Episode 1979 Scott Adams: UFC President Dana White Attacked By His Wife But Survives. More Like That
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Speaker of the house battle
Adam Kinzinger, joins CNN
Dana White slapped & slapped back
Study: Ugly people likely to mask
If women were impacted by Myocarditis
All politics is just fear
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It gets better every time and I know that seems impossible, but it does.
It's physics. And if you'd like to take this up to the next level, To be one of the first who has ever achieved this level of awesomeness.
Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a sustain, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the other day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Is there any way I could do the simultaneous sip in a wrap?
you What would it sound like in rap?
A cup or a mug or a glass?
Nope, can't do it.
Can't do it. Apparently I do not have the hip-hop gene.
I am...
soul free.
Alright. Let's put that away.
We have so much news.
So there's more on the Twitter files, and Matt Taibbi, he summarized it this way on Tucker Carlson's show.
He said that Twitter took suggestions from a wide variety of government entities on who to ban and who to, well, basically who to ban.
Now, is that censorship?
Apparently it wasn't just the federal government.
It was like all kinds of agencies.
They all had access to Twitter in one way or another.
And they all had given them lists.
Not all of them, but, you know, many different agencies, including local police, probably CIA. Matt Taibbi speculates.
Now, here's the context.
Lots of different entities suggested censorship for certain accounts.
But did any of them demand it?
And does that matter?
My understanding is that nobody demanded it because there was no law that required it.
And also that Twitter was, in some cases, accepting very little Of a large list.
So they might have, you know, they might have had a large list.
Please ban these people or look into them.
And Twitter would look into them and say, well, a few of these maybe, but mostly not.
Is that censorship? To me, it just looks like a really bad system.
Yeah. To me, it looks like a bad system.
It looks like something that transparency could fix.
And if transparency could fix it, I don't know if it's censorship.
Because here's what I'd like to know.
I'd like to know what did the government ask, and who did they ask it about?
If I only knew that, And then I saw what Twitter actually did.
And then if I saw that Twitter held to their standards, if Twitter just held to their own standards, but the government was asking them for bans, but we could see them.
It's just transparent.
They say why they want a band, and then Twitter looks into it and makes a decision.
Would that be censorship?
Or would that just be your government helping private enterprise do what private enterprise wanted to do anyway?
Because remember, if all they do, in my hypothetical, this is not what happened.
So I'm not claiming this is what happened.
I'm saying in a hypothetical.
If it were all transparent, and if Twitter only stayed to its own rules, I don't know.
I'm not entirely positive I'd have a problem with that.
I understand the argument, and I don't disagree with it.
I don't disagree at all if you define that as censorship.
It's pretty close. Would you all agree it's sort of in the neighborhood?
So if you want to call that censorship, I'll give you that.
I will stipulate that.
But would it bother you?
Would it bother you if it were all transparent?
It would. Now, you realize that Twitter takes recommendations from everybody, doesn't it?
It'll take recommendations from you, won't it?
It might ignore it, but...
Now, it could be that because the government has more, let's say, power, they're more organized, they have a whole system for doing it, certainly the government would have more impact than any individual.
So that's a little censorship-y.
I'm not sure that I care that much, though.
I'm not sure that I care.
Because the public is not powerless.
They are just sometimes information-free.
When you arm the public with actual information, that's reliable.
That's the problem. Lots of times our information is bad.
But if the people have actual good information, they pretty much always get what they want.
It's the information problem that's the problem.
Yeah. I don't know.
I think I can agree with you totally.
If you say, it's too close to government censorship, so don't take a chance.
That feels reasonable.
Do you accept that?
Do you accept that opinion?
It's a gray area, but you don't want a gray area.
How about that? It's a little bit of a gray area, but I would say, how about no gray areas?
Everybody okay? No gray areas when it comes to free speech.
Just get rid of all the gray.
That seems like a good standard, doesn't it?
So we'll see if that happens.
But on the other hand, the government also has freedom of speech, too.
Don't they? All the people in the government, and I guess it's just the people, right?
But the people in the government have freedom of speech.
So what would stop them from exercising it and talking to Twitter?
Yeah, nothing. So basically, if Twitter doesn't stop it or do something, it'll just keep happening, right?
All right, let's talk about the Speaker of the House, and McCarthy's fighting to get those last votes if he can, and ex-President Trump has endorsed McCarthy, and Matt Gaetz and his band of rogues is trying to stop it.
And so you know all that's happening, and they're still at a deadlock.
Here's my opinion on that.
I don't care who is Speaker of the House.
Because so far, nobody has a plan for fentanyl or for banning TikTok.
And without that, I don't really care who does it.
