Episode 1943 Scott Adams: Most Of Our Political Arguments Are Conflated. That's My Theme For Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
MTG handled her Fuentes disavowal correctly
ESG now being treated like a threat to the US
Elon Musk dumping on Sam Harris
Oath Keeper convictions
Respect for Marriage Act
Ye & Kim Kardashian divorce finalized
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Ta-da! Good morning, everybody, and congratulations.
Once again, you have successfully found the highlight of civilization.
We call it Coffee with Scott Adams because, well, that'll be obvious.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that, well, I don't think any sipper has been to before, all you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a canteen, jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now. Go.
Mmm. Mmm.
That's good stuff.
Well, the U.S. beat Iran in this round of the World Cup.
I don't know if anybody watched it.
It was one to nothing, which Americans call exciting.
Wow. There was one whole score.
So the Americans have played two entire rounds of soccer, and so far both teams, well, all four teams involved, have scored a total of one goal.
So that was pretty exciting.
But I have to say the American team looks better than I've seen.
I haven't really followed American soccer, but is it my imagination?
I watched a little bit, and you know, soccer is one of my passions, actually, as a player.
And when I watched them, I used to watch the Americans, it seems like they would just clear the ball.
That's all they could do against the good teams.
I think we'll just kick it really far in the direction of the other goal and hope something bounces in our way.
But now they actually control the ball and have, you know, they play like the Europeans.
So I thought the American team actually has gone to another level.
That's why it looked like that to me.
Now here are two observations.
They tied with England when everybody thought they would lose, and England started by kneeling to their opponents.
So England underperformed after getting on their knees before a game.
I predicted that kneelers would perform less than non-kneelers, for the obvious reason.
And then Iran goes up against the United States, and Iran is playing for their country while hating their own government.
How does a team do when they're playing for their country and literally hating their fucking country?
The government, not the people.
So, I think the first two rounds were determined by psychology, not sports.
Does it look like that to you?
You know, because the elite teams are always going to be kind of close.
It looks to me like psychology won the United States two rounds that maybe were a surprise.
That's what it looks like.
Well, The New York Times has an article that seems to be today that's questioning all of the trans surgeries for children.
As Joel Pollack noted on Twitter, quote, of course, this all comes out after the midterm election, when Democrats ran on the idea that Republicans wanted to take away transgender rights and Biden and Obama made ads with transgender activists pushing the same garbage propaganda.
They trashed science for ideology again.
That is exactly what happened, right?
This is yet another example of censorship causes the narrative.
The narrative causes your opinions.
Your opinions cause your vote.
Your vote decides who's in charge.
Censorship is the only thing that runs the country now.
So whoever can use their private enterprise to squelch freedom of speech most effectively, they get power.
Because as long as our elections are close, it's never going to be about the vote.
If elections are always close, and they seem to be on the national level, as long as they're close, the things that matter will be the rules changes.
The rule changes.
Maybe in Maricopa, the deciding thing was the reliability of the machines.
Maybe. We don't know that, but maybe.
And certainly the censorship.
But none of this was about voting, was it?
The thing that was least important was people's vote.
Because the vote was just downstream from the censorship.
All right. About 20 years ago, I'm trying to remember exactly, I was at a dinner, private dinner, With some high-level people, and one of them was a famous futurist.
Paul, and I can't remember his last name at the moment.
There's a famous futurist, Paul somebody.
Anyway, Paul sat next to me, and he said that someday...
I'm looking to see if somebody knows the name.
Maybe. It might have been Ehrlich.
I don't know. It was a while ago.
But Paul said to me that when robots can make robots...
Then energy will approach free.
Let me say it again.
When a robot can make another robot, then very soon energy will be nearly free.
Here was his argument.
That when a robot can make a robot, then a robot can make lots of robots, cheaply.
And then those robots can go mine the materials that you need to make solar panels, you know, because robots would be better at mining and cheap.
Paul Sappho, thank you, thank you.
Paul Sappho is the correct name of the futurist who sat next to me.
Well, and the argument is that once you have Robots creating solar panels and robots mining for the raw materials for them, and robots creating the robots that do the mining and make the panels, that once the robots are fully embedded in the entire system, the cost of energy would start falling.
Now this, of course, depends on also having battery storage, right?
So the robots would be involved in the battery making as well.
So here's what's interesting.
Robots can make robots now.
Here we are.
So MIT is, they're working on a concept where they're making sort of almost autonomous smart components that can assemble themselves into another robot.
Now, I don't think that's exactly what Paul was talking about, but it's the first step of robots making robots.
Because when robots can make robots, that's a different kind of singularity than when AI can be smarter than people and make more AI. So it's another singularity to keep an eye on.
