to say this story.
Here's the non-racist way to say the story, okay?
You ready for this? This might blow your mind a little bit.
Here's the non-racist way to say the same story.
Black voters seem to be more tuned into the fact that That their economic well-being is associated with health care, education, and public safety.
Because you can't run a business if you don't have safety.
You can't hire people.
You can't thrive.
You can't improve your economic situation without education.
And health care is simply something that you buy when you have a good job, usually.
It's something you buy with economics, right?
So you tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me I'm wrong. Isn't this a fully racist story?
Am I right? If you were a little bit objective, you would say the black population has a better bead on this issue.
They have a better bead on the issue.
They understand it better.
Now, it might be also true that at a certain economic strata, That this all looks like economics to you, but if you're up in your ivory tower, you say, oh, economics is the stock market, and do I have a job?
And down here is these social issues.
It's not a fucking social issue if I have to pay for it.
Am I done?
That's my whole argument. If I have to pay for it, like healthcare, it's not a social argument.
That's not a social argument.
I'm paying for it.
That's economics. Anyway.
But I'm right, right?
This is a totally racist story.
Am I right? See, this is why I have the Black Lives Matter profile.
Because you need me to suss out these examples of systemic racism that are everywhere.
All right. This next section will be called the Why Are They Not Already in Jail?
Now, I'll bet you can't even guess what the topic is.
But the category is, why aren't they already in jail?
Here's the story.
Researchers... I can't even believe this is true.
Like, I can't believe this is true.
Researchers at Boston University say they have developed a new COVID strain that has an 80% kill rate.
Not 80% more.
Not 80% more.
It kills 80% of the people who get it based on mice.
Now, they've only used it on mice, but they're...
They're assuming it would be the same with people.
So what they did was they took the original alpha variant that's deadly and then they took some spike protein or something from the Omicron and they took the worst parts of the two viruses and they put them together to make a super deadly virus.
To which I say, and the researchers are still alive, why haven't they been killed already?
Why are they still alive?
Shouldn't Homeland Security shut down the whole place and literally imprison forever anybody involved in this research?
Do you know why I say imprison them or kill them?
Because they know how to do this.
I don't want them telling anybody else how to do this.
Don't you think somebody would pay them a lot of money to explain how to do it so they can do it?
Some terrorist or something?
Yeah. Now, I'm not really, I'm not literally advocating that the law be violated and their constitutional rights be taken away, but it's funny to ask, why are they not already in jail?
This was reported like a story of interest.
This is not a story of interest.
This is some assholes who built a weapon of mass destruction to depopulate the fucking planet Earth, and we're reporting it like it's a normal story.
Well, a little story.
No, they should all be in jail.
Am I wrong? Why are they not in jail?
They built a weapon of mass destruction that would destroy the Earth.
If it works. Yeah, just doing their job.
Now, in reality, of course, I don't think there's any law that they've broken, so of course they should not go to jail.
But in terms of common sense, they need to be removed from the public somehow.
I don't know, there's probably no legal, ethical way to do it.
But I don't want these people walking around.
Where anybody could, like, grab them and say, show us your notes.
How'd you do this? We want to make ourselves a super virus ourselves.
Anyway. That's a sign of the times.
How many of you have caught the inflation reduction lie?
It goes like this.
Joe Biden says, well, sure, inflation's bad, but the inflation reduction bill will lower the cost of a number of things.
We haven't seen it yet because it takes a little while for the bill to work through the system.
But once it's worked through the system, things such as, let's say, anything that uses energy, Would be lower price.
So you'd be able to lower your ongoing energy prices by buying products and utilities that use less energy.
And also hearing aids over the counter.
That was another example.
So hearing aids might be cheaper.
Medicare might reduce your costs if they negotiate better.
And some products could be less.
So those are three examples.
Where they would have lowered the price, the end price, for the consumer.
So that lowers inflation, right?
Let's take, for example, that those are true things.
Let's say it's true that these prices would go down.
Let's say everything else stayed the same, and Medicare hearing aids and any products that use electricity, they all go down in price.
Would you call that a reduction in inflation?
Go. If it's true, if it's true, just take that as an assumption, is that a reduction in inflation?
No, it's an increase in inflation.
It's literally an increase.
Let me say it again, those of you who haven't studied economics, they're playing a game with you because journalists don't understand economics.
And that's it. Now, I don't know why the real journalists who do understand economics haven't called them out on this, because I haven't heard it yet.
Have you? Let me explain how inflation works.
