Episode 1918 Scott Adams: Delicious News Today, Let's Take A Big Bite. The Midterms Are Upon Us
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Sunny Hostin on White women voting GOP
Why is "Visual Diversity" important?
Democracy is on the ballot?
$8 removes most trolls
Activist pressure to boycott Twitter
A GOP impeachment frenzy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And may I say that you look smarter and better looking?
Nay, sexier than I have ever seen you before.
So good job on that.
And you know what the funny thing is?
I always say that, you know, that you look better and you look sexier.
But I swear that this really happens almost every day.
A little technical problem.
Almost every day, somebody contacts me personally, usually on social media, to tell me how much weight they lost using systems over goals, stuff that I teach you.
Yesterday, somebody said they lost 58 pounds.
I saw the before and after picture.
Oh my god!
You should see the difference when somebody loses 58 pounds, especially male, because, you know, he went from, I don't know who's going to date that guy, to, I think everybody wants to date that guy.
Somebody sent me, I won't name names, but somebody sent me a shirtless selfie, and I looked at it and was like, shit, shit, you nailed that.
Anyway, so almost every day I get that.
Women, men, somebody lost 25 pounds the day before I heard that.
Yeah. And I'm very proud of you.
And I think this simultaneous SIP is for all of you who have lost weight.
In fact, while we're doing the simultaneous SIP, if you've lost weight because of using systems versus goals, stuff I teach in this book, Over My Shoulder, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, if you did, just put your number up.
So, while we're doing the simultaneous SIP, just brag.
Just tell me your number if you lost weight using...
Oh, my God! Somebody lost 100 pounds?
Oh, my God.
All right. Okay, I'm just transfixed by this.
Is this real? Now, those of you who have not lost any weight using this Systems Over Goal technique, which largely teaches you to increase your knowledge, and then if you do that, losing weight is easy.
So that's the technique.
That's the short version. Look at these numbers.
If you have not lost weight, are you not convinced that this works?
This meaning developing a system that works for you, right?
Everybody using their own little system.
But I just teach you how to develop your own little system.
Wow. Good job.
Well, let's bring it up a notch, and if you'd like to do that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a gel, a stein, a canteen jug, a 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 hitter, the day of the thing that makes everything better, including your weight, apparently.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
You know, You know, there's a report out of South Korea that there were nine, a bunch of South Korea miners who were trapped underground for nine days, and they survived on coffee a bunch of South Korea miners who were trapped underground for To which I say, is there anything that coffee can do?
I asked that on Twitter, and somebody suggested there is one thing coffee can't do.
It can't not stain your fabric.
It can't not stain your fabric.
To which I say, well, that's why I don't wear pants when I drink coffee.
I mean, if you're wearing pants while you drink coffee, you're just asking for a stain on your pants.
So, it does cause problems at Starbucks.
Starbucks hates it.
Let me just put that out there.
Starbucks just hates it.
But I have not stained my pants at Starbucks in a long time.
I have an entertainment content recommendation for you in a world in which all movies are bad.
Can we stipulate?
All movies are bad.
I don't know when that started happening, but they're all bad.
Well, I found something that I watched that I enjoyed.
Some of you have already seen it, but it's called My Octopus Teacher.
The worst name for content I've ever seen.
In fact, the name alone kept me from watching it for a long time.
Because I didn't know, what the hell is it about?
I thought it was going to be like The Shape of Water, which I also didn't watch.
Because I didn't want to see a human fall in love with an octopus.
Because I thought that's kind of what it was going to be.
I was like, oh, God.
Is this going to be like some stupid fiction where a human falls in love with an octopus?
Well, the first thing you need to know, it's a documentary.
So it's not a movie.
It's a documentary movie, I guess.
And the man actually falls in love with the octopus.
The man falls in love with the octopus.
Now, if that's the only thing you knew about it, then I would say that doesn't quite recommend it, does it?
Because it was a little sort of close to bestiality.
He doesn't actually have sex with the octopus, but it did look like it was getting close.
There was some heavy petting of the octopus.
So I wouldn't let the kids watch, because it was at least R-rated action with the octopus, you know, if you know what I mean.
I'm not sure where to touch an octopus...
To be inappropriate, but it seems to me that almost anywhere would be a little sketchy, right?
No, but here's why I recommend it.
Here's why I recommend it.
Whatever you thought you knew about octopi, octopuses, whatever you thought you knew about them, oh my god, are you going to be surprised?
Your mind will be blown about every five minutes.
About every five minutes, you'll be sitting there going, what?
What? An octopus did that?
Trust me. Just trust me that you cannot judge this by the name or the general idea of it.
You have to watch it for what an octopus can do.
It's like, blows your head away.
All right. The other important story, we'll get to all the good news, but I like to work up to it.
There's a new product developed in Pittsburgh, this Pittsburgh-based startup, CNN's reporting, called Shift Robotics.
They've got, I guess you could call them battery-powered shoes that make you walk two and a half times faster.
Now, they look visually like a multi-wheeled skates, but they don't operate like skates.
Basically, every step you take gives you a little glide, but it's a controlled glide.
It's not like skates where you'd have to stop.
So it's basically like you can walk, slide, but really fast.
Maybe that's a bad definition, because it's like walk, roll.
But it showed some people doing it, and it looks like it doesn't take any...
Any talent, right?
It's not like riding a bike where you have to at least practice to do it.
I think you can just put them on and start walking.
And I gotta say, it looked really good.
I can imagine this catching on.
I can totally imagine it.
And I can also imagine that I would use it for exercise, even though it's making it easier to walk, in the same way I use an e-bike.
I still can exercise an e-bike.
I just take it 20 miles instead of 5 miles.
And I still do hills, and I can turn down the boost as much as I want.
So I think that could be a big thing.
All right, here's a persuasion question.
I saw on Twitter that Democrats are trying to stop calling gun control gun control and call it gun safety.
What do you think about that?
Is that good persuasion?
To change it from gun control to gun safety.
Yes it is. That is unambiguously a good play.
It might be too late.
People have already decided on guns.
So I'm not sure anybody can be persuaded about anything.
But if you wanted at least a chance of persuading, gun safety is really strong.
That's very strong.
I'm going to tell you later about Democrats getting everything wrong with persuasion, but on that one I'd say that was the right play, if you're just trying to be persuasive.
There's some weird extra information about this Ye story with his, probably ex, personal trainer now, who had threatened him in messages, and Ye printed the messages on Twitter.
And the message was that if Ye didn't talk to him, I think on the topic of apologizing for comments about the Jewish community, that this guy, Harley Pasternak, would...
Have ye institutionalized again, and he used the word again.
I'll have you institutionalized again, and then you'll be drugged up so you'll be in zombie land and visiting your kids will never be the same.
He actually said that to another human being.
Now, my understanding is that they later met and talked for a few hours, although, you know, would you ever talk to somebody who said that to you?
Would you sit down and have a polite conversation with somebody who would just threaten to institutionalize you and remove you from your kids forever, and he's not even in your family?
He's just a fucking guy that worked for you?
Really? Would you take that from a guy you hired to help you?
Because the trainer does more than just your body, right?
It's sort of a little holistic situation.
My God! Now, I might take the meeting just to punch the fucking piss out of him, although he's a personal trainer, so that probably is a really bad idea.