It's all just moving chairs if you're not going to do the work.
So I made my point a little bit more provocatively, a little bit more provocatively on Twitter, and I said this.
If Matt Gaetz...
The one who's holding, you know, one of the ones who's holding up the whole business there.
If Matt Gaetz comes up with a reasonable-looking fentanyl plan and a TikTok ban, I would back him for Speaker of the House.
Bet you didn't see that coming.
Yeah, that's all it would take.
That's all it would take. Now, do you have any other problems with Matt Gaetz?
Probably. Probably.
But I wouldn't care.
Because in this hypothetical situation, you'd be the only one doing the work.
So if one of them wants to work, I would consider rewarding them with the speakership.
It obviously has nothing to do with me.
But if any of them does the work, I say maybe we should consider the person who actually works as their leader, not the ones who are doing what?
I don't know, collecting money.
Doing speeches. Do some work.
You know, put yourself out there.
Now, that's also what I like about Matt Gaetz lately.
So Matt Gaetz was pushed into a nothing-to-lose situation, you know, by all the allegations he had to fight recently, and also by the fact that he was so close to Trump, and Trump had a bad January 6th.
So Matt Gaetz is basically, you know, the The up-and-comer who got totally smacked down.
Nothing to lose. Nothing to lose.
So when you have nothing to lose, it really frees you up to do the things that need to be done that other people wouldn't risk.
So if somebody could come up with a fentanyl plan and a TikTok ban plan, it would be somebody like him.
Somebody who didn't have anything to lose and was willing to, you know, take more of a long-shot approach to things.
Who is Ben Garrison? Sounds like Sticks and Hammer was talking about idiot Ben Garrison.
So Ben Garrison is a low IQ, low character kind of a person who also draws cartoons.
I can't tell if he's dumb or just low character, but it's one of those things.
One of those things.
Anyway. So, we don't care about that.
Anyway, I was listening to a Twitter Spaces conversation by Mario Narwal.
Is that his name? And I gotta recommend it.
It is so entertaining.
I didn't think the Spaces thing would actually be anything I would ever spend much time with, because I've sampled lots of them, and they're usually just the usual dumb people talking instead of tweeting.
And I just don't need that.
Like taking people who are already not saying anything useful on tweets and then allowing them to speak in an audio setting doesn't really upgrade my situation.
But what did is Mario apparently has organized You know, let's say, sort of a business within the technology that's really entertaining.
Like, I couldn't stop listening.
I had other things to do, and I just couldn't stop.
It was just too interesting. But he was talking about...
Yeah, he was talking about the Andrew Tate situation.
So I listened to this conversation for, I don't know, maybe an hour or so.
And there's one really big thing, context-wise.
There's one really big thing.
That I tried to raise my hand to be a speaker, but there were too many speakers, or they weren't interested, I don't know.
But I didn't get to add my context.
So if there's anybody there who ends up being a speaker at some point, here's a context that you need to know about the Romanian Andrew Tate accusations.
For famous people only, and he would be a famous person, for famous people only, Stories like this, and I'll say like this where there's accusations and complexity and it's a fog of war, right?
So for situations like this, what percentage of the total things you hear are true and in the proper context?
What would you say?
What's your experience tell you?
Of all the things you've heard, what percent is true?
Yeah, 25% is my guess.
Yeah, 20, 25%.
That's right. And so it was a very long conversation with very smart, well-informed people who I thought failed in a really big way because they didn't acknowledge, or maybe often enough, That the quality of the information is closer to 80% wrong than 80% right.
And I think the sort of common, this is me doing mind reading, but I feel as if the common feeling of the participants is that there would be some surprises, you know, maybe 20%.
But that 80% of the stuff they had a bead on, for example, they know...
That the prosecutors are holding Andrew Tate for the purpose of looking into the allegations.
Do you think that's true?
It's the most basic part of the story, that the authorities are detaining Andrew Tate while they're looking for the crime.
I'm not even sure that's true.
It might be. I mean, I'm not ruling it out.
But I would say I wouldn't even put credibility in that, the most basic part of the story.
Because you know what the other possibilities are?
The other possibilities is he's being held for his protection.
It could be that a member of the Mafia dropped the dime on him.
Right? It could be that the Mafia was after him and maybe his friends picked him up.
Because he'd bragged at one point that he was bribing the local police.
If the local police knew the Mafia was after him, They might stage an intervention to protect him.
He could easily be in police protective custody and they're all on the take.
Now I'm not saying that's the case.
There's no evidence of that, right?
I'm just saying that in a case like this, the reality is going to be so far from whatever it is you think you know now, it won't be recognizable.