I don't know if this prediction is true, but it's interesting.
It's very interesting. All right, so robots are making robots.
So Apple's having a tough time today.
Let's see what their stock is doing.
See if they're getting hammered yet.
Looks like most things are up except Apple.
I don't know if it's because of the news.
But the regular market's up a little bit, Apple's down a little bit, contrary to what other things are doing.
All right, so here's why Apple's got some explaining.
So not only did they cancel the airdrop feature that was necessary for the protesters in China, presumably at the request of the Chinese government.
So it looks like Apple was bending to the will of the Chinese government.
At the same time, they're threatening to take Twitter out of the Apple App Store, which would pretty much kill Twitter.
Now, how do they explain any of that?
I haven't heard their explanation.
I'm not sure they've addressed those questions directly, publicly.
But I don't know if any of that's true, but I don't know how they'd explain it.
So, I sat here this morning thinking, you know, I'm just going to sell my Apple stock.
I started out with a small amount of Apple stock several years ago, which kind of grew into a bigger portion of my portfolio than I was expecting, because it was up like 700% or something.
It's a big decision.
Like, it would be a substantial financial decision for me to divest from Apple.
But as of today, I'm considering it.
So I don't want to shoot myself in the foot.
Like, I don't want to lose money to make a point.
But if it doesn't look like it's going to go up, Because people are mad at it, I also don't want to lose money.
So I'm not sure exactly what to do.
I hold all of my apples held in my sap so I don't have much of a tax implication.
Yeah, well, we'll see. But I'm thinking about selling all of my Apple stock.
If we get confirmation that they, well, let me put it this way.
If they take Twitter out of the App Store, I'm selling all of my stock.
Let me put that out there.
It's gone. It'll be gone within a minute.
60 seconds from the time I read that news, if that happens, within 60 seconds I'm divesting 100%.
And that has nothing to do with money.
That would not be a financial decision.
At the moment, it's a financial decision.
So there's some uncertainty.
But that would take me out of the financial decision-making and into the patriot mode.
At that point, you just have to defend the country.
It's not really a financial decision.
All right. So Tim Cook's got some explaining to do if he's working for China or working for us.
I mentioned yesterday that if Musk made a phone, There's a huge opening for a kind of phone that hasn't been invented yet.
An AI phone.
Here's what I think the future phone should be like.
It should cost you $100.
It should have 5G, but not necessarily any Wi-Fi.
Probably needs Bluetooth.
But basically, it should be a dumb phone that just looks at you and then turns on.
So if you lose your dumb phone, you lose it in the toilet.
You walk down to any store, you buy one of these generic phones off the shelf, you turn it around and have it look at you, and it pops up with your entire data and features because they were never stored on your phone.
They were always in the cloud anyway.
So your phone shouldn't ask you for ID. It should just look at you and turn on.
In theory, I should be able to pick up your phone And it turns into my phone because it sees my face.
And it should have no access to any of your stuff, but only mine.
And then when I hand it back to you and you hold it up to your face, it's only you.
Now, that might be a bad idea because people could, you know, hold it up to people's faces while they're sleeping or something.
So maybe that's too far.
Maybe your phone needs to be your own phone.
But I think that where we're heading, if you didn't know, there's been a sort of a technical back and forth between distributed computing and a mainframe, right? So when the mainframes were cheap and...
Well, mainframes were never cheap.
But when mainframes existed but PCs did not, it was centralized computing.
When... When microcomputers came out, as they were called, then we became more distributed, still with some mainframes, but they weren't doing the work that you were doing at your desk.
I think we're just going to go back because now the communication channel is faster.
5G is so fast that you don't really need any of your data on your phone, do you?
Your phone could just have a browser, and the browser could do whatever an app does, but it just does it fast, because it's a faster phone and a faster 5G. So speed is the only reason that apps ever made sense.
Am I right? From a technical perspective, apps only made sense for speed.
But they also created this market, which could be a gigantic market.
So there were two reasons you needed it.
One was for the benefit of sellers, not for the benefit of the customer, but for the benefit of app makers, benefit of Apple.
And then secondly, for speed.
But if you don't have a speed problem, 5G, faster chips, you don't have a speed problem, then you can put everything on a central server again and the phone itself should be $100 and disposable.
Right? So I think that's where it's going to go because economics will just drive it that way unless the monopolies prevent it.
Let's talk about dating during inflation.
Apparently, Wall Street Journal had an article.
Apparently, it's a big thing now where...
People don't want to go on an expensive date because dinner is too expensive.
And the difference in income between men and women is now normalized.
So men are suggesting that they go Dutch.
And you can both pay your own way.
So this is the way the dates go in 2022.