I suppose he looks like he could handle himself.
But there's some additional conspiracy theory reporting that I find interesting, but not convincing.
Interesting, but not convincing.
So I'm only going to talk about this because it's a fun speculation.
I would not put any credibility behind it, but I'll give you the argument.
So apparently, Pastor Nick has history with training a number of other celebrities, some of whom did not meet a good end.
And people are trying to make some kind of a pattern here.
I don't see much in that pattern, because there's no incentive.
It doesn't make sense that one person would have several bad outcomes with celebrities.
It makes more sense to me that celebrities are all messed up.
And so if you're a personal trainer to celebrities, you're probably always working with people who are, you know, on the edge of hurting themselves and stuff like that.
So yeah, I wouldn't make anything from the fact that he's trained some people who came to bad ends and I think some killed themselves or died and drug addicts and stuff.
But I don't think there's a causal argument there, just because it's, you know, Hollywood people.
But he's got some connection to some Canadian military that people speculate that maybe he has some official role in.
Like that the powers-who-be are using him to get close to people that they want to control.
Let's say the general concept.
Do you think it's a true thing that in the context of politics that the powers who be, whoever you think they are, might not even be the same people.
Could be the powers who be on one side versus the other side, but just whoever the powers are.
Do you believe it's a thing that the powers who be would assign somebody to be like a secret handler to somebody whose voice they want to control?
Do you think it's a thing? Now, are you saying you think it's a thing just because you suspect everything bad is true?
Or do you have some evidence that you've ever heard of it in a real way?
Have you ever confirmed it in any way?
Like Fang Fang, that's a good example.
Yeah, Fang Fang is the perfect example, right?
So, I can give you a definitive answer to this question.
Yes. Yes, it's absolutely a thing.
How do I know?
Because it's happened to me at least three times.
At least three times the powers that be have sent somebody to be my friend.
Okay? Now, I can't guarantee that any of the three were really, you know, sent by shady organizations, but they're all associated with them.
And they all ran the same play.
I'm not going to describe it to you, but if somebody tries a little bit too hard to be your friend, they might be fang-fang.
Now, nothing's happened to me that reached a level where I would have to get law enforcement involved or the FBI or something.
So nothing at that level.
It's just that people trying to be your friend, you look at them and you say, I don't think that's just you trying to be my friend.
That looks like you connected to people who would like to control my voice a little bit.
So it's a thing. It's a real thing.
I have no reason to believe that it is true in this case of Ye's trainer.
I'd bet against it.
My bet is it's just an individual acting like an individual.
The most obvious thing.
But as...
The account Restoring Order, I don't know who this is, just somebody on Twitter.
That's the name of the account, Restoring Order.
It has a long thread making the case that there's no way to know if this speculation has any substance.
But he closes, I think it's a he, by saying that if somebody were sent to manage Yeh, If that happened, that person would look exactly like this person.
And I do accept that.
That I accept.
Which is completely different from saying that Pasternak has any role beyond being an interested party.
It's just that it would look exactly like that.
It would just look like that.
So I don't think there's anything to it, but it's an interesting exposure to a real thing.
And the real thing is that people do try to be your fake friend to influence you.
That's a real thing. You all saw by now a hostess from The View, Sonny Hostin.
That's right. There's somebody who's a host of a show whose last name is Hostin.
Somebody named Hostin is hosting a show.
That's probably a coincidence.
But she said that white women voting Republican is like roaches voting for raid.
Now, I and a number of other people said, whoa, did you just compare white women to roaches?
Did you just do that?
Now, I have a confession.
It's confession time.
Do you like it when I confess my true motives?
Okay, when I retweeted this and it got like 10,000 likes and thousands of retweets, when I said that she compared women to cockroaches, white women to cockroaches, I didn't really mean that.
That was for revenge.
And I don't feel good about it because I don't have any reason to have revenge against Sunny Hostin because I have no contact with her.
This was revenge for something that happened to me about 15 years ago.
Now, I'm not going to surface the whole story, but the most trouble I ever got into in terms of getting cancelled was in a blog post about 15 years ago in which I said something that I thought people would understand to be funny and But they didn't.
And what I did was I intentionally put a list of three things which was supposed to make you say, hey, you're insulting women.
But when they thought about it, they'd realize I wasn't.
And then that was the joke.
The joke was that in your mind you'd think something terrible had happened, that I'd said something really awful about women, But if you actually read it carefully, you'd say, oh, he's screwing with us.
He didn't say that at all.
He worded it carefully so we'd think that, and that's the joke.
So here's what I said.
That men, when it comes to arguing, there are three groups that men don't like to argue with.
Children, people who are mentally ill, Mentally challenged and women.
You see what trouble I got into?
And then what did people say?
They took it out of context and they said that I compared women to mentally ill people.
Did I do that? Did I compare them?
No, I did not.
I did not compare them.
They were in the same list.
They were just in the list. And that was the funny part.
The joke was that nobody should compare those groups.
That was my point.
So if you understood the joke, or you understood it was a joke, you'd realize that the people criticizing me are on the same side as me, which is you would never compare children and the mentally disabled and women.
Like, that wouldn't make any sense.
But when they said, hey, you're insulting women by comparing them to the mentally disabled, I could have argued the details and said, but do you think I also compared babies to the mentally disabled?
Like, are they all being compared to each other?
Or did I compare nobody?
The truth is I didn't compare anybody.
Nobody was compared to anybody.
The joke was, if you felt like they were being compared, the joke's on you.
The joke's on you if you thought they were being compared.
That was the joke.
But instead, since a third of the country wouldn't know what a joke looks like, I've told you that before, right?
Literally... Literally a third of the country can't even identify a joke.
They don't know. So, mostly I brought this on myself.
So I'm not absolving myself from guilt.
If you say something that's unclear, and it's your job to say clear things, that's my job.
My job is to say clear things, and it wasn't clear.
So I brought that on myself.
But... I got, that probably cost me 30% of all my future income.
Forever. Yeah.
Do you know how much money that was?
That was really expensive.
That was one sentence that got me probably one-third cancelled forever.
That never came back. Basically, women said, oh, he's a misogynist, and they left.
Completely fake news.
100% fake news.
So when I saw this Sonny Hostin thing, I said, huh, that looks familiar.
This looks like the exact fucking thing that got me canceled, or one-third canceled forever.
So I thought to myself, huh, I wonder if other people will take it the same way.
So I tweeted it.
And everybody did. The Republicans did to her, to Sonny Hostin, the same thing that, you know, I don't know what group they were, but people did to me.
They cancelled me for intentionally not understanding the point.
Now, do you think Sonny Hostin's point was that white women are like cockroaches?
No. Oh, of course it wasn't.
Her point was they were doing something that's bad for them, right?
Which actually is showing interest and compassion in white women that she would prefer they did something that was good for them.
The context is, you know, how can white women do something that's good for them?
They should do that instead of something that's bad for them.
Now, is that anti-white?
If you're saying you wish white women would do things that are good for white women, not really.
But if you say to me, what if that had been reversed?
What if a white person had said that black people, the usual thing, you do the thing where you just change the group, and then it sounds terrible.
You'd all agree with that, right?
If you change the ethnicity, it would sound way over the line.
