Episode 1926 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About Election System Credibility, If That Is Still Legal, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
If President Trump develops a fentanyl plan
FTX crypto creator Bankman-Fried
Why TikTok isn't going to be banned
Delayed election vote counts
Arizona election system
Why midterms didn't go as predicted
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
You made it again. I know, I know.
You're very consistent and good for you.
Now, if you'd like to take it up a notch before we have the best livestream you've ever seen in your entire life, what do you need to do that?
Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens in this awesome mug, and it happens now.
Go... Oh, yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
Mm-hmm. I feel my...
Well, hold on. Yes, my mitochondria is being repaired, and it's just from one sip.
Wow. See, what happens is the coffee by itself gives you some benefits, but when you pair the coffee with this simultaneity, well, a whole different level.
All right, let's talk about some stuff.
I saw a tweet from Elon Musk with a little icon of a robot and then some other icon that was too small for me to look at, and then he said, And I thought to myself, he's announcing that their new Tesla robots are going to be produced soon.
But it turns out that the other little thing that I didn't recognize was a tombstone.
So what he was really tweeting is that the bots on Twitter will be destroyed soon.
Now, it feels to me like there's already some action there.
I don't know if you've noticed it, but I feel there are fewer trolls.
On my account. Now, I think I would notice it earlier than some of you because I get more troll activity than most.
But to me, it looks like a better experience.
I don't know if that's just...
I don't know. It could be some other reason.
But it looks like they're doing something different.
Do you have the same experience?
It could be, you know, completely confirmation bias.
Yeah, we'll talk about FTX. But it made me think of the Tesla robots that are coming in, and I was wondering this.
How fast do you think the Tesla robots will be able to run?
If you just said, you know, run and get something, how fast would they be?
Because if they're fast enough, can I just strap a saddle to my robot and get rid of my car?
Can I just, like, ride on the back of the robot and say, robot, take me to Safeway.
I need some groceries. And they would just start running down the street with me on the back.
Why not? Well, something to look forward to.
Twitter user Resist Communism suggested that Elon should program the robots so that they can count ballots.
Hmm. Hmm.
A ballot counting robot.
Hmm. It can't be any worse than the people.
Up in Canada, I saw a headline, I didn't look into it, but apparently Canada is looking to allow mental health as one of the, bad mental health, as one of the conditions in which people could request and get doctor-assisted suicide.
What do you think about people with mental health problems being able to kill themselves legally in Canada?
Good or bad? Good or bad?
Well, so first of all, I'm going to make an assumption.
I'm going to make an assumption that they're not talking about people who don't know what their situation is.
I haven't looked into it, but it seems to me that they would not include people who were just so out of it that they didn't know anything.
I doubt they're talking about that.
I'm guessing what they're talking about is someone who is completely in their right mind and they have a depression or some kind of trauma that they've worked for decades to get rid of and it's just a living hell.
If somebody is in pain, Permanent pain.
Does it matter if it's psychological or physical?
You know, you could argue that either one of them might have some future cure in the future.
So hold it down.
There might be a way to fix it in the future.
But that applies to both physical and mental problems, right?
There's always a reason to wait.
But what about...
Now, eugenics is different.
That's somebody else deciding to kill you.
Nobody's talking about that.
We're only talking about people who are in their right mind, making a decision about their own bodily autonomy.
I don't know. I think I'm open to listening to the argument, but I'm completely on board with a person who's in their right mind, but they're basically locked in their own torture head.
I think that person needs an option.
And it's not up to me to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own body.
So I'm leaning toward it as long as they're really careful about not sliding into eugenics, obviously.
I saw Jordan Peterson suggest that Twitter should have effectively two parts.
One where you're seeing the comments and you can interact with the people who are verified, or at least their identity is known to Twitter.
And then a second part of Twitter that you could call, like, Twitter hell, where it's all the unverified bots and trolls and, you know, all the sadists and stuff.
And you could go there if you want.
Or you could avoid them easily.
And I thought to myself, well, I'm not sure you could cleanly create those two groups, but suppose you could.
If I had the option of only people who have used their real identity being sorted to the top of my comments, that's all I need.
I just want the real people to be at the top.
And then as I read down the list, I'll get to Twitter hell.
You know, it might be 20 comments down.
And then I'll just stop reading.
Because I don't want to go to Twitter hell.
But I might want to.
I might want to just see what they said.
So I like the option.
The other thing, it was an interview on Pierce Morgan with Jordan Peterson.
Pretty interesting. And Peterson was referring to a study...
That women who use Instagram are the worst kind of women.
I'm summarizing in a way he did not.
I think the traits were something like, You know, the people who used the most hours on Instagram were narcissists and sadists and sociopaths and stuff like that.
And so the thinking is that the average person on social media, the average person who uses it a lot, right, the more you use it, the more likely it's signaling a personality or a character defect that's pretty deep.
So I'm saying the first comment here, shocking.
Have you ever noticed how many times Jordan Peterson says something that your first reaction is, my god, that is academically and scientifically interesting and new information.
And then you think about it for like a minute and you go, boy, I think we already knew that.
Yeah, because it was kind of obvious.
Right? But it's nice to know that the science backs up what you think is obvious.
And also, Jordan Peterson said he would prefer a DeSantis-like candidate over Trump.
You know, he said good things about Trump, but said that Trump raises the temperature too high.
It was bad for the Republic.
What do you think of that?
If you agree that, let's say, Trump and DeSantis might have similar Republican politics, would you prefer the one who does not raise the temperature to the point where the temperature itself becomes a problem independent of the politics?
You know, it's a tough one because the reason that Trump raises the temperature is because that's what the Democrats do to him.
So should Republicans be denied the president of their choice, Because he is more susceptible to the other side's dirty tricks.
I don't know. Yeah, you have to make a practical decision.
Do you want to be a moral and ethical loser or, you know, the opposite?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but...
Would you say...
Let's say you imagine the subset of prior Trump supporters who were also in the public eye, right?
So if I were to narrow the conversation to just people in the public eye, people like me, You know, like prominent pundits.
What percentage of the people who were Trump supporters and are prominent pundits, what percentage are still backing him as of today?
Forget about the public.
I'm only talking about the public voices, you know, the people who are in public.
Because it's a lot easier to say you don't back him at the moment, isn't it?
It's kind of safe to say that.
Because, you know, it feels like you're on the side of the angels.
Well, I don't know the percentage, but it's hard to argue with DeSantis gives you everything you want without the bad parts.
It's a pretty strong argument.
I don't know if it's true, which is a whole different topic.
Because you might say, well, DeSantis won't push as hard as Trump would, so Trump's still the better choice.
Maybe. Maybe.
Don't know. But I would note that a lot of people that you would consider reasonable have now decided that even if they like Trump, and even if they liked his first term, that things have changed.
We're in a different environment.
He's older. A lot has changed.
And so it's not the perfect fit anymore.