Inflation doesn't mean one of your products went down in cost or went up in cost.
It's about the value of money in general.
So what the government has proposed with their Inflation Reduction Act is that the government will increase its debt And then that money that they got by increasing the debt will be spent to subsidize your purchases of, let's say, everything from Medicare-related things to hearing aids and products.
If the government borrows your money, because it's basically our money, if the government borrows on our behalf to lower our prices, do they lower or increase our inflation?
Go. If they do exactly what they said, they borrow money, they subsidize products that you buy, have they lowered or increased inflation?
They've increased. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, this is unambiguous once I've explained it to you, right?
If I hadn't explained it, well, let me ask this question first.
Here's the first question. Until I explained it to you that this is literally, mathematically, specifically, and in every way the opposite of inflation reduction.
Before I had done that, did you know that?
How many of you knew that?
Now, some of you are just saying, we knew it wouldn't be a good idea.
That's different. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that it's literally the opposite of what they're selling.
So a lot of you knew it.
Have you seen anybody say that the way I said it?
Has anybody said it the way I said it on the news?
Because did I not just explain it better than you've heard it?
I think so. I think I explained it better than you've heard it anywhere.
So see if you see my version of the explanation filter its way into the media.
Because here's a classic example where the general media is not economically trained.
Do you think that the talking heads on, I'll just pick CNN or MSNBC, do you think the talking heads on MSNBC understand what I just said?
That this specifically increases inflation to lower some of your costs in the short term?
Do they understand that?
I don't think so.
I think they say prices go up or prices go down, and they think that's all inflation, and it's not.
Those are two different things.
All right. So, here's the Biden dementia update.
He was out in public, and who was it?
I think it was Kat Timpf who said yesterday, I think God felt, exclamation, that every time Biden talks, something bad happens.
Every time he talks, something bad happens.
I'm sure somebody said that about Trump at one point, but not like this.
When Trump talks, it's provocative and he causes trouble and everybody's head blows up.
But every time that Biden talks, he looks worse.
Am I right? Here's the newest one.
Somebody mentioned he was in the LA area and somebody mentioned that gas is $7 a gallon and Biden told the reporter that gas has always been $7 a gallon in California.
Now, that's not what he meant.
In context, he did not mean that.
Can we be non-political for a moment?
In context, what he meant was California always has higher gas prices.
Would you agree? That that wasn't actually...
That wasn't dementia.
He knew that California always has higher gas prices.
But the way he said it was just so incompetent.
He had the right idea, but the way he said it was just so dementia.
Anyway. And he said...
What else did he say that's dementia-wise?
He said... He said nationwide gas prices came down about $1.35.
Okay, I don't know if that's true.
Maybe it did. They're still down over $1.
Wait, if they went down $1.35 and they're still down over $1, isn't that the long way to say they're going back up?
He just said they're going back up, but he made it sound like they're going down.
That was pretty good. Okay, I'll give him credit for that.
And then he said, housing is the big, is the most important thing we have to do in terms of that.
In terms of what? Getting prices down?
Do any of you think that housing is the big thing we have to do?
Like, where is housing on the list of top ten priorities of the country?
It's zero, isn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's...
I suppose that would just be considered economics as well, going back to my prior argument.
All right. Obama was on a podcast, and he calls the Democrats woke, buzzkill people.
And here's the problem.
The problem is if I don't blow my nose, I'm not going to be able to go on much further.
So, excuse me.
Oh, excuse me.
You know, that's one of the advantages of having a low budget show.
Nothing embarrasses me.
All right, we're back.
All right, so Obama, by framing the Democrats' problems as being too woke...
Did anybody see that?
So Obama actually went right at the Democrat primary messaging.
And the primary messaging is, hey, all you bad Republicans.
And Obama proved once again why he was elected president twice.
Every time I hear Obama talk, and I know you don't like his policies or whatever, so we're not talking about that.
Just talk about his ability as a politician.
Every time he talks, he sounds smart to me.
Even when I don't like, you know, the policy or whatever.
But whenever he talks, he sounds smart.
Right? And he did a better job than all of the Democrats.
Of putting wokeness in context.
And basically he said, you have to let people, you know, be people and don't worry so much about using the right terms and stuff like that.
So basically Obama triangulated and came up with a way that Republicans and Democrats could live in the same planet.
Obama did that, right?
Now, I would say Trump did not.
And Biden did not.
Was it really that hard to find that middle space?
It seems like the middle is just begging to be occupied.