And so I think it's fair that people said, this is also over the line, because there needs to be some pushback that you can't shit on white women, even if it's sort of just casual language and it wasn't your point.
You can't even do it, don't do it accidentally either, because that's a standard that I would accept the other direction.
If somebody said to me, Scott, I know you didn't mean to insult whatever group, but don't talk that way because we take it that way, I would say, oh, that's a pretty good point.
I will not talk that way because you take it that way.
Do you think I have ever once made that mistake I made when I put women and children and the mentally disabled in a list just for joke purposes?
I will never make that mistake again.
Because the public pushed back on me.
Now, I hate the fact that I got canceled, you know, one-third canceled, but it's not a bad thing that the public pushes back, right?
I have a little mixed feeling about it.
Maybe they should have pushed back on me.
Maybe they should have. Not canceling me, but they should have pushed back a little, maybe.
All right. Apparently, there's a thing now called, you know, you've heard of diversity.
But the trouble with diversity is a third of white college applicants were claiming they were black to get benefits.
So the diversity thing wasn't working because everybody wanted to claim they were a disadvantaged person.
It kind of ruins the entire narrative.
What? We can claim we're black?
I'm in. Can I claim I'm black?
Hey, hey, everybody, we can claim we're black now.
It's legal. Well, let's all claim we're black.
They didn't see that coming.
I think they did not see that people would say, not only am I not a racist, but if you're giving me the option, I'm going to join your fucking team.
You can't be... I don't think you could be less racist than actually joining the team, which is what I've done.
That's why I've identified as black for a few years now.
And it's worked for me.
It's worked for me. But now there's a thing called visual diversity, meaning that if you're a school, for example, Wall Street Journal has an article in this today, that if you're a school and somebody is diverse, but you couldn't tell by looking at them, it's not good enough.
And this is not even about what your actual ethnicity is.
You have to look it.
Because if you don't look diverse, it's not working.
So this brings me to my favorite point of the night.
Did anybody watch Tucker Carlson last night?
I'm going to point out something that I noticed that's bigger than Tucker Carlson.
Alright, so I turned it on, and Tucker Carlson did an entire comedy segment in which all he did was show the actual clips of Democrats talking recently.
Like, you know, professional talkers.
I'm not talking about on the street.
I'm talking about, you know, MSNBC hosts and hosts of other big news programs.
And I don't know how to explain this.
He didn't have to add anything, and it was the funniest thing you've ever seen.
He didn't have to add the joke.
It was a comedy segment of just showing Democrats talking.
For example, Joy Reid, my favorite segment was Joy Reid explaining that Republicans are using this word inflation that people don't understand, and they've invented a new word for politics that people had never even thought about.
It wasn't really part of their world, but suddenly Republicans have made this artificial Like, completely imaginary thing called inflation and turned it into a topic when, in fact, people don't even know what that word means.
Now, do I have to add anything to that?
Is that not hilarious?
I mean, I could say the obvious things, such as we've been talking about inflation with politics since the Carter years, that anybody with even the slightest association with politics knows exactly what it means.
We could go into, you know, again, it seems racist.
It seems as racist as black people can't get ID to vote.
And the rest of us who are not racist go, I've never met any black people who couldn't get an ID to vote.
I've never met anybody that dumb, you know, of any race.
Like, they all seem to be able to, because you could always just ask somebody, couldn't you?
Like, no matter how much you know, you could just ask somebody who knows.
It's the easiest thing in the world.
So, anyway, just think about the fact that comedy movies are no longer a thing, would you agree?
Hollywood gave up on making comedy movies because comedy doesn't make sense anymore with all the wokeness.
But that the news...
Remember, how long have I been telling you the news is the new comedy?
That's not hyperbole.
The thing that makes me laugh the hardest most consistently is just the news.
And the fact that Tucker no longer has to add anything to the news, he can literally just show the clip.
And just laugh. And then we just laugh with them.
Ah, that was pretty funny.
Now, here's why I think it's extra funny right now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democrats probably feel a little bit backed into a corner, and they realize that most of their issues were imaginary, and the Republicans were focusing on real things.
Now, of course, the Democrats say the opposite, because they think inflation's imaginary.
They also think crime's imaginary, or at least the extent of it, and that the border problem's kind of imaginary.
And Tucker also, I think Tucker showed it, the news saying that Fox News, they keep focusing on crime, inflation, and immigration.
And other news were saying, why do they keep focusing on those things?
To which I said, Could it be, I'm just going to throw this out there, that they're also the topics that the public most cares about?
Now, you're saying that we fear them, but that's why we care the most.
If you do a poll of what issues does the public care about, Would it match up with what Fox News reports every night, or would it match up with CNN and MSNBC? Which would match?
I mean, it's a no-brainer.
If you've looked at the polls, the public is interested in exactly the same stuff that, not exactly maybe, but very close to what Fox News reports every night.
And news organizations...
Criticize Fox News for reporting the thing that even the news organizations know the public cares most about.
Of course, the problem is, why does the public care most about those issues?
Eh, might be because Fox News tells them to.
So you do have this problem that people care about what they're told to care about.
Their opinions are somewhat assigned.
But I think there's a difference with crime and inflation.
Nobody needs to be told there's crime if they experience it.
Even my neighborhood is more dangerous this year.
And I live in a really safe neighborhood.
And it's more dangerous.
It's like literally more dangerous.
And I don't know, I think people's lived experience is just...
Making the Democrats crazy because there's nothing they can lie about and get away with anymore.
Except for their own base, I guess.
So, Joel Pollack has an interesting article in Breitbart.
Rasmussen is having some problems with their polling, and one assumes that others are having the same problem, but we only know, because Rasmussen's reporting it, that apparently the online polling portion of their polls...
A number of people are identifying as a Republican, but then voting for, like, a senator who's a Democrat.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, that's not unusual.
People split tickets.
That's a thing. Except that nobody's doing it the other way.
There are no examples of people who look like they're totally Democrats, but they're going to vote for Republican senators.
And if it were just sort of a thing, that ordinary people can, you know, split their votes.
If that were a thing, it would work both ways.
But it's only going one way.
Which suggests that the polls are not dependable.
So, what would be worse than going into a midterms with the polling companies telling you the polls are not dependable?
That's sort of a...
That's sort of gas and...
And lighter, isn't it?
Sort of a dangerous situation to be going into a midterm.
We'll talk more about that.
All right. Molly Hemingway, writing for The Federalist, and by the way, if you're not following Molly Hemingway, I've often called her out as probably the best political pundit who is working at the moment.
I was also a writer.
I'd say, of people who were also writers.
Best political pundit.
So whenever she does anything, I always pay attention to it.
But here's something that hasn't been reported enough to Republicans.
So here's something you want to hear that you probably haven't heard enough.
She writes, the Republican National Committee, other party entities, and dozens of public interest election nonprofit groups built over the last two years a multimillion-dollar election integrity infrastructure.
The past laws, improving vote ID and other election security measures, defended those laws from legal attacks by Democrats, and sued states and localities that failed to follow the law.
They also recruited, educated, trained, and placed tens of thousands of new election observers And other workers throughout the long midterm voting season.
So one thing that you're not quite appreciating is the extent to which Republicans ramped up.