Now, how would you like...
To hear the opposite argument, it goes like this.
Have you noticed that reality...
This is something that Musk tweeted once, but I think I'm the first person who noted it.
Have you noticed that reality follows the path of most entertainment?
Not for the victims, because there's always a victim.
But for the casual observers, reality follows the pattern of, you know, most entertainment.
For example, Trump getting elected the first time.
Greatest entertainment.
What would be the most entertaining thing that could have happened with the midterm elections?
The most entertaining thing is a super close election that nobody expected.
I won't say nobody.
Most people didn't expect. Followed by a delayed vote, followed by, unexpectedly, Democrats do better than ever before for a midterm with the president of their own party.
Now, if you would predict it in advance, okay, what's the most entertaining thing that could happen?
The most entertaining thing is neither a clean win for a Democrat or a Republican.
The most entertaining thing is that we're going to fight over who really won.
By far, that's the most entertaining.
In a bad way, but it will get you the most clicks and the most energy.
So that would have predicted that totally.
So I had a point I was working toward that I've totally lost.
What was I talking about?
Expected cheating.
Okay, here we go. What would be the most, let's say, the most entertaining story arc for Trump as of now?
The most entertaining story arc would be what?
Third act. Exactly.
We just hit Trump's third act.
Now, he might have more than one third act, because he's a comeback shocker.
But at this point, aren't all the smart people saying he's dead?
Right? The most entertaining outcome would be a discovery of fraud in the 2022 election that changed the outcome.
Followed by a landslide victory by Trump for having been completely cleared of his accusations about 2020.
Let me be very clear.
I am not saying that there's any evidence of election fraud.
I'm not saying that at all.
Apparently I could say that on Twitter if I wanted to, but I don't see any.
So I'm not aware of any, like, obvious fraud.
Let me be really clear.
But wouldn't that make the best story?
Wouldn't it? I mean, there's no contest.
That would be the best movie, right?
So here we get to test the best movie filter.
The best movie filter is that Trump is down and out, and there's no way he can come back from apparently being blamed for the midterms.
But if... And there's no evidence of this, no evidence whatsoever.
We're only talking speculative, you know, movie imagination stuff here.
What if they found an actual smoking gun in Arizona?
It changes everything.
It changes everything.
Now, I don't think it'll happen.
You know, I bet against it.
But that filter does predict it.
Would you agree? Would you agree that that's the most obviously entertaining outcome?
Not that it's likely, just that it's the most entertaining.
So let's just keep an eye on that.
We'll talk about some other prediction filters in a bit.
Speaking of people who are bailing out on Trump, Candace Owens had a personal interaction with Trump that apparently she considered rude, that he was rude to her.
And I guess it was based on some rumor in...
The Daily Beast that completely quoted her under context and made it look like she was insulting Trump when literally she didn't say it.
And by the way, if Candace says, and she did, I didn't say those things, and the Daily Beast says you said those things, you don't have to wonder who to believe, do you?
That one's a slam dunk.
It's definitely Candace.
There's no competition.
The Daily Beast is the least credible thing you could ever see.
So, do you think that Trump could win back Jordan Peterson?
It doesn't matter, he's Canadian.
But Candace Owens, me?
Do you think he could win back His base.
And even the prominent people who've abandoned him.
Yeah. Yeah, he could.
Totally he could. All he has to do is be the best option.
That's it. He just has to be the best option.
And then everybody comes back.
There's no mystery to it at all.
Could he do that?
Totally. Totally he could.
He could give me back just by having a reasonable fentanyl Because nobody else is going to have one.
Do you think anybody else will say anything serious about fentanyl?
Nope. Nope.
But if Trump does, I'm back.
And I'm not just back, I'm back full power.
If I come back, I'm going to forgive every other fucked up thing he ever did, because I'm a single issue voter.
Now, let me tell you why I'm a single issue voter.
It gives me more power. If my vote, you know, or my support were, you know, spread over lots of issues.
But if I just pick one thing, I can maybe, you know, have enough of a wedge to make something happen.
So that's why I'm a single-issue voter.
You don't have to be. I'm not suggesting that you be one.
I'm just saying I'm going to be one.
It gives me more influence.
All right. You're all following the story of the crypto exchange called FTX that burst on the scene just in 2019.
So I'd missed this entire story, you know, until it blew up recently.
But I'd never heard of FTX. I didn't know that the creator of it, the founder, was worth some tens of billions of dollars, he claimed, or on paper or something.
And he was giving massive amounts of money to Democrats.
He was like 30 years old.
And here's the interesting thing about it.
It seems like you always have this.
It didn't take long for somebody to find some smart people who know the crypto world, and they had some video podcast where the two smart people are saying, I don't understand this whole FTX thing.
There's no way he could be producing as much cash To use outside of the exchange with what the exchange is doing.
Basically, people who understood it looked at it and said, this doesn't make sense.
The math doesn't work.
And sure enough, we don't know the exact story of what was going on, but the math didn't work.
It may have been a total fraud.
Okay. Do you know how many people have asked me to mention the last name of the founder?
The last name of the founder who created an exchange which some people would say, in a crypto kind of a way, is sort of like a bank.
You know, where you put your money and then you can get it back.
It's like a bank. It's an exchange.
And then, in the end, that bank If you could call it that.
Sort of got burned to the ground by, I don't know, fraud or something.
And the last name of the founder, I'm not making this up.
It's a hyphenated name.
Bankman Fried.
F-R-I-E-D. Fried.
Bankman Fried.
And sure enough, he's a bankman.
And he fried.
If you tell me that the simulation is not sending us any winks, I call bullshit on that.
I think there's bloody winks.
Might be coincidences, but it's fun to think of them as Winx.
So one of the big investors in FTX was BlackRock.
BlackRock was one of the investors.
So what else is BlackRock invested in?
BlackRock, where have I heard that name before?
Oh yeah, ESG. So BlackRock, The people behind what I would consider a scam, which is all the ESG stuff.
Now, it's a fairly transparent scam in the sense that I don't think BlackRock is hiding anything.
But, you know, everything looks legal.
But convincing people that, you know, these little environmentally friendly companies that have been raided by somebody are positive, it's kind of scammy-looking.
For example, guess what?
FTX, the company, was rated as an ESG company.
And I remind you that one of the people who invested in FTX reportedly is BlackRock, and BlackRock is the promoter of ESG. So do you think that they gave a high score or a low score to the company that they invested in personally?
High score. Surprise!
Really high score. Now, it makes sense that they would have a high score, because if you were a digital company, and their problem, they weren't, I don't think they were heavy on server farms or anything like that, right? So they weren't burning up a lot of electricity.
So, you know, according to the ESG rules, that would be a good ESG investment.
Not a good investment.
But it would be strong on ESG. Anyway, you see BlackRock as an investor, that should be a red flag.