And the middle is, yeah, we should be nice to each other, you know, and maybe respect how they want to identify, but don't get all bent down in shape if somebody gets it wrong.
Wasn't that always the middle?
I mean, it's where I've been. I've described the middle exactly like that.
In fact, Obama's position is exactly mine.
Let me state it again.
I'm happy to call anybody by whatever terms they think are respectful.
In return, I ask for what Obama asks.
Don't be a buzzkill if I use the wrong word.
It's not personal.
Just get over it.
That's all. So I'm 100% on the Obama opinion there.
But here's the political ramification.
Because Obama has put this frame on it, and he's framed the Republicans as too concerned about the wrong things.
And he says that pretty directly.
I'm paraphrasing.
But he does say pretty directly that they're focusing on the wrong things instead of the things that affect people.
And because he framed it so prominently, should the red tide happen and Republicans sweep Congress, that's going to make Obama's frame the dominant frame.
So think ahead.
Think ahead to Republicans win Congress.
What will everybody say after the fact?
They're going to look at Obama's framing, and they're going to say, damn it, we should have listened to him.
He got this right.
We were focusing too much on the wokeness, and we didn't get the basics right, and the Republicans did, so they won.
Now, whether or not Obama is correct that this wokeness thing is a problem or not, independent of that, I think he is correct, but independent of whether he's right or not, is it true that he's created the dominant frame?
What do you say? You might say too early to tell, but if the Republicans win, this is going to come back, isn't it?
you're going to see it again.
Respectfully, you fall for every leftist manipulation.
You think I'm falling for manipulation?
You haven't even heard my point yet.
Let me finish my point. The point is that Obama has created a frame That the Democrats are likely to fall into naturally.
And this should be the next big blow against the wokeness monsters.
And I think Obama will be the assassin.
I think Obama has created a situation where when the Democrats fall into the trap he's created of losing, He'd say, well, I told you why you were going to lose.
You can see it everywhere.
And you walked right into it, even though I gave you plenty of warning.
And I think it's going to make the whole ESG, DEI, CRT, wokeness world a little bit less important.
That's what I think. Speaking of ESG, I've got more ESG-related comics running this week.
And I haven't heard if I've been cancelled yet today, but they're getting a little bit more pointed.
And I know you would like to know what that comic said today.
So let me give you an update.
Stop it. I will get that in a moment.
Alright, so Dilbert's boss is talking to Tina.
And the boss says, Tina, there's an opening for director of AI, and you are one of the people I'm considering.
And Tina is a technical writer, so she's not a technical, doesn't have a technical job except for the writing part.
And she says, I have no qualifications for that job.
And the boss says, that's okay, the AI will tell you what to do.
And then the third panel, Tina says, are you only offering me the job to meet your ESG and DEI goals?
And the boss says, I'm not allowed to say.
And that one's been pretty popular.
So at the same time that Dilbert is attacking ESG, Obama is attacking wokeness, and...
Texas and BlackRock are going at each other, because apparently Texas is trying to get rid of all this wokeness stuff, and now BlackRock, and of course BlackRock is the primary purveyor of the wokeness in investment, so they're the ones pushing it on corporations to be extra environmentally, socially, and governance-wise, you know, equitable and fair and good, and woke.
And Oh, wow.
This is interesting. I thought I copied and pasted something, and then there's a cool technology that copied and pasted a thing that says don't copy and paste.
I've never seen that before.
I didn't even notice it until now.
Anyway, so...
Yeah, so you've got Texas going after BlackRock for being anti-energy.
That's their complaint.
So BlackRock thinks that, you know, your ESG score will be lower, the E being environmental, if you're involved in the petroleum gas kind of business.
And since that's a big part of the Texas economy, they're not too happy about BlackRock, and now BlackRock's pushing back.
All right, so, as of today...
The forces moving against wokeness are as follows.
The midterm election, which probably is going to go one direction.
Obama, which has said now clearly that the wokeness is a problem.
Yeh, he's got his own problems with the Jewish community, which may overshadow anything else.
But, you know, he's sort of the anti-wokeness person.
You've got Dilbert, always a bellwether of cultural change, that's shitting on ESG. And now you've got the state of Texas crapping on it.
So do you feel the pendulum has reached its height?
It's getting ready to turn?
Do you feel it yet?
Well, it's coming.
So China decided to delay indefinitely the release of its GDP and other economic statistics.
So let me do some mind reading.
Why would a country delay indefinitely their economic data?
Is it because it's so good They're humble, and they don't want to embarrass themselves with these great, great numbers.