Because if what happened in 2020, and I think there's a good argument for the only thing that happened that was weird in 2020 was pandemic-related changes that the Democrats pushed through that worked out.
So... It could be that the Republicans have matched their game, just in terms of being able to watch things and control things and make it a little safer.
I don't know if any of this makes a difference.
I don't have any sense of whether this was enough.
But it's good to know that the Republicans were not sitting doing nothing.
They did stuff. What do you think of the Democrats' play?
They're all saying now, it's their new talking point, that on the midterms, democracy is on the ballot.
Is it strong or not strong?
It's super weak.
Do you think they know it?
Do you think the Democrats know it's super weak?
Let me start by saying why it's super weak.
Here's what's strong.
Build a wall, because you can see it, right?
And you can also feel the danger, because what are you building the wall for?
Well, some kind of economic or other threat.
So there's fear and there's visual persuasion in build the wall.
How about crime is overtaking your cities?
Good persuasion? Very good.
Because crime is scary.
And you can also visualize it.
Can't you visualize crime?
You see riots and stuff.
People get mugged.
Now try to visualize this.
Democracy is on the ballot.
Oh, I'm so scared now about your concept that is so generic it is said on every election.
There's no visual. There's no visual and there's no fear because do you know what's on the ballot every year?
Democracy. Democracy is always on the ballot.
That's where you want it.
Now, Tucker did a funny thing where he held up a ballot and he looked for the democracy vote and it wasn't there.
But I would go the other direction.
Yes, democracy is on the ballot.
It absolutely is on the ballot.
And don't let the Democrats take it off.
Because the Democrats would like to take it off the ballot.
Well, that would be the attack vector.
I'm not saying that they do. So I would agree and amplify.
If I'm a Republican, I would say, Democrats have told you democracy is on the ballot.
This is the one thing we can agree on.
Democracy is always on the ballot.
If you don't vote, you're letting the evil creep in.
Democracy is always on the ballot.
Republicans could take their entire frame and use it without explanation.
Imagine if you could take the other side's slogan and use it without explanation.
That is the worst slogan you could ever fucking have.
If the other team could just say it, and they don't even have to, like, add the, you know, we took it from the Democrats, and what they mean is this, but what, you don't have to add anything.
You just say democracy is on the ballot, and you're done.
Because it's always on the ballot.
Democracy is on the ballot, do you know what that tells me to do?
What's it tell you to do? Democracy says on the ballot, what are you going to do?
I'd vote. Yeah, I'd vote.
So, I mean, it really, it just comes down to a you should vote kind of thing.
And both sides want people to vote.
So it works just as well, both ways.
Total failure. Or is it?
Why do you think the Democrats, who know how to hire professionals who know how to persuade, you know the Democrats know how to do that.
They do have people who know what they're talking about.
They know how to listen to them.
They know how to execute.
But they're not.
Why would they have a slogan that is clearly not useful?
Well, what would be your reason for that?
Well, there is a reason. And I'll tell you.
It's foreshadowing.
Yeah, it's foreshadowing.
Have you noticed the pattern that the Democrats pre-accused Republicans of whatever they're planning to do?
You've noticed the pattern, right?
If they're planning to do something, they're going to start by saying that, oh, those Republicans are going to do this thing.
And then when it happens, you're going to say, oh, the Democrats warned us there was those Republicans.
Who else uses that technique?
Where have you seen that technique used recently?
Do you recognize it?
Where somebody blames you as something they're going to do.
Where have you seen that?
The Russians.
The Russians have warned the world that the Ukrainians might try to use a dirty bomb, some kind of tactical nuclear situation.
That's right. When the Russians tell you that the Ukrainians are planning to use a dirty bomb, that tells you the Russians might use a dirty bomb.
Does anybody disagree with that?
It's just sort of obvious, right?
Literally, that's the way it's reported.
Every news story says, oh, there's those Russians.
Those Russians are projecting and they're setting up their excuse in advance.
That's exactly what the Democrats are doing.
The reason that they're using such a weak slogan, there's only one reason they would use a weak slogan.
Because they need to put your focus on blaming the Republicans for the thing they plan to do.
I can't see another reason.
If you assume the Republicans are completely incompetent, then you can imagine that they sat around and said, hey, how about saying democracy is on trial?
Something like that. You put Axelrod in that room.
Just work with me.
You put David Axelrod in the room, does he say, yeah, that's the way to go?
Does he? I don't think so.
Maybe, but I don't think so.
I think you would advise against it.
I think you would advise, you know, maybe do something stronger.
So, the signal that they're sending is that they're setting us up for a stolen election.
Now, I'm not saying that they are.
I'm saying that the signals they're sending us are unambiguous.
Would you agree? Which doesn't mean it's true.
I'm just saying the signals are really clear.
They could be false signals, but they're really clear.
Why would they send us clear signals that they're going to cheat on the election?
Why would they do that?
Because most people don't pick up the signal.
Most people can't see it.
If you're following enough, you start to recognize the players and the patterns.
Right? You wouldn't recognize the...
You remember Nancy Pelosi explained the wrap-up smear, where you leak something to the news, the news reports it, and then you say, well, it must be true because it's in the news, but you're the one that gave them the news.
Once you recognize their tricks, you see that they just do the same ones over and over again.
So here's your signal to tell you whether it happened or not.
If John Brennan...
It comes out after the midterms, and let's say there's an unexpected result.
Let's say Democrats do way better than you thought.
And John Brennan comes out to tell you that the election was fair, you know it wasn't.
Because they only bring him out for the big lies, like the laptop and the Russian collusion.
They don't even bring him out for the little stuff.
Am I right? They only bring him out for big lies.
He's like their go-to utility guy, big lie guy.
And the same with Bernstein.
Bernstein? Stein?
They only bring him out when they need somebody to say something's worse than Watergate.
So once you understand the players...
Now, who do they bring out?
I'll give you another example of this.
Who do the Democrats bring out if there's a question of something that's a secret document...
But they want you to believe that somebody saw this secret document, and it's really much worse than you can imagine.
Schiff, right.
It will always be Schiff.
So once you recognize who the players are, you know exactly what the play is, because they only use some players for some types of plays.
And Brennan is the one you want to look for.
If Brennan goes on one of the national news and says, these Republicans are crazy, this election was totally secure, I guarantee it wasn't.
I guarantee it wasn't.
Now, if they don't bring Brennan out, and it's just experts and people who actually know what they're talking about, let's say the only people you hear from are like the attorney, who is it who runs the elections?
In each state, what's the name of the job of who runs the election in each state?
State? Secretary of State?
So, if the only people we hear from are the secretaries of state, and the secretaries of state say, this election was fine, right?
The election was fine. And some of them would be Republicans, and some of them would be Democrats, right?
But if you heard from that group, and that group said, yeah, you know, I ran the election, and I did a good job, and I took care of it, might be true.
But if the only person who goes on TV saying this election was absolutely fair is John Brennan, they couldn't signal that more clearly.
So we'll see.
Worst case scenario for Democrats might be evolving, which is they try to rig the election and get caught.
That's actually possible.
Because the Republicans are going to be looking under every rock, behind every poll.
They're going to be watching every drop box, which may not be a good idea, especially if they're looking menacing.
