Episode 1966 Scott Adams: I Explain How The J6 HOAX Is Being Played On American Public, & Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
J6 HOAX committee conclusions
Twitter's economics
Financial incentive babies?
The Omnibus bill
Nuclear war isn't looming?
Systemic government corruption
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And welcome to the highlight of civilization, I like to call it.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer thing in the history of humankind.
And if you'd like to be part of this amazing journey, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sign, 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 other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. I saw a suggestion here that you could be either sipping or ripping.
That is acceptable.
You can sip or you can rip.
Either one is good. So, do you ever see something in the news that you accept uncritically and then time goes by and you just think about it when you're out of the fog of war and you say to yourself, I don't think that was ever true.
My classic example is the news has reported for decades that moderate drinking is good for you.
I remember I used to believe that.
And then, you know, years go by and one day I was sitting there thinking, that's not true.
That's almost certainly not true.
And how in the world did I ever believe it?
Because on its surface it's ridiculous.
Is it not? It's a little bit ridiculous on the surface.
Now that doesn't mean that unusual things can't happen.
Unusual things do happen.
Sometimes you get surprised.
But if this one is one of those surprises, I'll be really surprised, right?
It's clearly just the alcohol industry wants you to think it's good for you.
Like, it could not be more clear that those studies are, you know, based on industry influence.
But here's one that I've been accepting uncritically, and so have you.
It goes like this.
That the so-called vaccinations, we'll always put them in quotes to make you feel good.
The so-called vaccinations are the first time science has developed a way to give somebody a, let's call it a medication of some kind, that mostly kills the healthy people.
And the sick people do fine.
But if you're a young, healthy man, it's going to kill you.
Do you think that's true?
Are the vaccinations so different from anything that we've ever experienced in the history of the world that we've developed the one thing that kills strong people and not weak people?
It kills stronger people sooner than weak people.
So if you're a 90-year-old frail grandmother That thing won't hurt you at all, but if you're 18 and you play a sport, it'll fucking kill you.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
That's not true, right?
I'm doing an exaggeration to make a point.
Now, I'm not going to rule out that it's possible, right?
If I said it's impossible, I'd be crazy.
Because there are differences. You can imagine, for example, That high testosterone, just to pick one example, right?
If high testosterone doesn't work well with the mRNA, you've got everything you need, right?
That would explain it, right?
There's a difference in young men, testosterone.
Now, likewise, if it only affected young women, you'd say, oh, hormonal, something hormonal that's special about that case.
But I'm going to ask you the question again.
Give me another example Of a medication that is more dangerous to the healthiest people.
Is there any other example of that in the history of all medications?
Well, you say Lipitor, but they wouldn't give it to young people.
Viagra? Is Viagra an example?
But you wouldn't give it to young people.
Fentanyl? No. Statins?
I don't think so. Chemo?
You think chemo is more dangerous if you're healthy than if you're near death.
I don't know. So I'm not going to say it's not true, right?
But let me give you an alternative hypothesis.
So one hypothesis is we keep seeing that young men are dying suddenly, right?
So that's a true statement.
I don't know what the reality of the statistics are, but it's a true statement that we're observing it, right?
And some people say that the statistics back it up.
I'm not sure I trust any pandemic statistics.
But at the moment, it's a general sense that young men especially seem to be dying at a really rate.
All right, do you want me to fuck up your brain really good?
Because you think you kind of understand the situation, right?
Watch this. An old man comes into the ER, has a heart attack and dies.
He's been vaccinated.
A young man comes into the ER, he has a heart attack and he dies.
Both vaccinated?
What's the story?
The story is only young people are affected by the vaccination.
Why? Because old people die all the time.
Right? If an unhealthy person dies, you say that's because they were unhealthy.
If a young person dies, you say it's because they got a vaccination.
Could it be that the way we count them is the old people dying is invisible because there are lots of reasons they could die.
If a young person dies, there's only one reason you see.
Could it be that old people and young people are both dying at the same rate from side effects of the vaccination, which is different from saying it's dangerous on balance, right?
I can say without reservation that vaccinations of any kind have side effects.
Some people die from medications that are a good idea.
So we don't have to argue whether there's more deaths compared to COVID. That's a separate conversation.
There are deaths. But are we counting the deaths the same?
Would you notice an old person dying from the vaccination, or would you just say, well, they were old.
He had some cholesterol, so that's why he died, right?
Now, I'm not saying that's the full explanation, because I think maybe there's also a difference between young women and young men dying.
And I would think that if there's a difference between young men and young women in outcomes, you're both dealing with young people, so that's not hidden by the fact that some old people might be dying too.
So I'm not sure that that's fully explaining what's going on, but it might be part of it.
It might be that you just can't tell what old people are dying from because you have five options.
If a young person dies, you look around and go, well, Like, what else could it be?
Right? Even if it is something else, you're still going to say, what else could it be?
Did that fuck up anybody's brain?
All right. I don't want to name a name, unless he wants me to, but since we didn't talk about it.
So I heard this yesterday.
From a solid source who said, you know, maybe it's just the way we count them.
Maybe we just don't notice when the old people are dying.
And apparently this is a line of thinking that's out there.
I'm not inventing this.
It's a line of thinking that's out there already.
But here's why this should have rocked your brain.
It looked like a really clear situation, didn't it?
It looked like it was just cut and dried.
Cut and dry. The data is clear.
These young people are dying.
For some reason, it's not affecting the old people.
That could be exactly what's happening.
It could be exactly what's happening.
I'm not going to deny that that could be.
I'm just saying that if you haven't considered the other alternative, you should.
That's all. All right.
I have a tip for NPCs on Twitter.
So the people who are not real people, they're just sort of like robots who act like people.
If somebody describes something, I would like to describe the situation, that's different than defending it, right?
So if I describe the Holocaust, I'm not actually in favor of it.
Now, most of you already knew that, But if you describe something like what's good about it and what's bad about it, the pros and the cons, if you do that on Twitter, that's called defending it.
If you see somebody say that you're defending something when you know you're not, don't argue with them.
Those are NPCs.
That's just an NPC thing.
When I get comments like that, my only reply is just NPCs.
Go on. Do not argue with somebody who's clearly an NPC. Now, I use the NPC metaphorically here, not literally.
I saw that because Bill Ackman, famous investor Bill Ackman, was speculating on why somebody like SBF would do something criminal When simply owning a big crypto exchange would have probably made him a billionaire.
So why would you do something illegal when doing something legal that's available to you, that's right in front of you, is perfectly fine.