Two people who are interested in each other, they decide to go on a date.
The check comes, and then the modern man says, you know, we both have jobs.
Together we decided to go on this date and we picked the restaurant together.
Let's split the check.
Now the woman, being a modern woman, She doesn't want to not pay the check, because she's a full citizen, right?
Why should she be treated as anything less?
So the woman says, I would be happy to pay my half.
And then she says, and after dinner, I have a plan.
How about after dinner?
Because dinner went pretty well.
How about after dinner, I go back to my separate home, and you go back to your separate home, you cheap motherfucker.
And that would be the end of the date.
Now, that woman would go home to her apartment, drier than November leaves, and we'll never see that man again.
So apparently that's dating in 2022.
That's the new model.
Apparently there are still young men out there who think, if she says yes to sharing the check, home free.
Yeah. She said yes to sharing the check.
I didn't think I'd get away with it.
I think I'm going to get lucky tonight.
I love young people.
Aren't young people wonderful?
I feel like you can make fun of the young, because we all were.
I mean, I'm basically describing myself at 25.
You know that, right? I'm describing myself.
At 25, if a woman had said, I really prefer to pay my half, I would have said, score.
I think I really got a winner here.
And then I would wonder why I didn't get any sex.
I'd be like, I don't know what went wrong.
I just can't figure out what went wrong in this deal.
Anyway, that's fun to watch.
Here's my theme for today.
We keep imagining that we're arguing with each other while we're actually on different topics.
Have you noticed how often that happens?
So here's the classic one.
Should Trump be punished for having dinner with a white nationalist?
Fuentes. So the question is, should Trump be punished for having dinner when he didn't know who the person was, the reporting says?
Should he be punished?
He didn't even know. Okay, you're all on the wrong topic, which is my point.
Is that the topic?
The topic is not whether Trump is in trouble for having dinner with somebody he didn't know was coming.
That's not the topic.
See, if you think that's the topic, then the left has completely bamboozled you.
That has never been the topic.
Well, it's never been the topic since we knew he didn't invite Fuentes, and apparently didn't know who he was, because the conversation showed he had to ask who he was.
Now, what is the topic?
Can anybody tell me what the actual topic is, now that we know he wasn't invited?
What's the actual topic?
Guilt by association?
Well, in a sense.
Because the topic now is how it will be handled politically.
If you're saying, logically, Trump is free because he didn't know, logic has nothing to do with this conversation.
Where does logic come in?
Where does common sense, oh, he didn't know he was there, so can't hold it against him.
Well, how does that matter at all?
In a political sense, it's just a political football.
That can be used and is being used correctly.
Well, effectively.
You can argue whether that's correct.
But here's the real question.
The only question that's left is, did Trump disavow Fuentes in a way that makes you feel comfortable that he doesn't agree with them?
What do you think? Did Trump disavow Fuentes in a way that would make the average person say, okay, I feel that you don't agree with his point of view?
No. And that's the only topic.
And do you see the conflation part?
If I bring up the point that this is still a topic worth discussing, somebody is going to say, but Scott, he didn't know.
It's not his fault, so it'll just blow over.
No. Logic has nothing to do with this.
And that's not even the point anymore.
The point is, did Trump handle it correctly so that we could all feel comfortable he doesn't agree with the points of view of his dinner guests?
Of course he did not.
Not even close. The closest Trump came is that Fuentes didn't say anything objectionable during the dinner, but if he had, Trump would have disavowed it.
That's so far from being adequate.
Now, here's where I am on Trump.
I'm not going to spend another few years of my life defending somebody who won't defend me.
If Trump won't say, I disavow this guy so that any association I have with him doesn't pick up that stink, then I don't want to have anything to do with him.
Right? Fuck him.
Fuck him, really. It's the smallest thing that you ask, if you plan to be a supporter or you're even considering it.
If you even plan to support Trump, it's the smallest thing you ask.
It's the smallest thing.
Just do what Marjorie Taylor Greene did.
So somebody said, Marjorie Taylor Greene, you went to an event that Fuentes was a host at.
Explain that.
So here's Marjorie Taylor Greene doing what Trump has not done.
And watch how easy this is.
This is her tweet.
Of course I denounce Nick Fuentes and his racist, anti-Semitic ideology.
I can't comprehend why the media is obsessed with him.
And then she said, do you actually report real news or just use CNN? Blah, blah, blah.
And then have you question Democrats if they denounce Ilhan Omar.
Now, that's entirely clear, isn't it?
You could ask yourself, did she really not know who Fuentes was when she went to his event?
But it's easy to imagine that if you spend a lot of time with online politics, as I do, that everybody's seen what I've seen.
And that's just not the case.