Because you don't want to give the Democrats too many reasons to say that the election was rigged the other way.
You know, don't put the armed people at the drop boxes.
That's a bad idea. But watching them with a trail cam might not be a bad idea.
Is there any reason you couldn't put a trail cam at every Dropbox?
Or put a trail cam at all the important ones?
Is it even illegal to put your own trail cam up in public?
I guess it'd be stolen pretty quickly.
All right. Let's talk about Twitter.
So apparently the Twitter curation team, on social media, people are saying the entire curation moderation content group got fired.
That's not true. So there's a new emerging star in the Twitter universe, which is sort of fascinating, which is Yoel Roth.
And he tweeted a long explanation.
I think 15% of that group did get laid off, but it's not changing much about what they do.
So nothing's changed yet.
So don't worry about those people being laid off.
they will be replaced, et cetera.
Now, so Musk continues to be hilarious on Twitter Dan Rather tweeted this.
Is Musk running Twitter like Trump ran his casinos?
It's kind of a fucked up thing to say, isn't it?
Like, that's just such a useless troll thing to say.
Because, you know, literally Elon Musk is the most successful entrepreneur Of all time.
And idiot Dan Rather is asking if he's going to run it like Trump's casinos, which would be an example of something that didn't work out business-wise at all.
Now, why would he even ask that question?
Like, that's just purely an insult.
There's no news value.
It's not even an opinion.
It's just a public insult.
So what I must say when Dan Rather Publicly insults him.
Is Musk running Twitter like Trump ran casinos?
Musk tweets back $8.
Perfect. Perfect.
He's used that joke a few times now, but it gets funnier every time he uses it, right?
Because he's now just shortened it to $8.
And I love...
How that reframes the situation.
Because it could have been a fight.
But he reframed it as not a fight.
It's like, thank you very much.
That was $8 worth of value you got out of that.
$8, please. It's really strong.
All right. Here's a persuasion question just for your general knowledge.
It's too late to make this change.
But suppose, just imagine, if the first time you heard that Musk wanted to introduce an $8 fee, it's too late now, but imagine the first time you heard it, he said, I'm only going to give you one thing for that.
I'm going to make sure that it suppresses the bots and the trolls.
That's all you get. For $8, you can take bots and trolls out of your life, mostly.
Couldn't get them all. Now, how would you feel about that?
Versus the current thing, where he's sort of negotiating it in real time with the users, which is fascinating, by the way.
I love that. But what it does is it gives you too many things to think about.
So now I'm thinking, okay, for $8, would I be happy if I could, let's say, maybe edit some things, or I've got a little tag, or maybe the other comments are different, or something like that.
Now, if I try to think through those things, what happens to me?
I automatically make a comparison.
And what is the automatic comparison?
The automatic comparison is free Twitter versus paying for the thing that used to be free.
If you're talking about a feature set, And people largely didn't know they needed the features.
Most Twitter users just go and they tweet and they go home.
They're not like, oh, my life will be complete if I had this feature.
Not really. Like, we talk about the edit button, but it doesn't matter that much.
Most of it doesn't really matter.
So, if you talk about a bunch of features that you might get for $8, people's brains automatically compare free, which was working fine, To paid in the context of inflation and everything seems too expensive now.
That's not really the best comparison, is it?
But if the only thing you're comparing it to is those damn bots, and I said for $8 you can get rid of them, but you don't need to.
You can have exactly the same experience.
It's up to you. Or you could have the no-bot experience.
Whichever you like. That would actually be a stronger...
So this is an example, persuasion-wise, this is an example of less is more.
100% of people would say, I don't want bots, right?
100% of people.
But what happened when you saw people talking about the features?
When we talked about features, people disagreed.
If you talk about bots, nobody disagrees.
Now you could argue if that's worth $8 or not.
That's a different argument. So I'm not saying he should have done it differently, because I love the fact that he's designing the product in public, and you're getting an MBA value class of just watching him try to navigate this situation.
It's the most interesting business thing you've ever seen.
Would anybody argue with that?
We have never watched a business development with this level of transparency, combined with this level of dollar value, combined with this importance, combined with the time.
The times are important, midterms are approaching.
So everything about this is interesting, and Musk has added that by making his thought process transparent.
The amount you're going to learn By watching him navigate this, even if he makes mistakes, right?
The mistakes are going to teach you something, and him too, I suppose, if he makes any.
So you are getting educated like nobody's business.
I said the same thing about Trump.
Remember how much you learned about the government, just how it works, because of Trump?
Trump was like a college course.
No matter what you thought of him, you learned so much about how things are supposed to work.
Anyway, I'm loving all that part of it.
So, Musk reports that Twitter had a massive drop in revenue because the activists, I don't know if they're Soros people, some people are saying that.
I don't know if that's confirmed.
But some activists are putting pressure on advertisers to drop out.
And as Musk says, it's extremely messed up and they're trying to destroy free speech in America.
That is literally what they're doing.
Am I wrong? Because, yeah, I mean, they are literally...
I don't think that's even hyperbole.
They are literally trying to degrade the biggest source of free speech.
They're trying to put the one place where you could imagine free speech could happen, and it's also big.
You know, there are smaller places you could imagine that.
But it's a... It's pretty big.
And somebody said, tell us those advertisers so we can respond by not buying their shit.
Boycott the boycotters.
And Musk said, a thermonuclear name and shame is exactly what will happen if this continues.
I have a suggestion.
Just pick three.
I don't know how many there are.
Pick your top three.
And see if we can make their stock dip.
I bet we can. You don't think that, let's say, half of Twitter, or whatever percentage would participate, you don't think half of Twitter could bend somebody's stock price?
You could bend the shit out of it.
Now you don't have to even be like permanent non-customers.
You could just send a warning shot.
You could give them one month of 20% decline and no CEO can survive that.
A CEO cannot survive a 20% decline because of a CEO decision.
Can't survive it. So you could probably take out three CEOs in one month.
Worth a shot. I think they have it coming.
Although, you know, the CEOs are probably just operating on fear.
I doubt the CEOs are operating on anything but fear.
But you could, you know, you could balance out the fear so at least the CEO could make a business decision instead of a fear decision.
I saw a button that appeared, I've only seen it once on Twitter, that only appeared on Elon Musk's Twitter feed.
And it was a notice that says, readers added context.
And then, very noticeably, you can see what context, you know, a little summary.
And then you could see, oh, there's a story that explains more about what he's saying.
Now, I saw that for the first time today.
Has anybody else seen it? Did you see it for the first time?
And was it only on Musk's account?
I'd never seen it.
Now, does that look exactly like what I described they should do?
Can somebody...
Give me a fact check here.
Is it exactly what I described they should do?
Just allow us to attach context.
You don't have to say what's right or wrong.
Just allow the best counterargument...
To be surfaced, that's all.
Just allow the best counterargument to be noticeable.
I feel like they did it.
Like, this is so small it's not even news, and might be the biggest thing that's happened in ten years.
Do you know how big that is?
What would happen if people had access to the counterargument?
It's never happened. The news can't do it.
CNN can't do it. Fox News can't do it.
Nobody else can do it. Twitter is literally the only entity that has any ability to show you both sides.
And that magnificent bastard, he may have already implemented it.
It looks like it might be beta.