It won't even be recognizable.
Now, One of the other debates that I heard online is somebody said that most of what we know about Andrew Tate's alleged crimes are things that he admitted himself on video.
He admitted them, clearly.
And then there was somebody else who said, I talked to him personally, and he admitted these things to me personally.
He said this to me in person.
Is that persuasive?
Is it persuasive that somebody quite believable says he told me in person and now I'm telling you?
And then...
Yeah.
And then what about the stuff he said in public?
Because we all heard that.
We don't have to wonder if he said it.
It's on video. What about that?
Is that persuasive?
Not even a little. Not even a little.
Because the videos you can pretty much count on being out of context, right?
Do you think any of those videos are in context?
Of course not. The thing that's happening to Andrew Tate is happening to me on Twitter every day.
Every day. Literally just a moment ago, I had to correct some person who had one of my tweets out of context.
That's all it is.
It's just out of context stuff.
So there's nothing you know about this Tate situation.
You don't know anything about it.
Nothing. And that's the way you should treat it.
You know, could it turn out that it's largely like it was reported?
Maybe. But the odds are low.
The odds are pretty low. All the clot trolls are over here.
I'm going to let the clot trolls go because you all just look like idiots at this point.
Cognitive dissonance examples.
Dingleberries flying around my ass.
That sort of thing. So, go nuts today.
The clotters.
The clot idiots.
Clot idiots. Make yourself known.
All right. So, of course, this will be interpreted as me supporting Andrew Tate, which is not happening, because I think he's a bad person, just based on my own personal interactions.
So, my opinion is I hate him.
But it is also true that information about anybody who is a celebrity is just terrible.
You shouldn't believe any of it.
All right, but let me say that you shouldn't put any credibility in anything you said in public.
He's literally somebody who uses hyperbole in public for benefit.
You don't think he uses hyperbole in private?
Do you think he only exaggerates in public?
Maybe. But I've got a feeling that he brags and exaggerates to everybody in private as well.
It feels like that would be a reasonable assumption.
So if you've got somebody whose primary, now correct me if I'm wrong, I think all of the allegations about him are based on what he said himself, which can't be trusted at all, and what he said to somebody, which can't be trusted at all.
I don't know. We'll see what happens.
CNN announced that it has hired a new member, a new senior political commentator.
Huh. Who would be the worst possible choice?
Let's say I'm an executive of CNN, and I want to make sure That if any conservative accidentally was switching through the channels and saw this face, I'd want to make sure that they never wanted to watch my show again.
Who would that be?
Who would it be to guarantee that you never increased the reach of your show because you had insulted conservatives so badly with your choice of people?
Who would be good for that?
Well, they announced that their new CNN senior political commentator will be Adam Kinzinger.
Adam Kinzinger.
No, really. I didn't make that up.
No, I swear I didn't make it up.
That's real. That's an actual real thing that's happening.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
He might be good for their base, you know, the Democrats who like to watch CNN, but do they have no interest whatsoever in attracting a Republican for a few minutes?
Like, no interest at all.
Or let me ask you this, do you think CNN doesn't really know what they just did?
Because that's possible, isn't it?
It's very possible that CNN has no idea how bad this is.
I can't think of anything worse.
It absolutely ends their chance of having a Republican viewer.
Am I wrong? I feel like maybe they just didn't know.
Because it's a little off-brand at the moment.
They've had a good run under their new leadership.
Of, I think, and I give them quite a lot of credit, I think they've pivoted closer to the middle.
Not all the way, maybe, but the movement is worthy of applause.
But this is just such a bad decision.
Now, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe he's exactly what makes you watch because you want to see how horrible it is.
I don't know. But if you're going to get somebody from the Republican side, don't get the one who is hated by Republicans.
Shouldn't you get at least one person that a Republican would say, oh, flipping through the channels, let's see what this one says.
Just one? Can't get one Republican that they would actually want to watch.
All right, how many of you are up to date on the Dana White situation?
President of the UFC? So he was in Mexico with his wife partying at some nightclub and he's caught on video, camera video.
It looked like he and his wife were both drunk and they had some conversation which generated her slapping him in the face quite hard and him slapping back.
At which point they were broken up.
Now, how does the news cover a story about two drunk married people who the woman slaps the man first, it's very clear, and then he slaps her back in return immediately, not with his full power.
You can tell he's holding back, obviously.
And then afterwards, Both the husband and wife announced that they've apologized to each other.
They've apologized to each other.
To each other. Right?
Mutual. And they're both okay with it.
They've been married 26 years.
Alcohol was involved.
They're both sorry about it. Is there anything else that the rest of us need to care about?