There's an ex-BlackRock executive type who's writing in, I think it's in the Wall Street Journal, Terence Keeley.
He was a former BlackRock guy.
He says in his new book that the ESG investment model is broken.
And what he means is that the ESG investments don't perform better than non-ESG, which is like the reason people invest.
But also, it isn't necessarily causing anybody to do things better.
In other words, it's not causing the low ESG score people to try harder and be compatible with ESG. So it seems like it's not happening.
There's probably a lot of greenwashing where they're pretending to be compatible.
So apparently the ESG thing just doesn't work.
Let's talk about TikTok.
I told you, and I was wrong, so I'm admitting I'm wrong now.
If you like that, you came to the right place.
You like it when I admit I'm wrong, don't you?
Especially when I'm cocky.
And then I'm wrong?
That's the good stuff. So if you like to see me be wrong when I was cocky, here it is.
I told you I could destroy ESG, and I don't know, maybe I helped.
It's hard to know what impact I had.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I also told you that I was going to destroy TikTok.
Because TikTok, sort of their soft underbelly was revealed by the election.
Now, I'm not alleging that TikTok changed the election.
What I'm alleging is that we saw very clearly that it could have.
If China wanted to change the algorithm at TikTok, which they could do, Then the biggest group of voters that determined the election, say the experts, which is young people and especially young single women, mostly the TikTok users.
If China wanted to influence them, they'd just tweak the algorithm and there it is.
There it is. So...
Here's what I mistakenly thought.
I thought once we have this close, sketchy election, sketchy in the sense that the vote count was delayed, if you've got a really close, sketchy election and everybody's talking about what are all the things that might have affected it, this was the perfect time for everybody to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't know that TikTok had any influence, but it's obvious they could.
It's obvious they could, right?
So why would you want to keep that situation?
Because next time they might actually influence it.
It's entirely possible that, yes, sketchy.
Why are you asking me about the word sketchy?
Sketchy, in my telling of it, just means we didn't get a quick, certain, reliable result that we find credible as voters.
Doesn't mean there's anything illegal.
I haven't seen any evidence of that.
But here's why I will not be able to have any impact on TikTok.
And it took me a while to figure this out, because I was noticing a pattern, but I wasn't sure it was a pattern.
And here's the pattern.
Nothing gets done unless there's a billionaire who wants it to be done.
General statement. In politics, nothing happens until there's at least one billionaire who wants to get that done.
TikTok is the only situation where there are no billionaires who want to get it done.
A nut. Because all billionaires have Chinese business.
It would be almost impossible to have vast resources and not have a China connection.
It's almost impossible. So you're not going to get Murdoch to go anti-China, are you?
So there goes the Wall Street Journal, there goes, you know, Fox News, there goes the New York Post.
Am I wrong? Well, let me ask you this question.
Do you think Rupert Murdoch has a business interest that he needs to make China happy?
I don't know anything about his business, but I assume so.
Wouldn't you assume so?
Media mogul? It seems like it.
Yeah. So, how about Trump?
Now, Trump doesn't seem to have China business, but for whatever reason, he did try to ban TikTok, so that might be the one exception.
Who would be the other billionaire who doesn't have any business in China?
So, here's what you need to know about the world.
Everybody that you see in public, you know, all the politicians and the pundits, They're not the real people.
Almost all of the important pundits and the important politicians have at least one billionaire who is the real power behind the throne.
You don't necessarily know who they are.
The people behind the curtain know all these billionaires.
So if you name anybody in Congress, the people behind the curtain will tell you they're a billionaire.
You go, oh, that's that guy's guy.
All of them. Until you see it yourself, you don't believe it.
No, even Trump had his own billionaire, right?
Remember Trump in 2016?
Mercers, right? So everybody, and Adelson, right?
So if you don't get a billionaire or two, you can't get anything done.
So in order for my persuasion to be effective in general, I would first have to persuade other media types, and then the other media types would boost it.
And if the media said it enough, then the politicians You know, would feel, oh, that's a big click item.
I'll get on that. So that's the way it would normally work.
But that process doesn't work because the major pundits, as soon as a billionaire who backs them finds out what they're saying, they're going to stop saying it.
So here's what I think should happen.
I think Musk can make Twitter insanely profitable with just two things.
One, and he plans to do at least one of these, probably both.
One, adding payment options so I can directly pay through Twitter, some kind of digital payment system.
I want to pay through Twitter for anything advertised on Twitter.
I mean, you do that and you serve me up advertisements of things I want.
I'll give Twitter all kinds of money, because I'm going to be buying that same stuff anyway.
Might as well give them a little cut of the transaction.
The second thing, and Musk asked about this, which is bringing back Vines.
Now, Vines was the short video thing that Twitter had, and I don't know if it wasn't technically up to what it needed to be, but it didn't succeed.
But at this point, we know for sure that the most viral social media is video.
And it's short videos.
It's TikTok videos or it's Instagram Reels or it's Facebook videos.
And it wouldn't be hard to add a filter on Twitter so that you could filter out everything that isn't a short video.
Imagine that. Imagine just hitting one button and suddenly instead of seeing things that are in your feed, You see all the short videos, and they're ranked by popularity.
I'm already hooked, totally hooked, on the Instagram videos.
They're so addictive, it's just crazy.
And Twitter could be the same.
So at least there would be an American substitute.
There already are Snapchat and Instagram.
But I think we could maybe compete TikTok away.
Maybe. Might be able to just have a better product and make it go away on its own.
But it would be hard to get kids to think that TikTok wasn't cool anymore.
And to get a kid to think that Twitter, which seems like your grandfather's service, it seems like an older male sort of thing.
It'd be hard to get teens to go onto that platform.
But not impossible if the product is better.
So maybe that's what'll happen.
And, you know, I can't directly convince people that like TikTok not to like it.
That's a hard sell.
You can get people who are unaligned and don't have an opinion to come down your way.
But if somebody loves TikTok, talking them out of it, you can't do it.
You can't convince teens not to use it.
That's not even a thing. Now, here's the biggest risk with TikTok, and I've taught you about this before.
It's how magicians work.
If you have a big complaint about, let's say, topic X, and it's a real valid complaint, and you say, my complaint about topic X is this, the best way to make that go away is to have a second complaint about that same topic, That gets more attention.
But the other complaint isn't actually that important.
And that's happening with TikTok.
If I tell you TikTok is a risk, what's the top thing you say?
It's a risk because...
Go. TikTok is a risk because...
Fill in the blank. What is the risk?
Well, China, right.
But what is China doing, specifically?
Influence, brainwashing...
Interesting. Most of you have been, I think, informed by me to know what the real risk is, so you got most of it right.
If you look in the media, the media will say the risk of TikTok is that they have access to data about Americans.
Access to data.
Is that the big problem?
No. The problem is that they would use not just that information, but they would tweak the algorithm to persuade people.
And if you look at...
I was just reading a major article.