And he used the Madoff example.
So Madoff was rich.
He didn't need to steal anything.
But he did anyway.
And so here's his speculation.
No, not greed. Not greed.
Greed is a good hypothesis.
Greed is a good hypothesis.
But this is Bill Ackman's addition to the conversation.
It might be about covering up embarrassment.
It's not a bad theory.
And the covering up embarrassment theory is that if you were an investor or you owned a crypto exchange, if you lost a bunch of money, you don't want to tell people.
And because you're an optimist, you say, all right, if I do this or that, I can cover it up and they'll never know.
So you do this or that, but it's the wrong situation.
You can't do it. So you don't cover it up enough.
So I think that, yeah, greed is enough, right?
Follow the money, greed is enough.
That can explain the whole thing.
But I don't think it's crazy.
To say that both of them were trying to cover up a loss and the embarrassment of the loss is also a huge incentive.
And then somebody said, why are you defending SPF? And I'm thinking, defending?
All he's doing is offering one hypothesis to describe a guy who did a heinous crime.
It's still a heinous crime.
Like, who's defending anybody?
That's the opposite of defending.
It's just describing and throwing out a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis.
How often do you see this happening?
You just describe something and somebody says, why are you defending that?
I get that every day.
I'm still a single-issue voter on fentanyl, meaning that I'm not going to support anybody from President or Senate unless they have a real plan that, at least on paper, looks like something worth trying.
At least it has to look good on paper.
I would forgive if it doesn't work.
That's what real life is about.
You try things, you adjust.
I asked this question, I said on Twitter, that I'm a single-issue voter on fentanyl, and I said, if no one has a plan on fentanyl, I'll just vote against all incumbents.
That's my default.
Just vote against all incumbents.
And I said, has anyone attempted to join me?
In other words, to only vote based on the best fentanyl plan.
62% said that they would consider being a single issue voter on fentanyl.
Did you expect that?
I thought it was going to be 10%.
I didn't think it was going to be 62%.
Now, here's the logic of why to make that a single issue vote.
Because I think everybody can see at this point that the government is no longer responsive to the citizens.
Would you agree that both sides think that at this point?
Like the omnibus bill just proves the government is not responsive to the citizens.
And how do you change that?
Now, you can't change it if we vote for candidates based on how much we like them.
Oh, that one's funny, or that one's a Republican, or that one's a Democrat, or that one's too progressive, all that stuff.
You'll never get anywhere.
You've got to say, look, here's a minimum standard for you to be in the office.
If you don't meet the minimum standard of having a plan for the biggest problem, just a plan.
It doesn't even have to be a good one.
Just have a plan that looks like it would work on paper for the biggest issue.
If you don't meet that bar, don't ask me about anything else.
Right? That's like the ticket to the show.
You've got to tell me what you're going to do for the biggest problem that's our immediate biggest concern.
If you can't even answer the question, I'm not going to ask you about your other issues.
I have no interest, no interest in any other opinion you have.
Because I know you're not real.
Right? If you don't have anything to say about fentanyl that's useful, you're not real.
It's not even like I'm supporting or not supporting a candidate.
That's not even a candidate.
So, anyway, if it turns out that I can move enough people who would say they would vote on the fentanyl plan, it would really force the politicians to compete on it.
I'd like politicians to think I can move a million people.
You realize that there were over 100,000 OD deaths this year.
Now, maybe three quarters of fentanyl.
So let's take the last five years.
How many people do you think died of fentanyl the last five years?
Maybe a quarter million?
A quarter million? Something like that, because it's going up the last few years.
So let's say a quarter million in the last five years.
It's close to 100,000 this year.
That's just this year.
But five years, let's say a quarter million.
How many people were affected by a quarter million people dying?
Well, at least a million.
At least a million. Because of family members and spouses and stuff, right?
So at least a million.
There are one million people at least in the United States who are probably adults.
There's probably a million who are just adults, who vote.
If I can get all a million of them to say, you know what?
I'm so mad about this, I don't care about anything else.
Then we can get a fentanyl policy.
But if everybody says, well, fentanyl is my most important thing, but I still have to look at the overall situation, then you get nothing.
You get nothing. And that's what you deserve.
You would deserve nothing.
You would deserve no response from your government.
If you keep doing what you're doing, you deserve what you keep getting.
Do something different. You've got to do something different.
The politicians are not doing anything different.
Right? You know, they're just trivial things around the edges.
So we're going to have to do something different.
And we're going to have to make it a death sentence to not have a fentanyl policy.
You know, a political death sentence, not an actual one.
Yeah. So, January 6th Hoax Committee has done their big write-up, and here's one of the big outcomes from it.
They could not confirm that Trump ever tried to grab the steering wheel of the beast, you know, the presidential limousine.
That was one of the biggest stories.
And when they asked the people who, one was in the room and one was the actual driver, the person who was the alleged witness to the story that it happened said he doesn't have any memory of being a witness to the story that it happened.
And the person who was driving said he didn't see anything like that.
It was a hoax.
It was a hoax.
Now, that's what the January 6th committee determined factually.
And, of course, it's helpful to Trump.
But we talk about both sides here, right?
So I'm not going to only talk about the parts that make Trump look better.
I'm also going to say what the January 6th committee said that make him look like he committed a crime, right?
So I'd like to now give you the summary of the January 6th's crimes that Trump did.
Blah, blah, word salad.
There, I'm done. Now, I've got a little test for you.
If you have any Democrat family members, ask them to summarize in a very, like, clean, tight way.
Ask them to summarize the actions that Trump did that were illegal.
Ask them to just explain it.
Watch what happens.
You know what's going to happen?
Well, if you wonder how your family is going to handle that question, try looking at how CNN handled it.
They had a very lengthy article about the January 6th outcome, and they couldn't explain why Trump did a crime.
It wasn't in the article.
In other words, we know what crimes they say he did by the name of the crime.
Insurrection and disturbing a public event and stuff like that.
But what CNN failed to do, and I'll bet all of your relatives will fail to do, is connect the actions of Trump to how they're those crimes.
Isn't that the obvious thing you see in an article about that?
Oh, they charged him with X. Here's the three pieces of evidence they used to support that charge.
Wouldn't you expect CNN to explain it that way?
Here's the charge.
Here's what the investigation found he did.
Now you can see that the things he did really fit into that charge.
They won't do it.
Because it can't be explained.
The narrative actually doesn't hold together if you try to summarize it.
The way that they're trying to sell this is it's a big old tapestry of a thousand witnesses.
My God, it's not so simple.