Is it because they're right in the range that people sort of expected, which is not so good, but that's not unexpected coming out of a pandemic?
Or is it possibly that their numbers are terrible?
So, big problems in China, you know, they've got their workforces shrinking, and the People are bringing their manufacturing back, and they got a lot of debt, and they're still doing the COVID lockdowns, and they've got a dictator who's installed himself for a life.
So, China is on the decline.
Rasmussen had some information about California and abortion.
So, California's got this Proposition 1 on the ballot that would...
I guess it would codify and make abortion legal under most circumstances.
And 59% of Californians support it.
But in August, 66% supported it.
So there was this really solid two-thirds supported abortion as Proposition 1 would protect.
Two-thirds, but it's already down to 59%.
It's not just a few months.
I wonder if that's an actual change or maybe a polling thing.
I don't know. But that's like a big change for a few months.
I'm kind of surprised. All right, but anyway, it looks like California is going to stay a place you can go and get your abortion.
So apparently it'll be legal to come to California as a tourist, get your abortion, and leave.
Let's talk about Ukraine.
I keep looking for evidence that Ukraine or Russia are winning territory on the ground.
Have you noticed that all stopped?
The only reference that I could find to Ukraine gaining ground is CNN made a one-sentence reference to the Russians losing ground with no detail.
It's not like they lost ground around this town or they're encircled or anything like that.
There's just no detail.
The only detail about the military is the Iranian drone rockets that the Russians are using, bombing the centers, and the guided munitions that are taking out the infrastructure for...
I guess Russia has already taken out 30% of the power plants in Ukraine.
30%. Now, there is some thinking...
That the Russians might be low on munitions because they're using low-end stuff already.
So they're using the Iranian crappy little bombs that are good for terror, but they're not as decisive as the big stuff.
Why do I think the drones are Iranians?
Because they've been captured on the ground and they've been identified as Iranian.
So our military says that's a fact.
They're not wondering.
They say, oh, it's overwhelming evidence they're Iranian.
Now the Iranians say no.
The Iranians say it's not theirs, but, you know, we don't trust them.
So, here's the thing.
Have they reached the stalemate?
I would say that they are not desperate yet.
So there isn't going to be a peace deal this week, because this week they still think they can get a little advantage.
So what happens in the winter?
Well, if it's true that Russia is running out of munitions, we should really, really see that in the winter, right?
Unless they have some other source that we don't know about.
So in the winter, we should see the Ukrainians starving, right?
Well, maybe more freezing than starving.
Although I think they'll mostly survive because I think they'll go where there is heat and they'll burn trees and they'll do what they have to do.
Allergy is just terrible today.
Sorry. Now, that assumes that Russians don't continue bombing successfully power plants.
Because if Russia took out 70%, Wouldn't you imagine that the Ukrainians would be in a lot of trouble?
30%? They could probably struggle by.
In all likelihood, the most desperate time will be somewhere around January, February?
No, probably January, because February would still seem like you're getting close to the turn of the weather.
I say January. Somewhere around January, When the Russians are running out of ammo and their people are freezing and their army is deserting and the Ukrainians are suffering, maybe people will start talking about peace.
Now, here's what you can do as citizens.
Do you believe that your government is capable of helping peace happen in Ukraine?
I say no.
I believe our government is trying to end Putin.
What do you think? I believe that the Biden administration is trying to get rid of Putin and permanently degrade Russia.
That's what it looks like. So as far as I can tell, there is no interest in the United States forming a deal.
So if we want that to happen, we the citizens, we're going to have to do it.
Now, I'm going to make a statement about America, and you historians tell me if I'm right or wrong.
All right, historians, ready.
Our government is good at starting wars.
Go. True or false?
Our government is good at getting us into war.
Right. True.
Everybody agrees. Question two, or statement two, our government is bad at getting us out of wars.
They're bad at ending war.
True? Yes, even more true.
But what about the public?
The public doesn't really get you into war.
They're usually the ones who are dragged along.
But it's the public who gets you out of war.
It's the public who gets you out of war.
It's ended the Vietnam War, probably Iraq, probably Afghanistan, and now this.
If the public of the United States doesn't take charge of this situation, then you'll get the government's unfettered strategy, which will get you pretty close to nuclear war.
Because if they're looking to end Putin, which is what it looks like, then you don't know what's going to happen.
I don't think you're in danger.
I don't think there will be a nuclear launch.
I think, you know, the odds are really, really small.