He may have already fixed it.
If you look at the rapid change, I think you're going to see.
I think you're going to see some rapid upgrades.
It's going to be breathtaking, I think.
From a business nerd perspective.
I say breathtaking from the perspective of not just what it's doing for the country, free speech-wise, but as a business nerd, watching business models being created in real time just doesn't get any better than that.
All right. So, Thomas Massey, Representative Massey, had a very interesting comment on Twitter today.
It was based on the fact that there are these layoffs that are happening at Twitter.
And Representative Massey says, I wonder how many painstakingly curated clandestine government connections within Twitter Elon Musk has already serendipitously severed as a result of the reorg.
It could take years to reestablish those valuable points of influence.
Now, he's using some big words here.
So Thomas Massey, your audience is not as smart as you.
You might want to lay off the serendipity.
Just dial back the serendipity part.
Give us smaller words on Twitter.
On one hand, don't you love that you have an elected representative who went to MIT and isn't afraid to look smart?
Okay, I love that. I love that.
So maybe he's playing it right.
But I think his point maybe got lost a little bit, and it's a good one.
So we were talking about how clandestine government connections can act like your friend.
Do you think that executives or maybe key engineers within Twitter had friends, had friends, that sort of popped up when those people found out what jobs they had?
Sort of instant friends who were like trying really hard to be their friend and maybe offer them some benefits that you wonder why.
Now, I think Thomas Massey is 100% accurate.
There's no doubt That Democrats had cultivated friends within Twitter.
There's no doubt, is there?
Would you doubt that? Of course it happened.
Now, some of it might have been just natural.
It might not be part of some big plan.
It could be just who they hung out with.
But definitely the personal connections between the powers and the engineers who control the algorithm, it's very possible that Musk severed those connections.
It's very possible he did.
Or let me put it this way.
If foreign countries are not already embedding their own employees or influencing employees at Twitter, why not?
We would do it.
Do you think the United States wouldn't try to embed their own people in Twitter if Twitter were, let's say, a Chinese company?
Of course they would. Of course we would.
If they didn't, what are they doing?
What are we paying them for? And yeah, maybe the CIA is already embedded in TikTok.
So we don't know who's embedded where, but I do like hearing from an elected representative that at least one very smart person thinks it's obvious that Twitter had influenced people on its staff.
That's just obvious. Bill Maher has joined the The, I guess, democracy's at risk crowd.
And here's what he said.
He predicted that once Republicans, and this is sort of scaring you about the future, that if Republicans retake both chambers of Congress, They'll begin impeaching Biden and never stop over a myriad of things, making the president a, quote, crippled duck when he goes up against Trump and Carrie Lake ticket in 2024.
So Bill Maher's already calling Carrie Lake as the likely running mate for 2024.
So, okay, I hear the complaint that if Republicans take over, it'll be like an impeachment frenzy.
What's missing from that opinion?
What's missing from the opinion?
Whether the impeachments would be justified.
Right? Doesn't that matter?
Doesn't it? I mean, can we just ignore the question of whether said impeachments would be good for the country or are completely deserved?
I think it matters, right?
Now, I don't like having each team just suing and, you know, impeaching the other team nonstop.
But it does seem to me that the Democrats have some impeachable stuff, and it does seem to me that the Republicans have to pay them back for what they did to Trump.
I feel like payback might be important.
Sometimes it creates this infinite series of payback, payback, tip for death, but sometimes it's why you need to brush back the batter, right?
Sometimes you need to throw a brushback pitch just to say, well, you can do it all you want, but we're going to do it back to you, so maybe we shouldn't do it.
Now, I don't think they're ever going to end up with less of it.
So I think we're in this permanent impeachment hell.
And I'm not looking forward to it, but I think you can't leave out the would it be appropriate to impeach somebody.
Majorca is one of those people that people talk about because of the border.
Anyway, then...
Let's see, what else Bill Maher says?
Bill Maher says that even if Trump loses, it doesn't matter.
On Inauguration Day 2025, he's going to show up, whether he's on the list or not, and this time he's not going to take no for an answer, because this time he'll have behind him the army of election deniers that are going to be elected at the same time.
There are about 300 candidates on the ballot, he says, who don't believe in ballots.
Well, that's what he says.
They don't believe in ballots.
Okay, let me ask you.
If there is an election and Trump loses, would you be willing to stage an insurrection to keep him in power even though the election said he lost?
Go. How many of you are willing to join the insurrection to keep the person who lost the election in power?
Yeah, fucking nobody.
Nobody. Zero.
There isn't even a little bit of energy for that.
Do you know what you would see if there were any energy for that?
Here's what it would look like.
Every night on the news, MSNBC would show you a person on the street interview with a Republican who said, I don't care what the vote is, Trump's my president and I've got weapons.
Don't you think if those people existed, you don't think they'd find them?
You don't think they could find people who would say that if they existed?
The reason you've never heard anybody say that is It's because they don't exist.
The Democrats have a thoroughly imaginary platform.
You know, inflation isn't real and crime isn't up and immigration doesn't matter.
I mean, it's all imaginary.
The whole fucking thing, it's all imaginary.
Now, what is the proper thing to do if the election is held and you don't believe the results?
Let's game the sound.
Let's say you really, really, really wanted the Republican to win, whoever it is.
Let's say it's Trump. You really, really wanted to win, and the election says he narrowly lost.
What are you going to do about it?
What are you going to do?
Are you going to support a march on the Capitol?
Would you? Would you support any kind of the electoral college overthrowing or not voting the way the voters went?
Yeah, nothing.
Nothing. Here's my take, and I realize none of you are going to accept this, but I'll tell you my take.
If the election is rigged, that is also the election.
There's a reason that I accepted the 2020 election immediately.
As soon as the election was called, I said, that's my president.
It's not my first choice, but Biden's my president.
Because the system elected him.
If that system also has some cheating in it, well, both sides have access to cheating.
If one side out cheated a little bit and it was a close election and it tipped at one, that was the election.
So I prefer that the election goes exactly where the voters are.
I prefer that.
But my second choice is that if there's some cheating and we don't find it, as long as the two candidates were roughly equally liked by the country, which is always the case, right?
By the time you get to the election, it's always a close election.
Do you really think that democracy...
Is destroyed because the person with 48% of the vote beat the person with 49%?
Like, is democracy destroyed because of that?
Here's the thing. Our elections are not so bad that somebody like Putin could win with 90% of the vote if the public didn't actually lean in that direction.
So, I accept the cheating as part of the system.
Whichever way it goes, if it had been Republicans or if it had been Democrats, as long as that cheating is below the level where you can identify it, and as long as the two candidates are kind of close.
I know I have a preference for who gets elected, and so do you.
We have a preference.
But when it's so close...
Keep in mind that you live in a country where there are just as many people who prefer the other thing.
And if you can't live with that, then democracy is not for you.
The fact that you don't get everything you want, it doesn't work that way.
Now, I do think we should push as hard as humanly possible to make sure there's no even opportunity for anything.
The fact that our elections are not decided the same day when we know that that's possible because other countries do it, right?
There's no doubt that we have the technology, the resources, the knowledge, everything.
To have paper ballots, count them the same day, do it like Israel does it, for example.
That's just one example. We know we could do that.