You can't really try to simplify this.
A big complicated web of collusion of the people who made phone calls that we think were thinking their motives the day of.
There was this memo, and what about the other memo?
And there was a phone call, and what about the lawyer and the person who wasn't Trump who had some bad ideas?
But because he wasn't Trump and had Biden ideas, maybe Trump had those same thoughts.
I mean, seriously.
You are going to laugh your fucking ass off if you ask a Democrat to explain what Trump did to support the charges.
I think this is the closest they can get.
It was an official proceeding.
Congress was in an official proceeding.
And that Trump did things that contributed to slowing it down.
What do we call that in America?
Is there another name for that?
When a large group of concerned citizens gather in one place with the intention of interfering with the gears of society.
Let's see. Sometimes they'll interrupt traffic.
Sometimes they'll interrupt public events.
Sometimes this group of concerned citizens will...
Maybe interrupt a business commerce.
Maybe you're trying to do business and they block access to the business.
Do we have any name for that?
Oh yeah, yeah.
It's called freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech. That's right.
Trump executed his freedom of speech.
So, go to jail for that.
Now, did I deny that he was trying to delay a public event or a public proceeding?
No. I'm not going to deny that.
That's exactly what he was trying to do.
Explicitly, publicly, totally transparently, he was trying to delay a public event for the purpose of improving the outcome.
And he should be banned from politics forever because he tried to delay for one day An event to try to improve its outcome.
Now, separately, he was also trying to get some electors to be like a different slate of electors or something like that.
Is that illegal?
Is it illegal to press the limits of the law based on your interpretation of it?
I don't think so. I think that's just a different interpretation, and if he had some legal basis for it, he'd be fine.
But suppose there's no legal basis for it, and all he did was try to get a separate system to replace the valid one.
What then? Well, then it matters if he genuinely thought the election was rigged.
If he genuinely thought it was rigged, He would be protecting the system.
I'm not saying he should have done it.
Because remember, describing something is not defending it.
Because if you think that my description of what happened is defending it, well, you're missing the plot.
I'm simply describing it.
So, But then when you look into the actions of the lawyers that were involved and, you know, they're talking to electors and all that, how much of that was Trump himself versus people on the staff talking to people to see if they could line up with his plan?
No. See if you can get a Democrat to succinctly describe what he did that doesn't sound like an ordinary protest.
See if you can do it. You're going to trigger them into word salad.
It'll just be like this spinning weird thing.
And don't bother even debating it.
I just want you to see if you can trigger the cognitive dissonance.
That's your challenge. See if you can trigger cognitive dissonance simply by asking somebody to summarize how Trump's actions actually relate to the charges.
See what happens. And also watch the news coverage to see how they can't do it either.
They can't connect the dots.
But the Democrats will come to believe that the dots have been connected.
Because you know that's how it works.
So, let's talk about Twitter's economics.
I'm a little worried that even Elon Musk can make Twitter profitable.
Here's just some real gross numbers.
So, these are not too accurate.
This is like within a billion or so.
So, Twitter was, before Musk, would get about $5 billion in income and lose about $1 billion.
So they'd get $5 billion coming in, but overall they'd lose $1 billion because they spent more than they made.
Close to 90% of that, some 80-some percent, was from advertising.
So they're already losing a billion per year, and the current report in the Wall Street Journal is that Musk may have lost 75% of his advertisers, which were more than 80% of all the revenue.
Now, that doesn't mean they won't come back, but at the moment they're on hold, so he's not getting any of that revenue.
So he's probably going from $5 billion revenue, mostly from advertisement, maybe down to $2 billion.
Which would make his losses go from a billion to, you know, he's also saving money on staff and stuff.
So let's say he's doubled his loss.
Best case scenario.
He's losing two billion a year on a running basis.
So if he's losing two billion a year, how do you make that up?
Let's say he has eight dollars per month subscription service.
What percentage of Twitter's Quite a few people do you think would actually use it.
What percent do you think would pay the $8 for the extra benefits?
I say 20%.
I'm looking at all of your guesses.
Would you agree that 20% is somewhere in the range of your guesses as well?
I'm seeing 10 to 25.
But let's say 20, just to work through the numbers.
So I did a quick calculation, and if 20% of Twitter users started paying $8, it'd be about $300 million per year.
Not even close to covering the loss, right?
Because he needs to make up probably something in the $2 to $3 billion a year range, unless the advertising comes back.
And the subscription won't come close.
Now, he's got other ways to make money.
He can improve the advertising model so you can buy directly from Twitter.
Maybe that gets him some more.
He can add a payment system, which is a separate revenue.
There may be a number of other ways to do it.
But at the moment, I don't see how he gets there.
The only way he's going to do it is he has to get back all the advertisers he lost, plus a bunch of new ones, plus the eight dollars, or he's not going to be close to servicing his debt.
And also remember, also remember that I'm using old Twitter's financials.
That's before massive debt.
So the expenses at Twitter are way higher, because they have to service the debt, because Musk had some debt, part of that.
So I don't see how the numbers can work.
You can see why Musk is panicking.
I mean, this is much closer to a total startup than it is to trying to recover a healthy company.
Can he sell the buildings? Well, even if he...
I don't know what assets they have, but I don't think it's going to help him cover his run, his running losses.
You know, that wouldn't be the answer.
So, I don't know. I still think he has a good chance of pulling it off, but it won't be, you know, a straight down the middle ad subscription or a straight down the middle hope those advertisers come back.
He's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
But who better, right?
Who better? Alright, my theme today is incoherent Republican opinions.
If you're new to the live stream, if I criticize Republicans, does that mean I hate them compared to Democrats?
Nope. It means I show the costs and the benefits of everything, including Republicans.
Now, let me do a little check with you.
You all know That if I were doing this, you know, these live streams, just for the money, I'm smart enough to know I just have to pick a team and agree with it, right?
Just pick a team. Doesn't matter which one.
Any team I pick, I'll make way more money Because if I just agree with my team, they all feel good, we all get dopamine, and I trade dopamine for money, and I make untold millions.
And you know that I choose, as a philosophical, ethical preference, to not do that.
Because it would require me to do something that would feel like lying by omission.
It'd be lying by omission, but it'd be a lie, in my opinion.
It would cross my ethical boundary.
So, I'm going to tell you where Republicans are really fucked up at the minute.
Right? And you're not going to like it.
And it's going to be painful.
And some of you will never speak to me again.
But I like to think that I'm developing a number of strong mental people who can handle this in its proper context, right?
There's nothing wrong with any of you.