But it's a risk, and since it's such a big risk, even a small chance of that you have to treat seriously.
So, here's what I think's going to happen.
I think that both sides have cleverly said that there's no negotiating.
So I think Putin says he wants to control all of Ukraine now, whereas Zelensky says that they want to get Crimea back, which they lost in 2014, is solidly in Russian hands, which seems unlikely.
But here's the good news.
You ready for the good news? Zelensky is really, really talented at persuasion.
Would you all agree? That no matter what else you think of him, he's really, really good at persuasion.
Everything that he's done suggests he is.
He got the United States to back him, he got incredible weapons, he's being treated like a hero.
Now, I don't think That the hero label fits him.
I'm not 100% on the Zelensky bandwagon.
We're sort of tentatively on his side, but I think I'd watch him really carefully.
I'd watch my wallet when Zelensky's around.
So I don't trust him, but he's very talented.
And here's what he's done that you don't realize.
You know how I used to talk about Trump as creating assets out of nothing?
He would simply persuade something into existence and then he would use it to trade it away.
He would create something out of nothing and then he'd sell it to you.
Or trade it in a deal.
What Zelensky's done with Crimea is he's taken something that most observers say is completely non-negotiable.
Russia just has it and they would launch a nuclear weapon to keep it.
But Zelensky said it's non-negotiable, that he's getting it back.
That is smart.
That's why Zelensky is Zelensky.
Because if it were you, you might be saying the wrong thing, which is, well, they've already got Crimea, but we really care about this new stuff they took.
Let's just stop the new stuff.
Crimea's too much of an ask, because Russia needs that for strategic reasons.
They're going to fight for it harder than they would for the other stuff.
And But Zelensky, by framing Crimea from the start as non-negotiable, has created an asset he can trade.
Right? Because it looks like there's no way you could get a deal.
Zelensky wants you to believe that.
Zelensky wants everyone to believe, especially Russia, that no deal can be made.
Because then... If it came down to, look, look, we will start the fighting.
The only thing we ask is don't join NATO and don't take Crimea back.
That's all we ask.
We'll give you back these other disputed territories.
And then Zelensky has something to trade.
Something that doesn't exist, his control of Crimea, he would trade it away.
It's very smart.
Now, is Putin also smart?
No. Yes.
Putin is saying, the only thing I want is control of all of Ukraine, basically.
He says Ukraine can't be an independent country.
Do you think he means it?
No. No.
No, he's doing what Zelensky's doing.
He's creating an asset out of nothing.
Now, of course, you do believe, you do believe, that Putin does want all of Ukraine, because he does.
If it were free, of course, but he knows he can't have it now.
So since he knows he can't have all of Ukraine, he's saying, I'll trade you all of Ukraine, effectively.
He's setting it up for that.
So you can see the endgame already.
The endgame is that Putin will release on all of Ukraine, which he doesn't have, Zelensky will release on Crimea, which he doesn't have, so they'll both trade something that doesn't exist, and that will be the primary part of the deal, the thing they don't have and can't get.
And then they'll make a combination about the future of NATO and do something with those little areas that might be temporary, it might be permanent, I don't know.
But it's doable.
So if you believe that there's no doable peace plan, you're completely wrong.
All of the elements are in place.
The only thing that we're missing...
What's the one element we're missing?
Insufficient quantity.
What are we missing in sufficient quantity?
And we're almost there.
Sanity. Desire, drones, no?
Nope. It's obvious.
This is not a hard question, but you're not getting...
There you go. Pain. Pain.
Right. We're not at the pain threshold that would require a peace plan.
So Ukraine probably still thinks they have a chance of militarily getting some land back, maybe.
Russia might think, well, if we can drag this out through the winter, we'll ruin their resolve, maybe.
But that means that neither side has reached the pain point yet.
So there's no deal to be made.
That's the most important thing.
Somewhere around January, I predict...
Their mutual pain will reach a level where a peace deal makes sense.
And also, you know, Russia might be running out of munitions.
Both sides will be in a lot of trouble by January.
And that's when you do the deal.
Because you can't do it until then.
They all know that things will be worse in January, so they're going to wait for that.
See if the other side gets it worse than they do.
All right. And I've been promoting David Sachs' tweeted plan, he also wrote an article in Newsweek, in which his deal, which I'll say again, would be that Russia would give back the new territory that they just captured since February.
They would keep Crimea, because they have a Navy base and it's just too important for them.
And Ukraine would not join NATO. Does that sound like a deal that could be made in January?