My understanding is that the trial for Alex Jones in Texas, that a number of the jurors had never heard of him.
Can you process that?
That there was a jury trial, and a number of the jurors had never heard of Alex Jones.
So, it actually is not that unusual.
If it's true that Marjorie Taylor Greene was not familiar with Nick Fuentes, that's not really surprising.
That's not surprising. I would call that a coin toss, right?
Like, if you said, what are the odds that she does know him?
I'd say, I don't know, maybe 50-50.
Like, he's out there enough that people who are enmeshed in politics have mostly heard of him.
But unless you're in the top 2% of people following politics, probably not.
I would say Fuente's name would be familiar before this event to the top 2% of people who are following politics, would you say?
Not more than that.
But I think we're all in the top 2%.
Yeah, same with Andrew Tate.
If you asked a general person, have you heard of them, they'd probably say no.
It's just an internet thing.
So, given that Marjorie Taylor Greene has what I would consider an acceptable explanation.
Now, I'm not giving her a pass for everything she's ever done or said.
I'm just saying that on this one topic, I accept her clarification.
Because I don't have counter-evidence, right?
Like, I could suspect that maybe she really did know who he was, but I don't know that.
And there's no evidence, and it's not obvious that she would to me.
So I accept the clarification.
How about you? Do you accept her clarification?
And here, try to make your comment independent of what you think of her in general.
Yeah, I do. I accept it.
Alright, but it's so easy, the fact that Trump doesn't do it puts all of his supporters at risk.
Like, Trump not disavowing this guy the way the MTG did puts me at physical risk.
Like, I could actually fucking get killed because some idiot thinks that, like, I'm backing racists because of, you know, somebody knows somebody knows somebody or something.
Because that's what happened last time.
I mean, I think I was in actual physical danger supporting Trump.
But at least there was some payoff before.
I don't see there's a payoff now.
You exaggerate?
Maybe. All right.
So that's what I think.
Did you hear that weird story about Biden's Secret Service?
They rented some SUVs for his time at his Delaware home.
So they had five rented SUVs.
And they returned them to the lot when they were done with them.
And then all five cars burned up.
They all caught on fire and burned up.
Now, I'm no expert on car fires.
But have you ever heard of one car fire starting a fire in the car next to it?
Have you ever heard of that?
Oh, is that Nantucket?
Yeah, I'm sorry. It was Nantucket, not Delaware.
So yes, so that's actually a thing.
If a car burns up and you're parked, let's say, whatever's a normal parking space, I don't know, 18 inches or something, you're telling me that fire from one car is going to catch another car on fire?
I don't believe that. Yeah, okay.
I'm going to go with I don't believe her for a second.
Even if they explode.
I don't believe it. Now, I saw the cars.
If the cars had, like, exploded like a bomb, where there was nothing left of the car, I'd say, oh, yeah, that could catch anything on fire.
But the car is sort of like the engine compartment looks like it caught on fire.
I don't see how a fire in the engine compartment of one car can get into the other car.
Because there's nothing burnable on the outside of a car, is there?
And a car that's not running, it's not going to suck anything in, right?
Yeah, and all five?
Paint? Tires? I don't know.
Oh, tires? Okay.
But I don't think the tires were the problem.
Maybe. Oh, okay, I got it.
The first car blows up, the gasoline goes under the other four cars.
That was it, right? It's got to be the gasoline.
Am I right? It's got to be there, right?
Yeah, that would make perfect sense.
Because if the gasoline goes under the other cars and then ignites, there's a fire literally under each car, and then you've got it.
Okay. Okay, I think we figured it out.
I think we figured it out.
All right, it was a weird coincidence, but it probably was one car.
Although I'd like to know why that one car caught on fire.
All right. 13 Republican attorneys, generals, have filed a motion asking the federal energy regulators to prevent Vanguard Groups, that's a big investment company, from having authorization to purchase large quantities of public utility stocks due to its support for ESG. So, Republican attorneys, generals, are going after companies that are even supporting ESG. Like, it's such a bad thing.
So ESG is now literally being treated like a threat to the country, or a virus, or a...
It's actually just being treated like a flaw that needs to be removed.
So, good on that.
Question, did you know that Glenn Greenwald is going to do a, I guess, a major professional, you know, nice set show on Rumble?
I think it's going to be live.
Will it be live-streamed?
Oh, a live show, yes.
It'll be live. So, this is one of the most important things happening in the world.
Because Glenn Greenwald is a national treasure, even though he doesn't live in the country.
And... Rumble is a national treasure.
And by the way, I'm an investor in Rumble, a small investor.
But I think what they're doing for supporting free speech Is fundamental in its importance.