What would be any reason given that we would not do that?
There's only one reason, an intention to cheat.
Am I wrong? What would be another reason?
What would be another reason to favor a system, to favor a system that you know the public finds not credible?
Why would the people in power want a system that both sides say is not credible if the other team wins?
Both sides don't like it.
Only the leaders like it.
Why's that? There's only one reason.
There is only one reason.
Right? There's not a second possibility.
They think it's to their advantage.
How could it be to their advantage?
Because somebody's going to cheat.
Here's something I wonder.
Do you think that the heads of the Democrat and Republican parties, do you think that the heads actually know how much cheating is happening at the precinct level?
I'll bet they don't. You think so?
I think they have the same suspicion most of us do, but I'll bet they don't.
I'll bet they don't know how much cheating is going to happen in this next election.
And I'll go further.
They probably make sure that nobody tells them.
Right? Because remember, any kind of communication is discoverable, including somebody testifying that they had the conversation.
So it should be sort of a mafia situation where the people, if you speculate that there's any badness that could happen in the election, so this is just speculation, if you speculate that it's a real thing, The people like Nancy Pelosi would probably say, do not tell me anything about this.
I don't want to hear about anything that's happening that sounds sketchy by my team.
Just don't tell me.
Because when I go on TV, I want to say I don't know anything about that.
Right? Right? If you were in charge, you would say, don't tell me.
Because if it works, it works.
And if it's not happening, then nobody told you.
It doesn't matter. That's your best play.
Don't tell me. So I don't think the heads actually know.
They probably don't know. Yeah, let's see what else is going on.
That's about it. I'm going to play one little audio clip.
So yesterday...
Oh, shit.
Did I lose my audio clip?
So yesterday...
While I'm minding my own business, just watching that documentary, at about the same time this was happening.
This is Elon Musk in an interview that happened yesterday at about the same time.
Let's see if it plays at the right point.
Will I have a technical problem?
The production team said, oh, that's for crash safety.
So then I called the crash safety team and said, is this for crash safety?
They said, oh, no, that didn't do anything.
We should delete it. It turned out to be totally useless.
They forgot to tell the production team.
Honestly, a bunch of these things just feel like you're living in a Dilbert cartoon.
I'm like, oh, no, what's that?
I mean, any given company...
They said, like, what's your Dilbert ratio?
Okay? It's not zero.
So is this you, or is this your...
Dilbert's question. Try to keep it low.
So is this you, or is this...
So you do all these different...
So this is yesterday.
Elon Musk telling an interviewer that you want to keep your Dilbert ratio as low as possible.
Now, let me give you some update on the Dilbert ratio.
Now, the Dilbert ratio, I've seen it work two different ways.
I interpret it a little bit differently than some others do.
And it has to do with how many Dilbert comics are on the wall at your business.
And the Dilbert ratio says that if there are too many Dilbert comics on the walls, that's a sign of bad management.
But I add to that, the worst sign of bad management, like the most strongest sign of bad management, is no Dilbert cartoons on your wall.
That's your worst case scenario.
You know why, right?
Because it means they can't even speak honestly.
They can't have an opinion.
They can't be individuals, basically.
Yeah. So, I mean, this is just for fun.
It's not like a scientific thing.
But... Somebody asked me after I tweeted this, is it becoming more obvious that I'm somehow central to the simulation?
To which I tried to reply to that, and Twitter wouldn't let me.
It hung up, and then I lost the tweet.
Yeah. Now, that's exactly what the simulation would do.
If the simulation were designed so that you couldn't find out you're in a simulation, it would sort of not let you see a tweet.
It would sort of act like that.
Now, I'm not saying that's what's happening.
It was just a funny coincidence.
But imagine being me.
Just think about it. There are seven and a half billion people in the world Only one of them is the richest person, and also the person that's in the news all the time.
And then somehow I got pulled into the headline.
Now, this isn't a headline.
It's just something that happened. But how did I get pulled into this?
I haven't told you how many things that are in the headlines that I'm actually involved in.
For various reasons, I don't talk about it.
But if you were me, you could not believe that any of this is real.
My life so exceeds anything that could be like a realistic, you know, you just got lucky or it's a coincidence or something like that.
It's just too weird.
Just too weird. All the weak ego people are signing in.
James, anybody else have a weak ego?
Who would like to feel uncomfortable that I said a true fact which has obvious relevance to my audience would make me look good?
Is there anybody else who is offended or are you threatened by that?
Would anybody else like to insult me for simply reporting an important thing that happened on the news today?
Anybody? Come on.
I know you're there.
Let's go. Just admit you have a weak ego and then if anybody succeeds at anything it makes you uncomfortable.
Just go ahead and say it. Just be uncomfortable with other people's success.
Is it Jordan Peterson who says, I think he said it recently, that the people you should spend time with are the people who celebrate your success.
And if somebody won't celebrate your success like genuinely, like they're genuinely happy for your success, stay away from them.
Have you ever had anybody who was important in your life?
Who was important in your life?
Yeah, well, I don't have to finish that.
All right. Uh...
So Arden says, God, do I hate Jordan Peterson?
Let me follow up on that.
So Jordan Peterson elicits lots of strong responses both ways.
Well, what is the argument for disliking him?
I don't know that I've ever heard it.
There are things which I disagree with.
Not very often, by the way.
I agree with him 98% of the time.
But why would you dislike him?
What would be the argument?
So I'm looking over here on YouTube.
Give me just in one word or sentence or something.
God has chosen me.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
Make friends with people who want the best for you.
Yeah, that's his quote.
But some people said you hated him, but just give me a reason.
I mean, I think it would be a reasonable opinion if he has something to back it with.
He doesn't return your calls.
He's not woke. But it's okay to disagree with his opinions.
But why would you have a problem with him?
See, here's my thing. Jordan Peterson is involved in a business model in which he could make good money doing what he does.
But I'm almost positive that he, like, oh, he's arrogant, somebody says.
Is that the problem?
The problem that he's arrogant?
Hmm. I mean, I can see that, because he is.
Somebody says that he's not arrogant?
Are you kidding? You think Jordan Peterson is not arrogant?
That would be like saying, I'm not arrogant.
Nobody believes that, do they?
Well, here's the thing.
I would define arrogant as somebody who would insult somebody who disagrees with them intellectually.
Does Jordan Peterson insult people who disagree with him intellectually?
I think he does that all the time, right?
I think I do that all the time, too.
Aren't we both pretty arrogant?
Isn't that why you watch? It's a big part of the show.
A big part of the show is saying we're smarter than our critics.
Like, that's the half of what I do, is tell you I'm smarter than my critics.
You know, directly or indirectly.
I'm usually trying to make the argument, but directly or indirectly, we're both pretty arrogant.
You don't do this job, this job meaning somebody who talks to lots of people all the time, you don't do this job without being arrogant.
Do you? I mean, I suppose if you're like a religious leader, you could pull it off.
But if you're just a person who talks about politics, I think we all run down the intellect of the people who disagree with us.
Pretty sure we all do that.
I'm not proud of it.
It's just something that happens. You say neither of us do?
I do. I do.
I run down the intellect of people who disagree with me.
I was doing that today.
When I talked about Joy Reid, I was very arrogantly putting myself above her.