Is there anything else that we should care about?
Oh, I love this one.
I don't think so. To me, this looks like a totally private situation.
But we have to talk about how the media covered it, right?
So I say let them alone.
Just let them alone.
That's their business. But the way we all are treating it, that's a separate story, so let's talk about that.
Thank you. Here's how Ian Miles Chong tweeted about the story.
See if you think this sums it up.
Dana White has owned up to this and apologized for slapping his wife and says he knows he effed up.
Up to you to decide if he should be forgiven.
But there's still some folks out there defending it.
What? Come on, man.
Some people will do anything to defend disgusting behavior.
Oh, are you agreeing with that?
Some of you agreeing with that take?
Do you see anything missing?
Where's the missing part where she apologized for slapping him?
Because that's also in the news.
Wow. How did TMZ headline it?
Now, this might surprise you, but I have a ton of respect for TMZ. Have I ever told you that?
There was once a nasty rumor about me on the internet, and it made the press.
And the press was reporting the rumor as if it were true, and of course it wasn't.
Only one press entity contacted me to ask, is the rumor true?
Only one. TMZ. TMZ is the only one who fact-checked it with me, and then I explained the context, and then TMZ said this.
Oh, okay, no story.
Because there actually was no story.
It was just made-up shit. Only TMZ fact-checked it.
And for the rest of my life, I will defend TMZ. Until they do something different, if they do something horrible.
But until that day, I want every single person to know that privately, without bragging to you, privately, they acted like exactly how you'd want them to act.
So, Harvey, R.V. Levin?
Am I saying his name right? Congratulations!
You've created an ethical group, or at least the person I've talked to, a producer.
So good for you. I appreciate that and I respect it.
Here's how TMZ handled this story.
This is their headline.
Nightclub fight with wife on New Year's Eve.
How's that? Nightclub fight with wife.
That's a little closer to what happened, isn't it?
I'm not sure it was a fight fight.
I would have said they slapped each other, maybe.
You know, wife slaps him, he slaps back.
I think the accurate way to say it is drunken wife slaps him, drunken husband slaps back, neither hurt.
I think that would be the way to characterize it.
All right.
By the way, on the Locals platform, you can't tell, but my plan is totally working over here on YouTube.
I have all the Klopp people and Ben Garrison supporters that are going nuts trying to interrupt the program.
But you idiots don't know you're all part of my plan.
So the more energy you bring me and the more times you mention idiot Ben Garrison, that's what I want.
I want you to be saying Claude Adams and Ben Garrison.
I want you to say it often, because you're part of my lawsuit now.
Because the lawsuit needs to show that there's damage, and so this is helping me.
So the more you say Claude Adams, the more of it I can demonstrate.
So, keep going.
You're working for me now.
Alright, here's something that tweeter Hyde Von Zarovich said.
Just somebody on Twitter who said something I think is noteworthy.
And he talked about the Dana White thing.
And he said, the latent misandry, in other words, you know, hatred of men, the latent misandry on display by the majority of people weighing in on this is just appalling.
He says, it's misandry for holding Dana to a unilateral obligation.
In other words, saying it's all his fault.
And it's misogynistic because it treats his wife as if she lacks all agency.
Which is exactly how I see it.
It's infantilizing the wife.
It's like she doesn't have any responsibility for slapping somebody in public.
No responsibility for starting a fight.
Now, let me tell you that their situation is theirs.
But assuming that the reporting is true, because I think both Dana and his wife have the same version, which is they both apologize to each other.
Does that sound good enough?
Is something missing there?
They both apologize to each other.
I feel like there's a little bit missing.
Because one of them is apologizing for starting the fight.
I didn't see apologize for starting the fight.
That's what I want to see.
Well, again, it's not my marriage, so I don't need or want anything out of it.
It's their business, and it needs to stay their business.
But I would just point out that I would never respect anybody who didn't apologize for starting the fight.
I wouldn't respect that.
But it's not mine to respect, right?
It's theirs. So I'll let them work it out.
There's a new study that says ugly people are more likely to want to wear masks in public.
Are you surprised?
The less attractive you are, the more happy you are to hide your face.
Well, that's a surprise.
Now, do you see any problem with the study right off the bat?
Without knowing anything else about this study, just that it seems to indicate ugly people are more likely to mask.
Is there anything else about that?
All right, let me give you a few little problems.
Number one, do you think ugly people and attractive people have the same IQ? Nope.
I doubt it.
I doubt it. For the simple reason that smart people don't need to develop their minds.
There's not really much benefit to it.
And ugly people like me, like at the age of like five, I looked in the mirror and I said, I'm not going to focus on my athletic ability.