And if you add Glenn Greenwald, who has often the best takes on the corruption of our system in various ways, you put those together, that's a super powerful entity.
So talk about, you know, good news coming up.
I don't have an investment in everything, although I do have most of my money in the S&P 500, so that covers a lot.
But I do have investments in some of the biggest tech companies, because I bought in heavily during the pandemic.
That turned out not to be such a good long-term strategy.
They all went up and then they went down.
All right. Musk is dumping on Sam Harris some more.
I think he tweeted this once before, but in response to a tweet about Sam Harris leaving Twitter, I guess.
Elon Musk said, Sam used to be so rational.
There is such a thing as too much meditation.
I think he said that before, but it made me laugh the last time.
There's such a thing as too much meditation.
He destroyed his brain by over-meditating.
And then he goes, Elon Musk says, Sam lost me when he said that any lies at all would justify Trump losing.
And I think a lot of people were lost.
I think that's probably why Sam decided that Twitter wasn't a good match for him.
Probably that situation. And then Musk points out that Sam literally wrote a book about why lying is evil.
And then he supported lying if it could stop Trump.
The most rational thinker in the country couldn't stay consistent as long as Trump was in the conversation.
That's how much Trump bent reality.
Alright, we're going to give you a little quiz here.
We're going to test your logic, your common sense, and your ability to read minds all at once.
So, now this is something that people who...
Stop it. Stop it.
I haven't even asked the question yet, and half of the people on the Locals platform...
Stop it. Stop it.
Let me ask the question first.
Stop giving the answer before the question.
Stop it. Alright, according to Rasmussen, what percent of likely U.S. voters believe that the outcome of the Senate election in Arizona was not in any way affected by the problems at the election?
What percent thought that the problems in Maricopa didn't really have any effect then?
You're right. It's very close to one quarter.
I don't know how you do it.
It's 23%, but, you know, probably 2% error.
So, once again, the smartest audience in all of the Internet.
You can guess poll results before the polls come out.
Okay, a lot of people can't do that, but you can, and good for you.
Um... Weirdly, as I was talking about this, how there needs to be a new phone that doesn't use Apple, Jack Dorsey was tweeting that there's an effort going on to build some kind of a webOS where you could have a phone without apps.
The phone would just work better with websites.
And then you're done.
Because the phones are faster now.
So, like I said, as long as the phones are faster, Then the consumer's purpose for having an app goes away.
Then it's only for the maker of the app that is good.
All right. What else is going on?
How about... So, Musk said he's already improved the performance of Twitter, you know, some 400 millisecond kind of performance, that if you don't know anything technical, it sounds like it wouldn't be much.
But did you all notice that Twitter is way faster?
Remember I kept complaining that if I left Twitter open in a browser tab that I couldn't use it the next morning because it would pick up so much, I don't know, just trash just sitting there.
It just wouldn't work. But that stopped a few days ago.
Now I can leave it open overnight and then it's just fine the next morning.
And this morning I was using it and it's like, damn, this is really fast.
I thought my internet connection was just humming along.
And it turns out that Twitter is faster.
Now, here's the question I ask.
Was that something Twitter couldn't do before Musk got there?
Like, what did he do different that made a major technical improvement in terms of the user experience?
Do you think he did that, or was that sort of already in the works, because it's probably fairly major?
Fairly major. Yeah.
They were too busy. They had too many employees to get it done.
Well, so here's my preliminary take on Twitter.
Anything we say about whether Twitter is better or worse is garbage, because we need to find out where it ends up.
Where it is now is not a snapshot of anything.
Because it's moving pretty rapidly toward being a new entity.
So if you pick it up in the middle, you're not really looking at anything that's real.
It's temporal. But we like to see how we're going.
I would say at the moment I'm seeing more anti-Semitism online.
How about you? It could be because the news stories are generating it.
But I'm seeing more direct anti-Semitism online.
Anybody else? I'm seeing only no's.
Really. So you're not seeing users who are just directly saying anti-Semitic stuff.
Why am I? Why am I seeing it?
Because I'm seeing a good amount of it, not just one tweet.
It's not who I'm following, I just see it in the comments.
It's usually just a comment.
And it's usually a comment to some generic public person.
So you're not seeing it.
I wonder how much that is confirmation bias on my part.
Because it's less likely that you would all have confirmation bias, right?
Could be more of the topics that I've been interacting with, possibly.
I don't know. It's an open question.
All right. So two of the Oath Keepers were convicted.
And they were convicted of conspiring and plotting to take over the country.
Now, I didn't follow the trial, but did you know that conspiring and plotting are illegal?
At what point does talking about stuff become illegal?
Like... If all of the conspiring happened within their organization, and then nobody put it into operation, it's not something I'm comfortable with happening, but where is the crime?