So starting with, you're all normal, right?
Whatever confusion or cognitive dissonance I'm going to talk about has nothing to do with IQ. Nothing to do with your intentions, your ethics, nothing to do with your knowledge.
You're fine. It's just a thing that happens to people, okay?
And it goes like this.
For the longest time, border security was a high Republican priority and not so much for the Democrats.
And the argument was very clean and very persuasive.
You can't let unlimited people into your country Because it would be bad economically.
And some argued, and I'm not going to embrace the argument, I'll describe it.
Some argued it would hurt the cultural character of the country in a way that could be fatal.
But now time goes by.
And by the way, I embrace that argument.
I embrace the argument from five years ago.
That the border should be airtight, and then we should have economists decide who gets in and under what circumstance.
But you shouldn't have it random.
You shouldn't have other countries deciding what our immigration policy is.
That's the way it is now.
Right now, Central America decides what our immigration policy is by deciding whether they come here or not.
That's it. If they decide to come here, that's our policy.
If they decide to stay home, well, that was our policy.
So it's not even up to us anymore.
So I was completely on board with the Republican view.
Two things that I have learned recently, and I think most of you as well.
Number one, Our internal population growth has stalled, and no country can survive a declining population.
Economically, it's a disaster.
Everybody would agree with that.
There's no debate on that, right?
So we went from a situation where immigration was unambiguously a drain on the system, and I agreed with that completely, because we were already creating our own babies.
Why do we need extra babies when we have plenty of babies, right?
Now we don't have enough babies, and it's one of our biggest problems.
The only way we can solve it quickly is with immigration.
Now what do the, what do the, yeah, goodbye, see?
So there's a, there's a goodbye already.
So this will be, the people who are weak won't be able to even handle the conversation.
If you're strong enough to at least hear the full conversation, and then you disagree, well, then I'd say you might be a strong thinker.
But your mind would be very weak if you can't even get to the end of the conversation.
That would be an embarrassing level of mental weakness, I would think.
So let me get to the end, and then you can disagree with me.
There'll be plenty of room for that, okay?
So at the moment...
We don't have a short-term way to solve population without immigration.
Does everybody agree with that?
There's not a short-term way to do it.
Because you can't instantly have more babies.
Right? There's just a time difference.
Now, would you also agree?
This is my audience.
For my audience, yes or no, your preference is Americans have more babies.
Right? And so...
The smarter thing to do would be to increase the incentive for babies, to make it easier to have a baby, right?
And more economical, right?
Okay? All on the same page so far?
Population's a problem. It has to be solved.
Only two ways to do it, but we prefer doing it with population growth from our own people.
We're all the same, right?
Now, let's just talk about the cultural difference.
Five years ago, you said, oh, bringing all these people from below the border will change the nature of the country in a negative way.
And then you find out that the people coming from South America, or Central America, are more American than you are.
Not legally, but they are religious conservatives.
And they're really serious about it.
And they come here because work is like a high priority and family.
It's like God, family, and work.
They're conservatives.
Now, they might be socially liberal in some issues, right?
But they're more American than the Americans.
If you wanted to destroy Americans' culture, There are definitely cultures that you could import that would change the nature of it.
For example, if you had massive, let's say massive Muslim immigration.
The Islamic system is different enough That it might improve our system, it depends on your point of view, or it might destroy it, because it's too different, doesn't integrate as well.
But that would be a reasonable conversation.
Does that make it better or worse?
But it would make it different. It would make it different than what America has been.
Now, I'm not saying that you should, you know, ban Islamic immigration.
I'm saying that if you think that our culture would be affected negatively by the awesome people coming illegally from the South, I think you have to rethink that.
Because they're the people you want.
They're the people who are taking a risk.
They're culturally conservative.
They're going to have lots of kids, probably, until they become rich as well.
Then it decreases. So, here's where the Republicans fall off the rails into complete cognitive dissonance, and I apologize in advance.
I don't mean to insult you if it's happening to you.
There's no way to increase our birth rate.
That can't be done.
Our entire system is incentivized against it.
You would have to change women working to change it.
Is that going to happen? I mean, you can say you want it to happen, but there is no possible way to get there from here.
That's a one-way trip.
We took a one-way trip.
We have to deal with what we have now.
You can't go back to there.
So here's where Republicans, their opinion is literally absurd on immigration.
And five years ago, it was the only smart one.
In fact, a year ago, I was completely...
I lost the signal here.
Even a year ago, one year ago, I was 100% in favor of the Republican view of immigration, based on the wrong assumptions.
The wrong assumption was that we didn't have a population problem, but we do.
So now I learned that.
That changes everything. Economically, that changes everything.
And then I learned that the people coming from Central America are more American than I am.
Again, not legally.
But in their cultural sensibilities, they're more American than I am.
Honestly. Honestly, more American than I am.
And so I don't worry about that.
So I'm not worried about the cultural influence.
And let me also tell you that if...
You know that I live in California.
So, I'm surrounded by the Hispanic community.
It's like, you know, you breathe it, you live it, you know.
There are days when I'm speaking to more people who came here after they were born than before.
Very common in California.
You can spend more time with people who came here after they were born.
Well, I'm surrounded with, you know, lots of diversity in many ways, but not every way.
So, Here's my line in the sand or my assertion.
The Republican view on immigration is a few years behind, and because of that, it's absurd.
It's absurd.
There is no way to increase natural birth rate.
Now, if somebody has a way that sounds good, Then I would consider that, and I would also be willing to completely reverse my opinion.
If you said, Scott, Scott, Scott, it's kind of easy.
All you have to do is change the financial incentive of marriage and kids, and governments can do that.
They can change tax rates and stuff like that.
So you just do it. You know that, right?
You just change the incentives and you're good to go.
Like Australia, right?
Australia did that. So Australia has, I think they still have this deal, where they were trying to increase birth rate, and they offered $5,000 to have a baby and 18 months of leave, paid leave. And do you know what happened when they offered pretty solid financial incentive to have a baby?
What happened? What happened?
No, birth went up.
Birth rate went up. Do you know why it went up?
Because financial incentives work.
That's why. Financial incentives work.
Do you know what happened next after it went way up?
What happened next? Just guess.
What happened next? It kept going up?
Flattened out? Or it went down?
Well, it turns out that you very quickly run through all of the people that care about $5,000.
That's it. That's the whole story.
The total population of Australians who could be persuaded by $5,000 was, you know, this much.
And every one of them took the $5,000.
Do you know why? Do you know why they took the $5,000?