So it's a major article about the risk of TikTok that never mentions the influence.
It only mentions the data security element.
Now, if you were to rank those two risks...
The risk of data security is important, especially when children are involved, right?
If you were to give that an importance, I'd say, that's at least an 8 out of 10.
What do you say? Probably an 8 out of 10.
What is the level of risk for the algorithm and using AI to persuade you?
That's a weapon of mass destruction.
That could bring down an entire country.
That's not just even a 10, that's a 25.
That's comparing a nuclear weapon to a really good tank or an HMAR system.
They're not really in the same class.
Data security, really important, really important.
But it's not in the same class with what the algorithm can do.
Those are really different.
So every time you see an article about the data security part of TikTok, I don't know what's intentional, but it is taking you away from the real problem.
It's taking your mind in the wrong direction to something small, when in fact it's really big.
All right. Let's see.
Travis Patton on Twitter asked me if I could kill TikTok from within.
He says I should join and start making dance videos.
Well, it's not the most practical idea, but would it be hilarious if all of the American dads, mostly dads, decided to kill TikTok by making it uncool?
Like, we all just sign up and make dance videos?
Like, we're barbecuing and shit?
I'm barbecuing! And just, like, fill TikTok with dad dancing?
Could you kill it?
Because, you know, it's not a joke that kids will run away from anything parents are using.
That's not a joke. That's real.
I don't know. There's probably some level of dad dancing that would make TikTok die.
But they would just use the algorithm to make sure you didn't see it, so that won't work.
Kyle Becker on Twitter asks this by a tweet.
Remember the nuclear secrets that Donald Trump stole and hid at Mar-a-Lago?
Whatever happened to those?
The Democrats played a very effective persuasion game.
So the January 6th thing was the setup.
So that was like the canvas.
So if they talked enough about January 6th, it looked like Trump was just a person who would do any bad thing.
But the January 6th thing, the longer it went on, it just felt a little aged.
It felt like yesterday's news.
So they needed something new and fresh that would remind you of how bad he was.
So suddenly he's got nuclear secrets at Mar-a-Lago, which we'll never hear about again.
You'll probably never hear about it again.
Unless he runs for office, then you'll hear about it.
But do you think that was ever real?
I don't. I don't think that was ever real.
I think there might be nuclear related documents.
Would you doubt that?
I don't doubt that there are nuclear related things.
They might even be marked as confidential or secret or whatever.
They might be. But I'll bet they're not important.
But they're not important. All right, so here's the big question.
Should not all of the major media be reporting the following data to us today?
Hey, public, you should know that most of the time when an election is delayed more than, let's say, a day, most of the time, one party usually wins.
Wouldn't you like to know that?
Feels like that would be important.
Do you think anybody will report that today?
It should be the front page of every paper, right?
Because if you don't know the context, how can you judge today's story?
If you tell me, hey, this story took days longer than we hoped, well, would you like to know the context?
So, my understanding is...
People say that it usually goes to the Democrat when the vote is delayed.
But is that by itself evidence of fraud?
Go. Suppose you knew that eight out of ten times when an election is delayed, the Democrat ends up winning.
Is that evidence of fraud?
It is not.
Because the Democrats prefer the ballot method, Which in some cases, it's not necessary, but in some cases they like to give a little cushion for counting it.
So their system is actually just designed to make sure that they have time to verify all of the ballots coming in.
So it would make sense.
That where Democrats like ballots, ballots take longer, and they don't have to take longer.
There's a way to, you know, get around it.
But in some places, they might want to, you know, have low lines and let you vote up to the last minute.
Just a difference in preference.
And that would explain everything.
It would explain everything.
So let me say that as clearly as possible.
That one difference, it would explain everything.
It would explain why some are late, It would explain why the Democrats usually win, because they have more ballot voting, and that gets counted last.
So we're all good, right?
All good? No problem?
Because the only evidence of alleged fraud is easily explained by the obvious, really.
It's quite obvious. Well, here's my spin on it.
Suppose you're an engineer.
Do we have any engineers here?
If you're an engineer, identify yourself in the comments.
I just want to see how many we have today.
Fuck you, Jenny, in all caps.
Stupid cunt. Get the fuck out of here.
Oops. Unhide?
Oh, there you are. You're already hidden.
All right. I see quite a number of engineers.
How do you keep doing that?
How come I keep hiding you?
You keep appearing.
All right, lots of engineers.
This question is for the engineers only, okay?
So just for a moment, I want only the engineers to comment, okay?
And I know you all want to comment.
I'll let you comment, but just for a moment, only engineers.
And here's the question.
What specifications do you think the elections had that were executed in terms of the system they built?
What do you think the specifications were, the specs?
Do you think that the specs were reduce the lines?
Maybe. Do you think the specs were make sure they have maximum time for checking ballots?
Here's what I think the specs should have been.
Maximum credibility.
Would you disagree with that as the specs?
No, not maximum accuracy.
Nope. Nope. Maximum credibility.
Not maximum accuracy.
Maximum accuracy gets you a slow election.
Right? That's what they are.
They did design it for that.
But... The slow election gets you what?
A delayed vote count gets you what?
Guaranteed every time.
It gets you doubt, right?
So if you were an engineer and you designed a system that by its design would give you a days-long wait for the outcome in a key election battleground, if you designed it so that you knew...
By design, that it would take days to count it properly, what are you trying to maximize?
Are you trying to maximize the credibility or something else?
Would that maximize the credibility of the vote?
No. No.
The longer people have to wait...
Remember, the public is not as sophisticated.
If the public were sophisticated, you could say, well, these are just different preferences.
Some states like low lines.
They just have a different preference, and it takes longer to count under some schemes than others.
That's all it is. But the public is not sophisticated.
The public just knows they don't have an answer, and it looks suspicious.
How many of you engineers...
This is just for the engineers.
How many of you engineers would have totally known...
That designing a system with a late outcome when other states are not late, how many of you had known it would have reduced the credibility of the result?
All of you, right?
100% of engineers would know that the timing of when you're done is maybe the biggest factor in credibility.
So, do you think that they would intentionally design a system For credibility, as their highest standard, would they design it that way?
Engineers only. Engineers only.
If your top requirement was credibility, would you ever design it that way?
No. No.
All right. Suppose you say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, credibility isn't one variable.
The time it takes to do the election is just one variable.
But what about all the extra...
Effort to make sure that the signatures match.
That gives you more credibility, right?
Because you're taking it really slow.
You know, people are watching.
You've got people watching.
Taking it real slow, and they're really, really going to be careful about curing all the signatures, make sure you get a really good vote.
Doesn't that give you more credibility?
No. Not as much as you lose by being late.
Again, just for the engineers.
Would that not be obvious to you?
Just the engineers.
Wouldn't it be obvious that that little extra effort of checking signatures would be sort of lost to the public?
But they're definitely going to notice if you're late.