Where's the crime?
How much did they have to stretch the Constitution or the law to put a crime around that?
Because to me, I thought a bunch of guys sitting in a room talking shit about anything is legal.
It's not. You can't talk shit about stuff without getting arrested if it's the wrong stuff.
I thought talking was always legal.
Like, how much of the plan has to be implemented short of a crime being committed before that talking becomes a crime itself?
I don't understand exactly the situation, but I'm not comfortable with it.
So it's not a situation that I look at and say, oh, justice was served.
Now, just to be clear, I don't want the Oath Keepers trying to overthrow the government, but I don't think that ever was happening.
I see no evidence that they meant that.
All evidence suggests that they did mean to delay the certification.
Where was the evidence that they planned to take over the government?
If the only thing they were doing was delaying a process to improve the result, it doesn't look like justice to me, but I don't know if there's...
The reporting didn't tell me what it was exactly they did that was so bad.
Now, obviously, it's so bad from a logical level, but it has to be bad illegal, too, to go to jail.
So, we'll watch that.
Rhodes and Meggs, two people who got convicted.
20-year maximum prison sentence on the charge of seditious conspiracy.
I just doubt that that was justice.
I don't know. But given everything we know about everything, I just doubt that justice was served.
So I guess the Respect for Marriage Act looks like it's passed.
And I guess I was blind to the fact that if you were legally married in one state and you moved to another state, you wouldn't be legally married.
Let's say it's a gay marriage.
Did you know that? I didn't know that the states did not recognize a legal marriage from another state.
So I'm actually glad that they made this consistent.
Does anybody have a problem with that?
Because I think this is just a technical fix to something that I thought I should have done in the first place.
Theory. Think it's wrong?
You think it's fed overreach because the states...
Let's see if there's an analog to this.
There are other laws that work for other states, right?
If I get a driver's license in one state, I can use it in another state.
Is that a federal law, or did every state agree to that?
Give me a fact check.
Why is it that my driver's license is valid in another state?
Because every state agreed, or it's a federal law?
States agreed. Do you think?
Every state. Constitution requires it because it would be different treatment or something.
I don't know. So we actually got all 50 states to agree to that.
Maybe. Yeah, maybe that would be a better way to go, wouldn't it?
But I think I agree with the federal government in this case.
I like the federal government stepping in when there's something about the situation that makes it not a good fit for the states.
And I think that a basic appeal to justice required the federal government to do this.
Because no matter what you think of gay marriage, you have to know it's fucked up to let them get married and then suddenly treat them like they're unmarried because they move across, if they move five miles in America, right?
Just because you moved over a state border, suddenly you're not married?
Do you think that's good for anything?
Like, who benefits from that?
There's no benefit from that.
Nobody wins from that.
Because we're not going backwards.
If you thought that was the beginning of, oh, now I'll dismantle these gay marriages, it's just the beginning.
It's not. Gay marriage isn't going to be dismantled.
It's here to stay. And so you might as well be decent to people, right?
I get the conceptual argument, you know, states' rights.
States' rights is always a strong argument.
Just whatever the topic.
It's always a strong argument. But I think you have to put the individuals above that little peculiarity of our Constitution.
It's a peculiarity, but it's a good one.
The conflict between states was gay marriage, not heterosexual.
Right. But I'm only talking about the gay marriages.
Yeah, states' rights facilitate A-B testing.
But don't you think gay rights has been A-B tested?
Alright, I live in California and we've had gay marriage for a long time.
I can identify zero downside from that.
Zero. I'm not aware of any downside.
Now, is there an upside?
Yes. There is an extreme upside for the people involved and anybody who cares about them.
Extreme upside for the people involved and their loved ones.
But I have not seen one negative thing.
Have you? I have not seen one negative thing.
One negative thing. Why is polygamy illegal?
Well, it's not really illegal.
Polygamy is sort of illegal, but not really.
I mean, there's...
I mean, the polygamy is the legal part of the marriage.
Yeah, you know, polygamy should be legal.
But that's another story for another day.
All right. What else is going on?
So, Ye and Kim Kardashian, their divorce is final, says the news, and the settlement is that Ye has to pay $200,000 a month in child support.
Now, my understanding is that Kim has the primary custody.
Which means that she would be putting in her own money, right?
So I don't think that they settle these with 100% of the payment comes from the one who doesn't have custody, right?
So if one side was ordered to pay $200,000, there's sort of an implied doubling of that, which is what the kids cost.
So $400,000 per month Is what the Kardashian lawyer has sold to the court as the right number.
$400,000 per month.
Maybe it is. I don't know.
But it seems to me if the...
Oh, man.
All right, so this is too personal to me.