We're going to have a baby anyway.
The government doesn't know if you changed your mind.
The government doesn't know you weren't going to have a baby and then you changed your mind because of the money.
It was just people who were going to have a baby anyway.
So they said, all right. I was this close to having a baby anyway, so I'll have it this year instead of next year.
Because if I knew I was going to have a baby next year, or I wanted to, why wouldn't I do it this year when I can get paid?
Next year, I don't know, this might go away.
So based on that story, do financial incentives work?
Yes or no? Based on that story, do financial incentives work for increasing birth rate?
The answer is yes, unambiguously, they work.
This was just not enough.
Right? So don't confuse whether it works with whether it wasn't enough to work.
Clearly, it wasn't enough to work.
Would you agree? Suppose they had said, if you have a baby, we'll give you $50,000 a year for 18 years.
How many babies would people have?
Unlimited fucking babies.
Financial said there was work every time.
There's like no exception to that.
Every time. The reason that the $5,000 didn't work, it just wasn't enough.
That's all. If we can agree that financial incentives definitely work for raising the birth rate, why don't we do it?
Why don't we do it in America?
Because we can't afford to pay $50,000 per baby times 18 years, or anything close to it, or anything that would do more than what Australia did.
Let's say we said $20,000.
Let's say we just killed Australia in terms of incentives.
Australia, you failed at $5,000?
Watch this. $20,000 to have a baby.
What would happen? Everybody who was moved by $20,000 would have extra babies if they were going to do it anyway.
And then the next year, you would have run out of people who cared about $20,000 to have a baby.
Because you know what a baby costs?
A million fucking dollars.
All the people who are good at economics would say, $20,000?
Like, I'll do it if I was going to have a baby anyway, but I'm not going to have an extra baby to get $20,000 today and pay a million dollars over time.
Right? So the only way you could get most people to have more babies is to basically pay for their college and their upbringing.
You'd have to guarantee free college, Free food, free private schools, what else?
I don't know. And they'd have to have rides back and forth without your trouble.
Anyway, how many of you accept my explanation that the current Republican view is absurd because the conditions changed but their opinion did not?
Who accepts that the Republican view on Is absurd.
Now, what would not be absurd is if they were offering what Australia was offering, right?
Now, if the Republicans were saying, let's close that border, but we'll do what Australia did, we'll offer $5,000, even though it didn't work, you know what I'd say about that?
Well, at least it's a plan.
See, that would be a difference between a plan that maybe doesn't have that much of a chance of working That's different.
I'm saying that the Republican view is absurd, that it doesn't even make sense.
It's not something you could evaluate because it's absurd.
I could evaluate $5,000 per new mother, and then I could say, well, you know, look at Australia.
That might suggest it won't work or it's not enough.
That's still rational.
You get that, right?
If the Republicans had an actual plan of any dollar amount, That would be a rational thing that you could say may or may not work, but it's all rational.
At the moment, the Republicans have a view that's formed on something that doesn't exist.
It's based on assumptions that we all clearly know are not real.
I love watching the reactions to this.
This one's tough, isn't it?
Is anybody having a tough time with this one?
Has anybody developed a negative feeling about me...
In the last 10 minutes.
Because this is just too far for you to go.
The locals people are all friendly or so.
Good. It looks like my audience filtering is doing a good job.
Meaning I'm attracting people who can handle costs and benefits.
I don't have to pretend I'm just on some team.
Good. I applaud you.
Seriously. By the way.
I have great appreciation.
It's the end of the year, so I'd like to...
I'm going to do more appreciation stuff.
I would like to say how much I appreciate that the people who have been drawn to me so far are very unusual.
You're not like the rest of the public.
And I'm not just blowing smoke up your ass.
It's true. It's obvious. Do you think I could have gotten this reaction from the general public?
People were very...
This group was very accepting Of something that's completely opposite of their worldview 10 minutes ago.
You handled that really well.
So that's a sincere compliment.
All right. Let's see what else is going on.
Did you see the video clip of one of the Maricopa officials testifying in that Carrie Lake lawsuit where she's challenging the election result?
And the...
The Maricopa County Attorney argues that part of the reason that there was a delay at the machines, or a delay on Election Day, certainly part of it was some machines didn't work, and the process had some problems.
But the Maricopa County Attorney argues the voters who waited until Election Day to vote When they knew they had the option of voting remotely, if too many of them waited until Election Day, it was their own damn fault.
Just let that sink in.
He said that in public, without being embarrassed.
Now, I get the point.
Like, we all get the point, right?
It's true that if Republicans had played the game the same as Democrats, maybe we would have gotten a different outcome.
He is, however, ignoring the lack of trust in the mail-in ballot process, completely ignoring that.
So Republicans had a reason.
It wasn't stupid.
They had their reason for voting on Election Day.
Now, it didn't work out.
Didn't work out. But they had a reason.
So again, this is a rational decision.
And I don't know I could be more insulted than this guy's opinion that it was their own damn fault that they voted on Election Day.
On Election Day.
It was their own damn fault.
Because they voted on the day that people vote.
On Election Day. Now, what does that look like to you?
Like, why does a guy say that in public?
Can he not tell?
Does he not know how that sounds?
Do you think that's what's happening?
Actually, he couldn't tell what that sounded like to other people.
What? All right.
So I guess we're going to the decision now.
The judge is deliberating with himself, or however that works.
And so the judge will have a decision pretty soon.
When do we expect the decision?
Before Christmas? Needs five days, somebody said.
All right, so maybe next week after Christmas.
All right, based on what you saw, if you're following this, for the people who followed the trial, What do you think will be the outcome?
Will it be something that addresses Carrie Lake's concerns, which would include either reversing it or holding another election?
Or will they say, oh, you made some good points, but I'm not going to change anything?
I feel like nothing's going to happen.
Don't you? Does anybody think something surprising is going to happen there?
Now, the reason I say that is because while problems have been discovered, I don't think they found a smoking gun, did they?
The smoking gun would be like a memo that says, make sure you change these ballots so they don't work.
But as far as I know, nothing was demonstrated for intent.
Am I right? There's no demonstration of intent?
Did anybody see it? We've seen obfuscation, yes.
We've seen them answering questions like weasels and avoiding questions.
So we've seen all manner of weaselish behavior.
But that would be common to any, you know, government entity.
So weasely behavior is just that sort of baseline.
But am I wrong that they didn't demonstrate intent?
And if no intent has been demonstrated, it's not even in evidence, is it?
I don't believe any evidence was even presented of intent, was it?
So what I'm talking about is how the trial will end.