Especially when the other states are not that late.
So here's my ultimate take.
There are no engineers in the world, and engineers built the system, right?
No matter whether politicians said, go build a system, whoever said, whoever paid for it, an engineer built it.
Engineers. Technical people.
So, they built a system...
That is not optimized for credibility.
Would you agree with me?
Any system that has a delayed count, even for all the best reasons, is not designed for credibility.
If it's not designed to optimize credibility, what is it optimizing?
Is it optimizing convenience?
Because that's one of the things they say.
You don't have to stand in line.
You could just drop off your ballot on the same day.
No standing in line.
Well, if you optimize for convenience, is that better than optimizing for credibility?
No. Literally nobody would say that, right?
How about this? Democrats would say, no, we're optimizing to get the most votes.
We want the most people to be not disenfranchised.
You know, the system is healthier the more participation we have, so we're doing everything we can to make sure every vote counts and we get everybody to the election.
Would that give you more credibility, because more people were participating, compared to being late with your result?
No, it's very clear again that being on time with your result would trump convenience.
I won't use Trump.
It would beat convenience, and it would beat having extra people vote.
Does having extra people vote who are the marginal people who weren't that interested in voting?
Am I right? The extra people that extra work brings into the system are the dumbest ones.
They're the least information, The least caring.
They add absolutely nothing to the quality of the decision.
So do you think Democrats are trying to improve the quality of the decision by bringing in the dumbest people?
Obviously no. Obviously no.
Nobody would design a system trying to get the best outcome by bringing in extra of the dumbest group of people who are paying the least attention.
Nobody would do that.
So I give you this following conclusion.
While I cannot say there was any fraud intended or actual in this election, I have no data that would suggest it.
But I can tell you, no engineer would build this system for any intention other than hiding fraud.
It's designed to hide fraud.
It's designed that way.
And it's a battleground state.
And they didn't have to. And everybody who says, but Scott, you don't understand.
Their system does take longer because of the way they did it.
Nobody else had to do it that way.
That's not an argument at all, because you've got all the other states who are not doing that.
So they had an option.
They had an option to be credible, and they chose not.
Am I wrong? They had the option to be credible, I'm sure they had time to make adjustments.
They had an option. They chose not to.
What are you supposed to make of that?
How else can you interpret that, really?
From an engineering perspective, it's obvious it's designed for fraud.
It's obvious. Now, let me be clear.
When I say designed for fraud, it doesn't necessarily mean intentionally.
Doesn't necessarily mean intentionally.
But a design is a decision in a sense.
The design tells you where your priorities were.
Whether they're conscious or unconscious, it's still going to tell you where your priorities were.
And the priority was an election that's less transparent.
What are you supposed to make of that?
It's obviously not designed for credibility.
And they could. And it's the highest requirement.
Now, the reason they could get away with it is that there aren't that many engineers.
If everyone were an engineer, this couldn't happen.
Am I right? Give me 100 engineers, and we'll walk in and talk to the politicians in Arizona and say, I got 100 engineers here.
Ask these fuckers how to do this right.
They'll tell you. They'll have different opinions of what's right, but they'll all agree, 100% of them, that the way they're doing it is not trying to meet the specification of credibility.
They will all agree on that.
So it's a lack of, I guess, talent stack that even allows this situation to happen.
So what ratio of late and disputed kinds of elections go Democrats versus Republicans?
I don't know. I've heard people say 80% go one way versus the other.
But there are some notable exceptions.
For example, Gore versus Bush in 2000.
So a very close election, but went all the way to the Supreme Court.
And then Gore conceded.
So that's an example of things going the way of the Republican.
But what state was that that was the disputed one?
Oh, yeah. So in a state where the election is managed by Republicans, hmm, in a state managed by Republicans, the close election went to a Republican.
How about that? Hmm.
And do you know what happens when the press audited the votes themselves to see if the vote count was right?
Do you know what happened? Well, it turns out that the only reason that Bush won is because there had been a recent agreement about what types of ballots do not count.
So at the time, a ballot that was not perfect, you know, let's say it was missing a date or something, would be tossed down.
By today's standard, that probably wouldn't happen in a lot of states.
A lot of states would say, no, it's more important, since it's obvious what the intention of the voter was, like the fact that they wrote the date wrong, that shouldn't, you know, take their vote away.
If you had used that standard, where it was obvious that it was a real person trying to make a real vote, they just filled out something wrong, Gore would have won.
Do you think in 2022, Gore would have just given up because the Supreme Court had ruled that they both agreed to those rules?
I doubt it. I don't know why you would do, but I think there would be infinite, clever, legal challenges until they found a way to say the more important...
They'd find some Democrat judge who would say the more important standard...
Is that you don't disenfranchise these voters.
Yes, both sides agree to these rules.
And yes, it's the law of the land in Florida.
But, you know, you can imagine some judge overruling it and say, yeah, but the higher standard is to make sure that everybody's vote counts.
So it doesn't matter what you agree to.
It doesn't matter what the state says.
The higher standard is the vote's got to count if it's obvious what the vote was for.
The 2000 election wasn't slowed down to count new ballots.
Yeah, there was a different situation, for sure.
So everything about Gore versus Bush was a little unique.
I'm not sure if you could learn anything from that.
But it is interesting that Gore would have won, depending on which ones you accept.
I said the other day that the midterm election was the best-case scenario.
Because the country wanted gridlock, and then they got it.
But when I see, you know, as this drags out, the difference between the best case scenario and the worst case scenario is really, really close.
Because the worst case scenario is a close election that looks exactly like it was fraudulent.
That's the worst case scenario.
And that's what we got.
Now, I don't see any fraud.
But it fits the pattern.
We'll talk about that.
So here are all the reasons that people are sort of settling on for why the midterm didn't go the way the Republicans hoped.
So there's a whole bunch of filters.
One filter is, as we discussed, that reality always takes the most entertaining path.
That would have largely predicted where we are.
So that filter worked.
Now, I'm not saying it works in every case, but it worked in this case.
Here's some other filters.
That people like to be given things, and they don't like to have things taken from them.
And I know what you're going to say before I make this point, so just wait for a moment, and I'll agree with your point before you make it, okay?
So you're going to immediately disagree with me, but I'm going to confirm your disagreement in a moment.
Giving beats taking.
What did the Democrats offer?
We will give you free money to cancel your student loans.
People like stuff. Free money.
Yay! When the Democrats offer to cut taxes, that's the same thing.
We'll give you free money. Oh, yay!
I like my free money.
Whereas the Republicans, and I know you're going to disagree, but I'll agree with you in a moment, what the Republicans offered was less freedom.
That's what they offered. We're going to take your abortion rights, as you believe you have, we're going to take them from you.
And then the Democrats cleverly said they're also going to take your democracy away.
Which I laughed at because it was so ridiculous.
But apparently a lot of Democrats thought they were going to lose their democracy.