I'm too recently divorced to handle this case because I'm just going to go off on Kim Kardashian now.
Does anybody mind that? I'm just going to really go off on it right now.
And I'll start by saying that I've always been a huge fan of hers.
I've never been on the side of saying, oh, she just has fun and doesn't work.
No, she works really hard.
And she's very smart.
She's very entrepreneurial.
She seems very giving.
She seems very generous.
And I have, like, tons of good things to say about her.
However... However...
If somebody puts the final divorce agreement in front of you, and you know that in the last two weeks, your husband, soon to be ex-husband, had lost nearly all of his fortune, or his future fortune, would you sign that thing?
These are two people who had babies together.
They had children together, and presumably still want to be in each other's life for that.
And after Kanye's entire fortune gets destroyed, this fucking cunt signed that agreement because she could.
Just because she could.
There was no legal reason she couldn't, and if Ye agreed to it, he agreed to it.
He probably had to sign it, too.
But that is so below...
The level of a good human being that my head's going to explode.
Now, we don't know all the details, and if Ye is happy with the arrangement, that's the end of the story.
So let me say this.
If Ye is okay with it, that's the end of the story, because it's just up to them, right?
I would have no complaint.
If he doesn't complain about it, I have no complaint about anybody.
It's just their decision.
But... If he's thinking the same thing I am, which is, you just watched my entire fortune get destroyed right in front of you, and you fucking signed that thing.
Like, the thing was obviously negotiated before Kanye lost his money, right?
Obviously. Now, presumably, he's retained many millions, no matter what happens.
But still, it's a whole different situation.
If that wasn't renegotiated, That's just a crime.
Like, that's just lawyers stealing shit.
I mean, that's terrible. I mean, I really have a visceral feeling of hatred for Kim Kardashian because of this.
Now, it's not fair. Let me say as clearly as possible, especially when a divorce is involved, believe me, I know this, the public doesn't know what's going on.
We're dealing with this, you know, minor little information that, you know, slips out.
We don't know the context, right?
I mean, tomorrow we can find out that Kanye borrowed a billion dollars from Kim Kardashian and didn't pay it back, and so you say, oh, well, now that you know that context, it all makes sense, or something like that, right?
So there could be more to it, but on the surface, it disgusts me.
But I could change my mind if I found out something different.
Alright, here's the last thing I want to do is talk about masks.
I'm going to talk about not whether they work or not.
I'm going to talk about the quality of our news.
So it's been two years and masks are back in the conversation.
Have you ever seen a major news story where they went through the pros and the cons of masks and showed you the science and had actual people knowledgeable talking about both sides?
No, you haven't.
No, you haven't. Nope.
And so when I complained, hey, why has nobody shown both sides of the argument in a way that feels credible?
A number of people criticized me online, and do you know what they said?
Scott, do your own research like I did.
Look at this information I have that says masks don't work.
And I said, okay, that's a different topic.
You're on the topic of, do masks work?
I'm on the topic of, why does our media not help us with this decision?
And those two things get conflated, and then I'm an asshole because somebody doesn't know he's on the wrong topic.
Like, half of my conversations lately have turned into, I know you think you're disagreeing with me, but you're not even on the same topic.
You're talking about whether they work.
I'm talking about whether anybody helped us with a decision.
Different topic. Sorry.
So watch how many times you think you're having a disagreement when you're just on the wrong topic.
Yeah. And in case you're wondering, I'm anti-mask big time.
And I don't know what the science is.
I don't know. But I know it didn't show up in any of the big numbers, right?
So I don't care what your study says.
It didn't show up in the overall death count, I don't think, that I'm aware of.
But, you know, how would I be aware of it since nobody helped us with that information?
So people are mad that Twitter has reversed its policy on COVID disinformation.
So it used to be the old Twitter would try to stop anything they thought was disinformation, and now any information on the topic will be allowed.
True or false? Now, the people who say, my God, this is going to be bad, How did they go through the entire pandemic without noticing that all of the information was wrong?
How did that happen?
It was all wrong.
All of it. Who in the world thinks that they can determine the part that was right?
If the experts couldn't figure out what was right, how are you going to figure it out?
Doing your own research on what the experts can't agree on?
Yeah, it's an absurd conversation because, once again, people are saying, should we or should we not have this Twitter policy?
And it's the wrong topic.
The topic is, was any of our information right ever?
Like, how could you possibly know what is disinformation in today's environment?
Right? Again, we're not really on the same topic, but we act like we are.
That's the theme for today.
Alright. I was asked this question a few times.
So, David Sachs was on Tucker last night and he was tweeting, and I think he came up with it, at least he's the one talking about it, that MAGA has a new meaning now.