But I saw your comment...
Yes, governments are guilty until proven innocent.
That's the way we should treat it, exactly.
But the court is not operating on that basis.
Yeah. Now, I believe there's also a difference in fact, right?
I believe the right believes that the facts are there were lots of machines affected, and I believe that the left believes that the testimony showed it was only a few.
Am I perceiving that right?
That everybody who's a Republican believes it's been demonstrated that, like, lots of machines were affected, But the Democrats, based on information that came out of the trial, would believe it was only a few.
I don't know which is true.
So I'm not saying what's true.
I'm saying, is that the beliefs of the two groups?
That's accurate, right?
The two movies, two different realities.
One thinks lots of machines were affected, and the other says it was just a few.
Yeah. Now, the presumed tampering, I don't think that's a strong point.
Because I heard the point is, it would have to be an administrator who did it, therefore it had to be intentional.
Does that make sense to you?
Does that logically hold?
It had to be an administrator, therefore it had to be intentional.
In what world does that make sense?
In what world is that logical?
We know somebody did it, therefore you know his intention?
That doesn't track.
If you know somebody did something, the only thing you know is they did something.
That's not a sign of intention.
You'd need a lot more than that, because an accident would look just like that, right?
Have you ever unintentionally clicked the wrong box on a user interface?
Everybody has, right?
If the accidental hypothesis is still alive, that's all you can do, right?
Now, I'm not saying that there was no crime here, and I'm not saying that there was no intent.
I'm asking you if the trial demonstrated it.
Did they meet the burden of proof?
I don't think they did. Did they?
I haven't seen it.
So, I'll confess I'm not fully informed about all the ins and outs of the trial, but nothing...
I'm seeing somebody say I'm factually wrong.
What's the wrong part?
What's the wrong part? Because I'm only talking about what evidence was presented, I'm not talking about what's true.
So you don't know if I'm wrong about what's true, because you haven't heard it, that opinion.
They try to establish doubt, not intent.
Is that how it works? Do you think the judge would say, well, I don't know if they had intent or not, therefore we'll act as if they did?
That doesn't seem like a strong argument.
I think if you don't find intent, you didn't find a crime.
It has to be that.
I mean, that's innocent until proven guilty, right?
Is there a pattern of disregarding for the truth?
Well, that doesn't help.
That's what they tried to achieve, is a reasonable doubt.
Now, was there argument that if there's reasonable doubt, that's enough reason to redo the election?
Is the argument that...
Oh, okay.
So the argument would be substantial public doubt in the outcome would require a redo.
Just the existence of obviously questionable activities, but not proof of intent.
Does that seem like a strong case to you?
It doesn't to me.
Because the court is always going to weigh upsetting the system...
Justice isn't the only thing that they're trying to do.
The judge will also try to protect the system because that's the bigger interest.
And I think the interest of the system is to move on.
I hate to say it. Because I don't like that.
Like, that's not my preference.
If there's a problem, I'd like to, you know, root it out.
But I think, unfortunately, I think we've already moved on.
And the courts just say, well...
You know, if nothing fell apart so far, let's not break something.
So, I saw Mark Elias, famous attorney on the Democrat side, and he knows what he's talking about, I think.
And he predicted that the lawsuit will amount to nothing.
And I had to retweet them.
I mean, I didn't want to do it, but I had to retweet them and agree with them.
I didn't see it.
I didn't see the way they could win.
But I could be wrong.
Now, is the judge a Republican or Democrat?
I think somebody said Republican.
Do we now? Or appointed by judges Republican, somebody says?
Do you think that will matter?
Do you think a Republican judge would see some intent or think that the system, I guess, intent isn't really the question?
Do you think a Republican judge would say, yes, let's throw out the result?
I don't know. I'm gonna bet against it.
I could be wrong on this one, but I'm going to bet against it.
When I talked about the omnibus bill, where they throw all the different bills into one big bill so that nobody's responsible for anything, when I complained about Congress not doing its job, I got pushed back on Twitter, well, Trump didn't do anything about it.
What do you make of that?
I criticize Congress as a group.
That obviously includes both Republicans and Democrats.
And the pushback I got is Trump didn't reject any of the bills, so he ran up the debt, too.
Did it sound like I was defending Trump?
That's a different conversation.
But as long as we're on that conversation, my view is that Biden and Trump and our prior presidents are all the same on this.
Because Congress traps them such that it's, you know, the last minute, and if the president doesn't sign this big abortion of a bill, then it looks like the president's fault.
So you do that to a Republican, they do what they have to do.
You do it to a Democrat, they do what they have to do.
So to me, yes, you could extend the argument to say that Trump didn't fix it, granted.
And Biden didn't fix it, granted.
And nobody fixed it.
But maybe there's a reason.
It's because it's unfixable at the presidential level.
If Congress wants to trap them, to give them something, you know, they just can't say no to because the public will wonder why the lights went off, what are they going to do?
So if we don't change the incentive, don't blame the president.
Republican or Democrat, don't blame Biden.
Can't blame Biden. Now, is it practical?
Now, this is another one of those Republican cognitive dissonance problems.
So I believe the Republicans have an absurd view of this omnibus, if they believe that the president should have vetoed it, or that Trump would have, right?
That's sort of absurd. Because once the president gets trapped, they just do what all trapped people do.
It's not going to change.
All right. And I said you shouldn't judge them.
And one of the fascinating things about Twitter, as I often point out, is that I never know who's paying attention.
So I got a response from Justin Amash, who's recently retired from Congress, independent, I believe.
And he said that you should rank the presidents on this dimension because a president can shape what gets to his desk.
So in other words, the president can say, don't send me anything I'm not going to sign, and that that would effectively empower the president.
What do you think? Is that real?
That the president can say, I won't sign this, so don't even send it to me.
That's not going to work in the real world.
No! You don't think anybody would have thought of that before?
Seriously, nobody thought of that.
There was no president who ever said, I've got an idea.
I'll just tell them to send me something I can sign.
Problem solved!
You don't think anybody thought of that?
Come on!
It is purely absurd to imagine that the President can fix that.
It's absurd. It's not right or wrong.
It's absurd. Now, okay, Reagan did it.
Reagan did it.
Did he? Sir Reagan brought down the debt.
Sir Reagan reduced the debt.
No, he didn't. No, he didn't.
He basically agreed to sign something he shouldn't have signed, something that raised the debt, because he didn't want to do that.
Maybe he made it look that way, but I think Congress sent him what they could send him, and it's always going to be that way.