And so that should have predicted the outcome.
Now what you're going to say is, Scott, Scott, Scott, you have the giving and taking all backwards.
What the Republicans were doing, they were trying to give life to the unborn.
They were giving, right?
They were giving, right?
So really, you say that's taking, but that's giving.
That's giving life. That's irrelevant.
If the voters felt like they were losing something, that's all that matters.
And obviously they felt like they were losing something.
Yeah, young women thought they were losing a right that they wanted.
So, and then the democracy thing, you know, I don't think that the Republicans had a good counter to that.
You know, the counter to you're losing your democracy is, no, you're not.
And fear persuasion works really well.
So if the only thing you did is look at it and said, what feels like giving and what feels like taking, forget your academic argument about who's really doing the giving and who's really doing the taking.
That doesn't matter. What matters is how it feels.
And this totally felt like the only things the Republican offered was less freedom.
That's what it felt like.
Now, if we'd been in the middle of the pandemic and the Republicans had said, we will free you from the lockdown, well, that's good.
Then the Republicans are giving you some freedom, potentially.
But the Republicans offered nothing, let's say nothing prominent.
They do have plans.
But nothing prominent about solutions.
They just said, we're going to take some things you like.
We're going to take them away from you. Am I wrong?
Now remember, this is how people received the message.
That's not the message they were sending, but that's how it was received.
Right? It was a contest between I'll take your shit versus I'll give you free shit.
That's not even a contest.
You could predict a winner of that every time.
Now, you know, you've got that midterms usually go the opposite way of the president thing, but this is as close to a victory as you could get in the House without actually a victory.
All right, here's another filter.
That as long as the ballot harvesting is part of the process, Democrats will win every time because they have a built-in advantage.
No, not cheating.
The built-in advantage is that they have urban areas.
So it's easier to collect a bunch of ballots from, let's say, an apartment building, than it is to drive down a country road and say, do you have a ballot?
Do you have a ballot? So as long as Democrats are concentrated in cities, they should win every election, because you can ballot harvest more easily.
So there's a filter.
How about that predicted everything, right?
That could have predicted literally everything.
So that's the filter that would have worked.
Here's another filter that would have worked.
Follow the money. Follow the money works, right?
Blake Masters, and I didn't know this at all, but this is shocking.
So Blake Masters lost.
If he'd won, you know, could have changed the direction of the Senate.
He was super underfunded.
He had like $12 million or something.
And his opposition won at $80 million, something in that neighborhood.
It wasn't even close.
So if you followed the money, it looks like the Democrats put their money in the right places.
And it looks like the Republicans maybe put their money in the wrong places.
So follow the money would have actually gotten you to where you are.
Maybe not as cleanly, but it looks like it would be predictive.
Let's see. What else?
And, of course, there's the Trump effect.
You know, Trump will get blamed because there were Trumpy people running, blah, blah, blah.
All right. So I keep tweeting this because I know it makes people crazy.
Not people. It makes my critics crazy.
This is just the best thing for bothering Democrats.
Alright, so here's my tweet.
And I've tweeted, I think I've tweeted the same tweet three or four times.
But every time I do it, I get no feedback.
Because it's just a, it's basically a high ground tweet.
See, the high ground is the thing you say that just shuts everybody up.
They're like, okay, there's nothing I can say about that.
So you've got people on the low ground saying the election is rigged or it wasn't rigged.
That's the low ground.
That's in the weeds. Hey, is the fact true or is the fact not true?
And then I come along with this tweet and I high ground the shit out of everybody.
I go, the FTX fraud on top of the pandemic fiasco reminds us to be grateful that our election systems are the only systems in America that are not fraudulent, despite the incentives and opportunities to be so.
And that's why I accept the results of the midterm.
Now, do you think that the critics come in and criticize me for saying that the election system is the only one, the only one that worked perfectly?
No, they don't. They just shut the fuck up.
If you want to just shut somebody down, like at Thanksgiving or Christmas, you do your own version of that tweet, but verbally.
Just say, you know, I do accept the outcome, and I'm just grateful that I live in a country where, although every system that we have has been proven to be fraudulent, from our finance to our experts to our medical system to our CDC to our government, Isn't it great that all 50 election systems worked perfectly?
If you want to see somebody change the subject, that leads to instant change of subject.
I am not going to talk to you anymore.
I'm going to go eat some turkey.
So try that at home.
It works. So Robbie Starbuck's reports on Twitter, he said that there was a columnist in Nevada who wanted to test the election system.
So this columnist got 11 voters to, you know, work with him on this little project, and 11 people put his signature on their ballots.
So, very intentionally, they didn't try to forge his signature.
They put their own signature on his ballot.
And now, those ballots were sent in.
What percentage of those were caught as the signature does not match?
They caught six.
No, 6 were accepted.
They caught 5.
They caught fewer than they didn't catch.
So 6 out of 11 got through with a completely different signature.
And again, I'm not talking about somebody trying to match somebody else's signature.
I'm talking about a different name.
And 6 out of 11 got through.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you're doing election work, you're paid by the hour, and your job is just to painstakingly verify addresses, and you've looked at a thousand in a row, and every one of them matched.
You're paid by the hour.
You can't really get fired.
Not really. What are you going to do?
Are you going to put as much attention into the next 100,000 that you look at, or are you going to say to yourself, I'm just going to approve all of these because it's exactly the same pay?
What would you do? The average person is just going to start approving every fucking thing that comes through because they get paid exactly the same.
That would be the most obvious human nature thing to do.
Again, If you were an engineer, would you trust people who are paid by the hour, would you design a system where they are incentivized to lie?
Am I wrong that that incentivizes them to lie?
Because there's almost no penalty.
If somebody says, hey, you missed this one later on, they'll say, oh, damn it, I missed that one.
Did you still pay me? Yes, I did.
Is it illegal to miss one?
No, it's not. It's just a mistake.
All right, I'll see you next year.
Right? There's no downside.
So of course people would just approve them without looking.
Of course they would.
It's the most easily predictive thing.
Incentives work, right?
Right? Any kind of incentive you put on the system is going to have some impact.
It might not completely change it around, but it's always going to have some impact.
So, anyway, I accept the election, regardless of these small things, because it was a test.
We don't know if anybody actually tried to do anything like that.
All right, how about this filter for predicting?
History repeats.
A lot of you believe that, right?
History repeats. So therefore, when you see something forming, you can say, oh, this is like that other thing.
So history would have predicted a red wave, wouldn't it?
History would have said, you've got an unpopular president, everything's going wrong, and it's a midterm election with the president of the other team.
It should. It should have been a red wave.
History is very clear on this.
History could not be more clear on this.
This is like one that just guarantees.
In fact, the experts were only talking about how big the red wave would be.
That was sort of the only decision.
How big is it? Didn't happen at all.
So history was useless.
But how about this?
How about fraud?