Wasn't it? Isn't that obvious?
That I was putting my own intellect above hers, overtly.
I wasn't trying to hide it. But maybe this is why you didn't notice.
Because I put your intellect over hers as well.
Maybe that's why you didn't notice.
Because I guess I was arrogant on your behalf.
Like, we're all in this one together.
I'm arrogant. You're arrogant.
Let's go be arrogant about Joy Reid.
By the way, Joy Reid is a very high-intellect person.
Just, you know, if I'm being honest.
Now, I think that she plays a part in which she does everything she can to support a team.
But I don't think she has low intelligence.
I think she actually has above-average intelligence, well above-average intelligence, right?
You could not like her for other reasons, but you can't like her for lack of intelligence.
But when I make fun of her for the inflation thing, I don't believe for a second that she believes what she's saying, so it doesn't come off as dumb to me.
It just comes off as thinking you're dumb.
All right. Did I miss any stories?
Any big stories I missed?
About Lee Zeldin's persuasion.
Well, Lee Zeldin is overperforming, is he not?
So, I don't know exactly what you're asking about his persuasion, but my understanding is he's just crushing it.
My understanding is he's just hitting every note.
Is that true? Is anybody watching him to know, is he really hitting all the notes?
It looks like he is.
How will the lockdown kids vote when they come of age?
Same as their parents. Yeah, smart doesn't have to equate to kind or good.
That's right. I'm still off blood pressure meds completely.
And yes, I am checking my blood pressure every day.
Apparently there's some kind of bounce back risk.
So a week after you get off of blood pressure meds, there's some predictable bounce.
So I'm watching for that.
that.
It hasn't happened yet, but I'm watching for it.
That's the steroids.
What is it? Tiffany Cross got fired.
Who is Tiffany Cross?
Tiffany Cross is who?
MSNBC? Did she do something, a weekend host?
Okay. All right, she's a weekend host.
Or was. All right, did I miss anything?
I think we hit everything, right?
Got it all.
How many of you are actually going to vote, or how many of you are voting this year?
I won't say on Tuesday. How many of you are voters?
Yes or no? Are you voters this year?
Yes or no? A lot of yeses.
Wow, it's all yeses on the net platform.
On locals, it's all yeses.
I think the noes are probably embarrassed.
Probably people don't want to say no.
But it could be that, you know, I'm attracting listeners who care about politics, so that makes sense.
I could see, oh, you're Canadian, okay.
You don't want to be Scott and not vote.
That's a good reason. Don't be like me.
Yeah. There are so many ways in which you should not be like me.
It's a pretty long list.
All right. Somebody says, not embarrassed, it's a waste of time.
A micro-lesson on talking to teens about TikTok.
You would like a micro-lesson in which I teach a teen not to use the most addictive thing which has ever been created.
TikTok. There's nothing you can do about that.
If you want TikTok to go away, you've got to work on banning it.
Nothing will keep it away from kids otherwise.
Oh, what? Tim Pool has a number one music video?
So, I'm hearing that Tim Pool has an iTunes, on iTunes you could buy, a music video for 69 cents and it's number one on iTunes charts?
Oh, is it, does he, is he musical?
Does he actually perform it?
He has a band. Oh, I didn't know that.
Tim Pool has a band. I wonder if they need a drummer.
I wonder if they need a really bad drummer.
And it's funny. Oh, okay.
Alright, well, go out and buy that 69 cent thing.
Why don't you wear a beanie?
Well, then people would think I'm Tim Pool.
That's why. All right.
I think we've done it all.
Have we done it all? You know, we saved Brittany.
I think we're going to have to save Gay from himself and from his personal trainer.
But we're good for today.
I think we've...
Oh, the drummer from Offspring plays with them.
Damn it, they have a drummer.
I'm trying to learn Nirvana song.
I'd love to get Dave Grohl to join me for a man cave.
What do you think of my odds of getting that done?
So Dave Grohl, arguably the best living rock drummer because a number of greats have passed away recently.
Zero chance?
No, I think I could get Dave Grohl to give me a drum lesson in my man cave.
So I have an idea for how I'd like to do the man cave, but I don't have the clout to do it.
And the idea goes like this, that every time I do the man cave, which I do from my man cave, that it would look like it's just going to be me, and then there would be a surprise guest Who's just in the man cave, just hanging out. And there's no explanation for it.
It's like one day I'll just be in the man cave and, you know, like the most famous musician in the world just happens to be hanging out.
It would just be sort of a running gag that interesting people just stop by the man cave.
That's Bill Maher's gig?
Is that what his show does?
He has one interesting person, but he doesn't do the they just happen to be there.
So it's the just happened to be their part that's interesting.
But I don't have the clout that he has so he can get people like that to show up.
Who's the most famous person you think I could get to join me on a live stream?
Who do you think? Who's the most famous person you think I could join me on a live stream?
Trump? Jordan Peterson?
Trump, Elon Musk, Tubin, Jake Tapper, Snoop.
I couldn't get Snoop or Elton John.
Joe Rogan's got his own show.
Gutfeld could probably get Gutfeld for reciprocal reasons.
All right. Well, I'll make you a commitment.
If Trump gets nominated, And runs, I will invite him on here.
I think he'll say yes.
Because the thing is that wherever somebody like Trump appears, the audience will be big because social media would boost it.
So I don't think it would make any difference.
Rob Reiner would be terrific.
How much would you like to see me interview Rob Reiner?
That would be amazing. Because here's what I would do.
I would treat his opinions with respect.
I wouldn't invite somebody to be on my livestream and not treat their opinion with respect.
On social media, everybody's a jerk, including me.
But in person, I would never invite somebody to show up and not give them a full platform to do their thing.
He'd be fun. Because Rob Reiner is presumably, you know, smart, talented, funny, interesting person who just has different politics than some of you.
So he'd probably be fun if he would do it.
Kathy Griffin. Now, I don't think Kathy Griffin would do it, necessarily.
But I do have some history with her.
She was the voice of my Alice character when Dilbert was animated.
So I've had some contacts with her a few times.
And I like her.
And I think she knows that.
So maybe I could get her, but I think she would be justifiably concerned about what my audience would do to her.
My audience would be...
Netanyahu, now that would be interesting.
I don't think I could get Netanyahu.
I don't think I could do that.
What about Putin? Do you think I could get Putin?
And the other thing I wonder is, would it even be legal?
Would it be legal for me to interview Putin?
Because it shouldn't be.
I think it is legal, but it shouldn't be.
Do you know why it shouldn't be?
Because we're at war with them.
And I'd be giving them a platform.
I mean, I think it is legal as far as I know, but probably shouldn't be.
Probably shouldn't be. Kim Jong-un, that would be amazing.
You know, the language, or Pasternak, oh my God, he would never do it.
You think Pasternak would say yes?
No, he'd never do it. Madonna, she would never do it, but...
All right, well, you guys have good ideas.
All right, thanks for all your suggestions, and thank you.
I'm refreshingly arrogant.
I accept that. I believe I'm refreshingly arrogant.
Almost like mint.
Sort of like a palate cleanser sort of thing.
Refreshingly arrogant. I think I'm going to add that to my Twitter bio.
You know, Black Lives Matter, Ukraine, and then that.