Newton did it. Do you think it could be done today?
I'm going to reject all of your historical precedents.
Because I don't think that today's environment allows anybody to work together in that fashion.
Because I think in Reagan's day, people still worked together.
And Reagan actually was nice to Democrats, wasn't he?
Like he would say funny, insulting things about leftists.
But he was basically very polite, and I think he worked well with Democrats.
We don't have that.
We don't have that. So to imagine that we could do what they did in those days is to ignore that everything's changed in terms of how the media has split us.
Mostly the media. All right.
So I don't think that Congress will change no matter what threats they get from the president.
Because what would Congress care about?
Does Congress care if he doesn't sign it?
Not really, because then it's the president's problem.
And they're like, well, we tried.
We gave you a bill.
You didn't sign it. That's on you.
Here's a logic test that turned into more than a logic test.
I noted that people can't tell the difference between things that have already happened and things that might happen in the future.
Now, as weird as that sounds, Like, that doesn't even sound like any human has that kind of thought process.
But when I ask somebody, what is the bigger risk?
Fentanyl coming into the country now, or the risk that Russia would nuke the United States?
And I say, it's a logic test.
Compare those two risks.
And a number of people alarmingly said to me, Russia's nuclear weapons have killed zero Americans.
Fentanyl has killed lots of them.
Therefore, fentanyl is more dangerous.
How many would agree with that?
Fentanyl has killed lots and will continue to.
Russian nukes have killed nobody.
Therefore, Russian nukes are not a risk.
And fentanyl is a big risk.
People are agreeing with that.
So for the people agreeing with it, you're comparing a real thing to a risk.
And you know that's absurd, right?
It's absurd to compare a real thing, real deaths from fentanyl, to a potential risk that you don't really know if it'll happen or not.
Now, there's a technique for doing it, and the technique is called expected value, right?
I try to teach you this every now and then.
Now, an expected value calculation would be like this.
Let's say you said there's a 1% chance that Putin would kill 100 million Americans.
1% chance.
1%. But that would be a million people if you multiplied 1% times 100 million.
And this is called an expected value calculation.
This is how you compare a risk that hasn't happened to another risk that hasn't happened.
Or even one that you know the risk.
It's the same thing. So the way you would compare it is if you imagine there's a 1% risk, you say, well, I would value that as a million deaths.
Plus, you know, whatever the long-term consequences.
And fentanyl, you could say, well, there's probably 75,000 dead this year.
Nothing's changing. 75 next year.
So my guess is that fentanyl will kill a million Americans before we figure out some way to reduce it.
So I would rate the risk of fentanyl over the next several years as one million American deaths.
I would rate the risk of nuclear war very low.
Very low. 1%.
And the 1% would be some kind of weird miscalculations and misunderstandings and accidents and, you know, somebody saw something on radar that wasn't there.
You know, just an accident, basically.
Because no rational person would launch a nuclear war.
But, so let's say I think it's 1%.
So those would be equal.
Same risk. Now, if you said...
Fentanyl is killing real people and Putin will never use his nukes.
That's not really rational.
Because you know what else Putin would never do?
Invade Ukraine.
An enormous miscalculation.
So is there a risk that the guy who just made an enormous military miscalculation, it just happened.
Is he a person who could make another giant military miscalculation?
Well, I would say the evidence suggests he's a guy who makes massive military miscalculations.
Yes, he does that.
So if you think the odds of a nuclear skirmish with the United States, while there's a hot war with the United States, and while mainland Russia is being attacked by our proxy, like Ukraine is actually attacking bases and depots and stuff inside Russia.
If you don't think that gives you any risk of a nuclear miscalculation, I don't know that that's good thinking.
You can say it's less than 1%.
But if you think it's zero, it's hard to back that.
All right. But there was a more alarming thing that I realized as I was asking this question, which has nothing to do with that specific risk-reward thing.
It goes like this.
This is going to make you really mad.
Have you noticed that the news stopped talking about nuclear war with Russia?
Just sort of stopped talking about it.
And have you noticed that the odds of it are actually higher?
Because the war has continued, it's, you know, Russia's losing, it looks like.
Some dispute that.
And there are attacks on their territory, and their economy is crashing, and it doesn't look like they have a path out.
Doesn't look like there's a way out.
So he's desperate.
He miscalculates.
He's going to be dead soon.
Pretty dangerous situation.
But why is it that the media stopped talking about nuclear war?
Because remember in the beginning, that was all the talk, right?
It's like, oh, he might be pushed into launching the nukes.
Stopped. Why did it stop?
There's only one reason.
Yes. Yes.
American intelligence services have asked the media to stop talking about nuclear war because they can't get enough public support to fund Ukraine if the public thinks that that will lead to a nuclear war.
It just fucking stopped.
The reason that people said they weren't worried about nuclear war with Russia is because the media assigned that opinion to them.
There's no evidence that would support that opinion.
The media stopped talking about it, and then people said, well, I guess there's no risk there.
How many of you noticed, before I brought it up, that the nuclear war talk went to zero?
Who noticed that? It didn't do it by itself.
The news never stops talking about danger if it's like real and present and is related to the story.
You're telling me that the news suddenly doesn't care about scaring its audience so they'll click more.
Like suddenly they've abandoned their business model of scaring you.
Just on this.
That didn't happen. No.
This is clearly the government's thumb on the media saying, like, just back off on the nuclear stuff.
Because we've got a lot of weapons to put into Ukraine and you're not helping us at all.
Am I right? Does anybody disagree that we must be seeing massive brainwashing happening right now?
Now, here's the tough part.
Here's the tough part.
Do I think we shouldn't be doing it?
No. I think we should.
Because you have to brainwash your own public to be effective in international affairs.
It's just a requirement of being effective, unfortunately.
So it's definitely happening, and it definitely has to happen.
And I would say they're doing a good job.
They are actually convincing us that that risk is low.
Now, I don't think that's terribly dishonest, because I do think the risk legitimately is in the 1% range.
But 1% is still a lot when you're talking about nuclear war.
Still a lot. Yeah.
All right. We know now that this is in evidence that Twitter was working with our intel people, our military intel, and they were colluding to use fake accounts to influence other countries.
That's a real thing. Now, do you think that applies to TikTok?
By the way, I think I conflated my TikTok and my fentanyl conversation.
There's a reason for that.
It's because I called it digital fentanyl, so they get conflated.
But the argument's the same.
All right, well, we know that TikTok, and ByteDance is their owner, they have confessed that they were tracking Forbes journalists as part of a covert surveillance campaign because the Forbes journalists were saying bad things about TikTok.