Suppose your filter was fraud, and you say, all right, everything's fraudulent.
Just everything's fraudulent.
What would that have predicted?
This. Exactly what you see.
If your filter was everybody is a crook and everything's fraudulent, you would have perfectly predicted exactly where we are.
Doesn't mean there's fraud.
I'm just saying that if you use it as a predictor, You would have been right.
Maybe you were right for the wrong reason, but the filter would have worked.
So how about the persuasion filter?
Do you think that I could have done a better job of predicting what would happen if I'd used the persuasion filter, which I didn't really?
Well, here's what the persuasion filter would have said.
You're only talking to your own team.
So whoever scares their team the most effectively wins.
And that was the Democrats.
So the persuasion filter did predict that the Democrats would outperform.
What did I predict?
I predicted there would not be a red wave, which is the same as Democrats outperform.
So the persuasion filter was right again.
Again, several of these different kinds of filters for predicting got things right, but not necessarily because the filter was right.
You could get a false positive pretty easily.
But you should always do a little audit of what worked and what didn't.
Here's another filter.
Everything that's complicated does not go the way everybody predicts.
So this is one, I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but whenever you have a complicated situation, and elections have lots of moving parts, very complicated, like an economy.
You know, economy is hard to predict, lots of moving parts.
Whenever you've got lots of complexity and moving parts, you could just say that all the experts are going to be wrong, without any thinking at all.
Just say, what do all the experts say?
Oh, all the experts are looking at this big, complicated situation, and they all say it's going to shift to the right.
A really good filter is to say, really?
It's a big, complicated situation, and everybody thinks it's going to go right?
Well, I will predict it goes the opposite.
How often would you be right?
If all you did is just predict that the experts are wrong, how often would you be right?
At least half the time.
Yeah, at least half the time.
And I'm basing that on the fact that scientific studies that get peer-reviewed and actually published in the literature, only about half of them are actually reproducible.
So all the experts agreeing with something means it's about 50% likely to be true.
At best. So if you had done the, you know, coin flip, I'll just take the contrarian view, you would have been right.
You would have been right. Yeah, a lot of people who took the contrarian view on COVID will tell you that they got everything right.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
How about this filter?
I've used this a lot of times and it never fails.
Whenever you have a situation where there's lots of complexity, so you can't see in all the corners because it's just too confusing, so you've got lots of complexity, you've got lots of people involved, And you've got a lot to gain by fraud.
And you have the opportunity for the fraud.
What happens in 100% of the cases where that's the situation?
Fraud! Not sometimes, every time.
Why wouldn't it? It's a pure incentive system.
If you can get away with it, because it's hidden in the complexity, And there's a huge upside.
Maybe money, maybe power, maybe both.
And lots of people involved.
You can guarantee that some of them are going to try something.
Not all of them, but some of them are going to try it.
So that would predict that our elections are, if they have not been fraudulent in the past, it kind of predicts that they will be.
But it doesn't tell you anything about the current one.
All right, Mike Pompeo.
Mike Pompeo. What do you think of that?
Should conservatives need to make the case that helping Ukraine defeat Putin is in our interest?
Let me tell you a little story.
As a little context, and then we're going to get back to Mike Pompeo.
Years ago, my first job in the adult world was a bank teller.
And my boss told me a story about when he was a bank teller, years before that.
And one of his first jobs was to be a bank teller at the drive-up window.
Now, if you remember drive-up windows at banks, I think they still have them.
There would be like a glass window, and there's like a little thing where you can, you know, put money back and forth, you know, through the little, what would you call it, the little channel there.
And so my boss's boss said, all right, there's a good chance that you're going to get robbed.
Like, you know, a criminal will drive up and tell you to give all the money.
And that criminal might actually have a gun.
Which would be typical. And so he was trained that the glass window was bulletproof.
And, you know, they can't get to you.
So he was trained to not give the robber the money.
Because you're behind a bulletproof glass, and if the guy has just a gun, you know, what can he do?
So, sure enough, the guy takes the job, and sure enough, he gets robbed.
And a car drives up, and the guy pulls out a gun.
But here's the funny part.
Do you know the Dirty Harry gun?
Is it a.44?
What is it called? A.44? Do you know what those look like?
A.44 Magnum.
A.44 Magnum, yeah. A.44 Magnum is a handgun that's like as big as a fucking rifle.
It's the most dangerous-looking weapon you've ever seen in your life, right?
And it can blow a hole through an elephant.
I don't know if it could do that, but it's really powerful.
So this guy drives up to my ex-boss who's in the window, and he pulls out this gun that's like this long and puts it up to the glass.
And the guy's looking at this fucking cannon pointed at his face.
And he just starts shoveling the money through the channel.
Take mine. Everything you want.
So he just gives him everything he has.
So my boss's boss comes to him after the fact and says, What did you do?
What did you do? I told you that's a bulletproof glass.
It's bulletproof. Why did you give him the money?
And then my boss said to him, define bulletproof.
I've been laughing about that for 30 years.
Define bulletproof.
Alright, so let's get back to Mike Pompeo.
Conservatives need to make the case that defeating Putin is in our best interest.
Define defeating.
You kind of need that, don't you?
Define defeating Putin.
You mean as in thwarting his desire to control territory in Ukraine?
Or do you mean as in he's out of business?
Or dead? What does that mean?
And why would you say in public something so infuriatingly vague and that that should be like a goal?
You should have an annoyingly vague goal?
That seems like the worst advice ever.
So I think conservatives, as I tweeted in response, I think conservatives could start by defining what defeat Putin means.
If you don't have an endgame, don't ask us to fund it, which is what's happening.
I think I'll give you money for the thing, whatever it is you're doing over there, whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.
Now, Thomas Massey, responding to the Pompeo tweet, had this take on what a conservative should be doing.
So Pompeo says a conservative should be getting on board to defeat Putin.
But Thomas Massey...
Says that taxing Americans, printing money, and taking on more debt to send billions of dollars overseas with very little oversight is not conservative.
And he says conservatives make the case that Europe should pay for its own defense and we should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Now, compare those two opinions.
And you don't even have to take a side.
Just compare the quality of the opinion.
Thomas Massey has a perfectly clear standard.
Perfectly clear. The people who are there should take care of it, and we shouldn't meddle in other people's business.
Now, you could agree with it or disagree with it, but it's very clear, isn't it?
You should assume there are some exceptions where we would meddle, but in general, we shouldn't meddle.
Now, I'm not saying that the Massey approach is right and that Pompeo is wrong.
I'm saying that one of them said something perfectly clear and clean and something you could actually do, whereas Pompeo said something that would be a blank check.
It's not even close.
If you're trying to look for a leader, Look for the one who can tell you what they're thinking and you can understand it.
Like, start there.
Start with somebody who says something clear and clean and you understand it.
That's a pretty good starting place.
All right. I have a feeling that...