M-A-G-A. It stands for Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon, which he calls the Tech MAGA. Now, there are other tech companies, but they don't work.
I guess you could add Twitter, and then it would be MAGAT, just like the Democrats say.
Okay. But anyway, he leaves out Facebook so that the acronym works.
So... So David Sack's point is that the tech MAGA are basically suppressing free speech and freedom, etc. And so people ask me, is that persuasive?
Is it persuasive that there's now like a tech MAGA? So MAGA works both ways.
It works on the...
We'll see. I did that comic.
I already did that comic.
I think it's kind of effective.
Because here's the thing.
When the left makes a word toxic, it stays toxic.
So if you start using that toxicity against them, the toxicity stays with it a little bit.
So it probably does work.
Pretty good. So apparently a bunch of HIMAR systems, these accurate missile systems, have been delivered to Ukraine.
And they're getting some from France.
France has a version.
We have a version.
And here's the question.
The HIMAR systems are unique because they don't miss, like they hit what they're shooting at.
You don't need many of those, do you?
The whole deal of war is everybody's shooting and missing, but if you can actually hit the thing you're aiming for, you win, right?
If the HIMAR systems basically don't miss, and the Russians are digging in for the winter, what the hell's going to be left of the Russians?
How could there be anything left?
Because if you can take out the most important assets, you know, their food, their, I don't know, ammunition, take out their launching platforms, whatever, if you can hit them all and the rockets keep coming in, because we're probably making more missiles all the time, unless they run out of missiles, and I don't think they will, because we must be making them like crazy by this point, unless they run out of missiles, how do they lose?
Troops are too spread out?
The troops are spread out, but not their assets.
Because you're always going to have headquarters.
Probably. I mean, the boss has to be somewhere.
You're always going to have food storage.
You're always going to have weapons depots.
You're always going to have big missile launchers of your own.
War is about logistics.
I don't know. I think by the end of the winter, there just won't be much left of the Russians.
But, of course, they can reinforce.
So it doesn't mean anything in terms of prediction.
You are so offed.
Whenever I talk about Ukraine, somebody says, you are so off.
Let me ask you this.
My claim is that after my disastrously incorrect prediction that Russia would be too dumb to attack and actually attack Ukraine.
Now, I was certainly right that it was dumb, but I wasn't right that Putin knew it too.
Apparently I knew it and Putin wasn't aware of it.
So totally wrong about that.
But I believe that I am the most right about what would happen if Russia attacked.
I'm going to say that nobody in the pundit business, no military expert, no nobody, was as accurate as I have been in predicting the Ukraine war.
Anybody disagree? Now, of course, it's not over, so in the end, I could be the most wrong person.
In other words, if Russia just rolls the entire country in the spring, then I'm the most wrong person.
But at the moment, I'm the most right predictor of Ukraine, as I was the most right predictor in all things about the pandemic.
Now, I know you disagree with that, but I have a long document that goes through all my thoughts, and if you take out your fake news about me, I was actually the best predictor of the pandemic, by far.
Nobody was even close. You think Russia's getting crushed?
Well, everybody does.
The Russian military, there's nobody who says the Russian military is in good shape.
Nobody says that. There are zero people.
I was the only person who said we would be in this situation.
Oh, let me just test your knowledge.
Who else said that we would be in the situation we are right now?
Just me. I believe I'm literally the only person.
Can anybody fact check me?
I'm the only person.
Scott Ritter, but he writes for RT, so that's different.
I think it was just me.
Have you ever thought about the predictions I've made that are the weird ones?
Remember when I predicted that Trump would change the nature of reality?
Or how we saw it?
Nobody thought that was a real thing when I said it.
Here we are. The very nature of reality in every way is being completely up for grabs.
Completely up for grabs.
Yeah, I'm a rogue predictor, but a good one apparently.
Junior says, Scott predicts what he sees on CNN.
I feel like you've never been on, like somebody who's only been here in like 60 seconds.
Will women changing Iran affect the supply of drones?
Well, I don't think anything's going to happen soon.
In Canada, every time you buy something, they ask for a Ukraine donation, somebody said.
You have to be skeptical of hypnotist Scott describing what he said in the past.
Well, there are enough witnesses here that I think you can...
You might just be good at remembering your correct predictions.
Well, that's true. That's why I do it publicly.
That's why I do it publicly.
Because that's exactly true.
That I would have a tendency to remember the ones I got right and a tendency to forget the ones I got wrong.
That's why I do it in public.
So that you can be my memory.
Alright. Ladies and gentlemen, This comes to the conclusion of the best livestream you'll see today.
I think it was awesome. I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube and Spotify and Rumble people, and I'll talk to the locals, people privately here.