And so they used their private information to surveil them.
TikTok did that. Now, so we know that our government uses an American social media network, probably all of them, but we know one for sure, to influence other countries.
And yet we allow China To provide TikTok in this country when the most obvious thing in the world is that they're doing what we're doing, and we see an actual confirmed example where they were surveilling American journalists.
Exactly what people were worried about.
Confirmed. Exactly what we were worried about.
Now, tell me again why TikTok hasn't already been banned in the United States.
Literally nobody in government is on the side of keeping them.
Nobody. But not banned.
How do you explain that other than the government is simply not doing what we pay them to do?
They're not saying no, and they're not saying yes to the biggest risk that I can see.
Right? If they said, here's our bad argument for why, I'd say, well, I don't like that argument, but at least you did your work.
But they're not even saying no.
They're not saying yes to ban it.
They're not saying no. They've just put it in a committee to talk about forever until the next administration, I guess.
Scott's perception whispering is great thought vaccinating.
TikTok ban on government devices in the omnibus.
On government devices.
Banning it on government devices is like 1% of the problem.
Good. It's good. I'll accept that because it shows that they're thinking right.
But it also shows that they understand the risk and they've decided not to deal with it.
Right? If they're banning it on government systems, they understand the risk.
But if they're not banning it for the public, it means they're choosing not to work on it.
They're choosing not to work on it.
I assume the reason is they would lose voters.
Can you think of another reason?
They would lose young voters, but also they would lose their own way to influence people through TikTok.
Yeah. So, I said this the other day.
I'm not positive it's true, but it feels true.
That if everything you think, if everything Trump has been accused of, let's say in just the last two years, if it's all true, whatever's the worst thing about him, if it's all true, he would still be the least corrupt person running for president.
Here's my argument.
Is it my imagination that all of the systemic corruption is Democrats?
Because every example seems to be Democrats.
Give me an example of a Republican, Republican systemic, like, you know, they're all rotten.
Like, the way we imagine the FBI is all rotten.
Or Twitter was rotten.
Now, don't go back to Watergate.
You have to stay today.
You have to stay today. So, only current events.
Don't go into history.
Only current events.
Where are the Republicans clearly corrupt?
Not as individuals, but like collectively working together.
You're saying the omnibus, but I think that's just incompetence and hiding.
That doesn't feel like...
See, I'm talking about stuff that only Republicans are doing.
So don't tell me about stuff that all the Congress is doing as a whole, like the omnibus.
So I'll get you...
I will stipulate that that's not good work by the Republicans.
Can we stipulate that?
Stipulate that the Republicans failed the country or their party on the omnibus.
I think that's clear.
Stipulate. They failed their party.
Yeah. Well, here's what I think about Trump.
You know, his tax returns seem to be a big nothing so far.
All that foreign Russian stuff he was accused of seems to be nothing.
They've interviewed everybody that knows him in any way whatsoever to find out if he did anything wrong.
And unless there's something that comes up that puts him in jail the next six months, He'll be the most vetted person, but also he would be, hypothetically, the leader of the Republican Party, which recently doesn't have any scandals.
Am I missing any scandals?
Am I just forgetting something?
Like, am I biased?
Do I have, like, mental blindness to something that they've done?
They've failed, but that's different.
Failing is different than running, like, a corrupt conspiracy.
Mitch McConnell, so some people say Mitch McConnell is too friendly to China, but I'm not sure there's any smoking gun to that.
Is there some specific thing he did?
Maybe there is. So that was hard to tell, because there are a lot of variables in that stuff.
Matt Gaetz fake scandal, yeah.
But when Republicans, hear me out.
True or false? When Republicans get in trouble, it's usually that one Republican who did something bad.
When Democrats get caught, there's like a whole conspiracy going on.
Like from Hillary Clinton to the Democrats to the FBI, the Department of Justice, the intel organizations.
There's nothing on the Republican side like that, right?
Is that true? There's nothing on the Republican side that's anywhere near anything like that.
So... If Trump is totally vetted and they don't find any crime, just whatever sketchiness you already know about is true, so you take Trump University into consideration, you just consider every bad thing he's done and every bad thing he's currently being accused of, not the past, but currently.
If all of it's true, He's the cleanest candidate that would be in the race.
Because the other ones would be Democrats.
Now, if you said, what about DeSantis?
I'll give you that, but I don't think he's running.
If he runs, then I'll revise my opinion.
But I think it's going to be Trump against the Democrats, and he would be the least corrupt choice.
Now, I don't support him for president.
Let me be clear about that.
Because of age. I've said it forever, and I'm not going to be a hypocrite.
I've said it forever.
There's some age that's too old, and now he's crossing into that territory.
Now, could I change my mind?
Yes. Here's how.
Number one, if he gets nominated anyway, and he's running against somebody who's clearly a loser.
Well, what are you going to do? And if there are no obvious signs of age-related problems, you know, if he goes through a grueling election circuit and he still looks fine, I still don't think you should have a president at that age because things happen quickly.
But I'd have to rethink my position.
I would rethink my position.
I would also rethink it if he was the first one that came up with an actual workable fentanyl plan.
If Trump comes up with a fentanyl plan and nobody else does, and it sounds like it could work, then he has my full support.
I don't think he's going to do it, and the reason is that it would sound too scary.
Because the only thing you can do is basically send the military into Mexico.
There's nothing else you can do.
I don't think there's another way to do it.
And I don't think Trump can say that out loud.
Because it's going to sound like he wants to attack a brown country.
As usual. Alright.
So, that's where I get accused of supporting Trump.
Even though I don't.
Because I could. You know, whatever you say about Trump, his positives still remain.
Like, you know, he added a lot of negatives around January 6th.
And with his treatment of the election, etc.
So he's added a lot of negatives.
But most of his positives didn't change.
The things he can add to the process are still there.
Don't take the bait.
Which bait? Alright.
I wonder if he were thinner, would it make a difference?
Yes, it would. But he would look older.
So Trump would have a disadvantage on TV, I think, if he lost weight.
Because you look older, you know, the weight covers some wrinkles and stuff.
I regret not buying a Trump card, so do I. So in retrospect, I guess that Trump NFT was a...
I wish I'd bought one.
That's true. Has he lost weight?
Probably. Yeah, I think you probably did lose weight.
I think it's easier to lose weight when you're not running, when you're not present.
All right. That's all for now, YouTube.
I'll talk to you later, and I'm going to spend a little more time with my local subscribers, and we'll see you tomorrow.