Thomas Massey's political future is going to follow a pattern a little bit like Bernie Sanders, but the non-liberal version of that.
And here's what I mean by that.
Bernie was, you know, crazy clown with his socialism and stuff for decades, right?
But eventually the world Changed.
It became closer to what he'd been saying for years.
So he went from crazy to, you know, leadership of the party.
Or, you know, one of the leading lights of the party.
I think Thomas Massey is, you know, different enough from other conservatives that he's going to be sort of living on his little island.
You know, his opinions won't match the mainstream for a while.
But if we check back in, I don't know, 15 years, if he's still in politics...
I feel like the world will be closer to him than to other people.
What would you say? I feel like he's a little ahead of the world, and that's not good or bad, because I'm comparing it to Bernie, who is also ahead of the world, but in a completely opposite way.
I feel like the world is going to catch up with Thomas Massey.
And one of Bernie's strengths...
That a lot of people actually admire, and I would be one of them.
I admire that Bernie's stuck with his guns.
I never agreed with him, but at least he's consistent.
There's very little hypocrisy happening with Bernie, which is one of the reasons people appreciated him.
And I think Massey's going to be in the same category.
You're going to say for however many years, you're going to say, I don't really agree with that opinion.
But it's very consistent. It's very clean.
It makes sense.
And then you might find yourself embracing it eventually.
Now, Bernie owning three houses is not...
That's not really...
That's such a weak attack.
Because he lives in a capitalist system and he's okay with people making money and spending it.
He's not against all capitalism.
So, you know, he's been around for a long time in a high-end job.
He has some houses. It's not the biggest surprise.
All right. Are you happy to be here again?
Wilma? Wilma says, I've made it happy to be here again.
Are you happy? I don't know.
I hope you are. This was the best show you've ever seen.
I think we can say that with total confidence.
All right. SNL's Chappelle monologue was pulled off of YouTube.
Now, I haven't seen Chappelle's monologue, so he was on SNL, and I saw on social media that he did something that might have angered the Jewish community.
Did that happen? Did he fly a little too close to the sun there?
Oh, he says Kanye isn't crazy?
You know, one of the things that Chappelle does and Bill Burr does, and I guess some of the other greats have done it as well, see if you have the same experience.
If you're watching either Chappelle or Bill Burr, they'll start saying something that you say to yourself, There's no way he's going to survive this.
Oh, you've gone too far.
Oh, you can't say that.
And then he starts moving this battleship in a way that you don't think a battleship could be moved.
And then by the time he's done, the whole battleship is turned around, and you say to yourself, oh, okay, that worked.
That wasn't horrible after all.
That was actually clever.
And there was a good point to be made there.
And there are very few people who can write that well.
So the thing that both Chappelle and Bill Burr don't get enough credit for is they're not just writing jokes.
Both Burr and Chappelle have a theme, like an arc, that they'll carry through their routine.
That's a whole different level than the joke people.
That's writing. That's just good writing.
Because it all has to tie together into some kind of comprehensive whole.
And Chappelle does that the best of all.
Like, he'll take you on this path, and you think, oh, I'm over in these woods, and boom, you're over here.
And then that's the funny part.
Are the loud ums a persuasion technique?
The loud ums.
Who does the loud ums?
Do I do that? Are you talking about me?
Or somebody else?
I don't know what the loud ums refers to.
Do I do that? I didn't think I did.
All right. Kanye has the word con in it.
That's funny. Oh, you love the way I say but.
Yeah, I do that to you too, don't I? I take you down a path and then show you it's the wrong path when I get to the end.
But it's fun, isn't it?
It's more fun to not know where you're going to end up.
A little bit of surprise every time I take you down a path.
You like the way I say taint?
Alright, so this just has to be discussed even though it's the last thing I want to discuss.
Andrew Taint has beaten social media.
Am I wrong? I think he went up against it and beat it.
He pretty much owned social media by getting banned.
I can't get away from his content.
His content is everywhere.
Are you seeing it, or is it just being served up to me?
But not only is his content everywhere, but he's right on The zeitgeist.
Because the things he's talking about are like other people are talking about in their own ways.
So he's right on the reading the room right.
So one of the things I try to model, and I think you can confirm this, is that when there's somebody you don't like or a team that you're against, can you make the argument for them?
Because if you can make their argument without any hesitation, then maybe you're an objective thinker.
Otherwise, your bias is taking over.
Now, as you know, I have a personal beef with Andrew Taint.
So I don't like him.
And if something happened to him tomorrow, I wouldn't care.
So I totally don't like him.
But... He's completely successful in beating social media.
He's an energy monster, and he's taking all the negative energy and turning it into money.
And he's doing it really, really effectively.
So I have to say, as much as I don't think I'll ever like him as a human being, he's very effective at exactly what he's telling you he's doing.
So he's fun to watch, even though it just bothers me.
And a lot of the things that he says, and let me ask you this, if you watched Andrew Taint, how many of the things he says are things that you've heard from me first?
Let me just test that.
Because when I listen to him, it just sounds like he watches my live streams and repackages them.
Do you get that sense?
So I'm getting mixed answers.
Thank you.
Yeah, some people are saying a lot, and yes, and some people are saying no.
But the people who are saying yes are more likely to have probably seen enough of my content to know.
Because, you know, I've been talking recently about relationships and marriage and stuff.
He's on the same page.
You're saying his anti-Semitism I don't know. I haven't seen any anti-Semitism.
Have you? And remember, so I hope I've succeeded in modeling this.
So there's a good example, somebody I don't like at all, but I can unambiguously say that he's really good at his job.
Fair? Does that by me any credibility?
Because it's hard for me to say.
Honestly, it hurts me.
But I'd rather be on the level about it than to, you know, mislead you.
All right. I will do the same thing with Trump, which is he's bugging me at the moment, but if he does, you know, effective things, I'm going to say that's effective.
Alright. Anything I left out?
I believe we've covered everything, and we've gone a little bit long, which is just right.
Just right. And for those of you who watched my cooking show, last night I did a live stream from the man cave which I took into the kitchen, showed you how to cook in my new air fryer, and I didn't complete the cooking when I signed off and somebody asked me, how did my salmon go that I had marinated and cooked?
And the answer is completely inedible.
I took a few bites and threw it away.
I don't know why. I may have undercooked it or I didn't marinate long enough or it wasn't a good enough fillet or something.
It didn't taste good and it wasn't a good texture and I just tossed it away.
So I didn't eat any protein last night except for a protein bar, in case you wondered.
But you cannot miss my cooking show.
Is there anybody who watched it?
Because I want to see if you recommend it.
If you watched it, do you recommend it to the people who didn't watch it?
I think the video clip got clipped off, the one that I loaded to Locals.
I think it got clipped off.
So I think the kitchen part isn't even there.
It was there yesterday, I checked it, but somebody said it's not there today.
Alright, that's all for now.
This has been the best livestream you've ever seen.