I'd say yes. I think yes.
Now, I'm not predicting it will be.
I'm saying that that's the only time it could be, and that it's a doable deal.
Now, it's not the deal I would have done.
I would have expanded the deal to include, you know, space and other things.
So it looks like a... I would make it look like it's not a peace deal for Ukraine and Russia.
Because as soon as you do that, it looks like you've got a winner and a loser.
But you could erase that by expanding the deal to other domains, and then say, okay, we found a way for everybody to win.
Because we've got all these other things that are in there, and those are good.
So if you want something that would last, do something that makes everybody look like they want.
That's doable. Oh, the other thing that Zelensky did that's brilliant, persuasion-wise, so you know the Chechens looked like they wanted to send 70,000 highly trained,
vicious Chechen soldiers to help Putin, because the head of the Chechen Republic is a pro-Putin guy, so he was really trying to show his pro-Putin But, as you know, the Chechen Republic was brutally crushed by Putin some years ago, so you don't think the Chechens are necessarily pro-Putin except for their leader.
So here's what Zelensky did.
The Ukrainian parliament has recognized the Chechen Republic of Echkeria as an independent state that is, quote, temporarily occupied by Russia.
And they condemned the Russian genocide against the Chechen people.
Persuasion. Sitting ovation.
All right. Oh, so good.
So good. That's like an A-plus right there.
I don't think it'll change anything.
But just in terms of the mental game, A-plus.
So, Zelensky is going for the kill shot.
Zelensky's not trying to survive anymore.
He's trying to take Putin out.
And if he can cause a revolution in Russia, I don't think this will do it.
But he's pushing all the sensitive stuff.
Now, let me ask you this.
How many bombs can Kiev accept before they bomb Moscow?
Do you think that's coming? Because I can't decide if that's a propaganda mistake.
Probably it would be a mistake when it would feel like too much of an escalation.
But Zelensky seems willing to escalate, so I don't know.
I think it would just make the public angry and make them dig in.
I think the Russian bombing of Kiev is a mistake.
To me, that looks like a military mistake.
What do you think? Because I don't see that it's going to change the resolve.
You know, the number of people who died in Kiev from the rocket attacks...
Give me a fact check on this, but from the Iranian drones yesterday, five?
Five civilians died?
And in the whole city of Kiev, five people died?
If only five people died in the city in a day...
That's not really...
I don't know. I don't see that changing the course of the war.
Seven people, somebody said?
Yeah. I mean, every death is a tragedy.
We know that. But in terms of predicting where it goes, that's a small number.
Yeah. Supposedly 6,000 total civilian deaths since the start.
That doesn't sound like many.
You know, the Iranian drone attacks are about as close to an EMP as you can get.
Because there's almost virtually no human death, but it's getting rid of infrastructure and stuff.
Anyway, so I think the public is going to have to take control of the peace negotiations because our government doesn't seem willing or capable of doing it.
I think promoting the David Sachs plan If only because it tells Putin that there are peace paths, so the odds of using a nuclear weapon, if you think there's a chance of a peace deal, there's no way Putin's going to use a nuke.
You agree with that, right?
If he thinks there's a legitimate, pretty good chance for a peace deal, he would never actually use a nuke.
And I think if the public, with Elon Musk and David Sachs, people who are prominent, if they're willing to talk about the details of a deal, it tells Putin to hold off on the nukes.
So you are actually part of the war process now, whether you like it or not.
So the American public opinion, which we're starting to form here, is one of the things that will keep you safe.
So if it's your opinion that Putin doesn't need to be removed, and there is a peace plan, he is far less likely to use a nuke, because he would go for the safer possibilities first.
And I don't think anybody uses a nuke in their own country.
I just don't.
And remember, Russia's whole argument is that Ukraine needs to be part of Russia, right?
So if he nukes even the battlefield in Russia, I just don't see it.
I just don't see it.
Because remember, you know, when we look at Ukraine, we're just seeing real estate.
But the entire idea here is that Ukraine and Russia have some kind of a, you know, a soul connection.
You know, there's some kind of deeper connection.
I don't know what the analogy would be in the United States, but it would be like, you know, let's say there were some civil war and we talked about, you know, nuking Washington, D.C. I feel like we wouldn't do it, even if militarily we thought it made sense.
Because you can't really nuke your own country.
It's just hard.
If he nukes Ukraine, he loses his claim as a sovereign of Ukraine.
and Exactly. Yeah, I think the tactical nukes would be the same problem.