True story. Yeah, I've told you that I plan 60 years in advance.
That's not a joke.
At age five, I looked in the mirror and I said, all right, basketball's not your future.
You'd better work on this schooling stuff.
You'd better develop a set of skills because you're not going to get by in your looks.
I totally did that.
So you don't think that made a difference in my academic performance?
Of course it did. I knew it was survival.
For me, academics was survival.
I didn't have a fallback plan.
So I would imagine Now, you're probably thinking ahead, and that's no fair.
I'm not saying that how smart you are determines whether you wear a mask.
I'm saying that if you haven't controlled for that, there's a gigantic variable that's not controlled in the study.
Now, how about another one?
I bet you didn't see this one coming.
Do you think that ugly people and attractive people, generally speaking, are about equally healthy?
Overall comorbidities.
People who are unattractive versus people who are attractive.
Who has more comorbidities?
Of course it's ugly people.
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
And the reason that people are attractive is because they're symmetrical and they give off a healthy vibe.
It's the healthiness that's linked to the attractiveness that's hard to, you can't separate them.
Nobody looks hot when they're in their deathbed.
So you should assume that the people who know they have less health are more likely to say, well, I don't know if masks work or not, but I'm going to do whatever I can because I'm vulnerable.
And I'd like to thank my mascots, the Clotters.
So the Clotters, if you have any kind of an organization I could promote, I'd like to give you some attention.
You should organize into more of a formal organization, then I can retweet you.
You should start your own website.
Maybe get a Twitter account.
Because I think the Clotters are going to be my...
They'll be my little army.
My Clot army. The Copers.
I'll call them the Copers.
What do you like better, the Copers or the Clotters?
For my fan base here.
Clotters or Copers?
Clotters. Oh, Clotters it is.
Alright, so, it is now official.
My fan base.
Now, this is well known, right?
Aren't there, like, famous singers always have a clever name for their groupies?
What's it called? Like, what is Taylor Swift?
There's a name for her fans, right?
Are they Swifties or something?
Can somebody fact check me on that?
Beavers, yeah, right.
The Beliebers.
Beliebers. The Parrot Heads, right?
The Parrot Heads.
The Claw Army or the Clawders?
You want to go with Claw Army or Clawders?
Claw Heads? Claw Heads.
How about Claw Tards?
No. Clotards, you're liking, but that sounds...
I don't think that's...
Clotberts.
Clotberts. Clotclan.
Clotberts. I think the Clotberts.
I like that. Because they should be associated closely with the cartoon that they think is Garfield.
The Clotberts.
I think the Clotberts is the best-owned, don't you?
Okay, the locals platform is very clear on this.
You are now the Clopbirds, and you are welcome to the show, and I hope that you're very active.
Because every Clopbird on here is a, it's sort of a, I don't know, sort of a way to honor me in a weird way.
It shows my power and reach.
And so I think showing my power and reach through the number of clot birds is useful.
All right. So the clot birds are going crazy on YouTube.
Clot pool, clot cats, no, clot birds.
We're going to go with clot birds.
That's a decision.
All right. Adam Dopamine on Twitter asked this provocative question.
So you know we're all talking about the myocarditis increased risk for young men.
You're all aware of that, right?
There's disagreement about what's behind it and how bad it is and all that, but we all agree there's some kind of elevated risk in the data for young men and myocarditis.
And Adam Dopamine asked this provocative question.
Imagine if myocarditis impacted 18 to 30 year old women.
Would it look the same? Would the vaccination still be recommended for women if we knew that women in particular were having more bad outcomes than other groups?
Nope. Not a chance.
Not a chance. No.
The news is full of evidence that males are just sort of not important.
So the Dana White situation is a clear example that the women count and the men don't.
Now keep in mind, he didn't hit his wife hard, not that there's any reason to hit anybody, so I'm not promoting hitting.
I'm just saying that's part of the context.
There was two people who were clearly not trying to hurt each other, right?
So let me say that clearly.
It was a fight...
But it's two people, when you see the video, it's pretty clear they weren't trying to hurt each other.
It was sort of, you know, wake each other up, be disrespectful or something, but it didn't look like they were trying to hurt each other at all.
And you can tell, right?
You know the difference between somebody trying to hurt somebody.
Again, I'm not endorsing it.
I'm just saying that's the context.
I think this is true. I think if women were the ones having the bad outcomes...
And I'm not sure that that's wrong, because the 18 to 30-year-old women would be the only people who can have babies, right?
So from a biological perspective, they are in fact more valuable.
Would you agree? From a social perspective, It's better that we try to treat each other with, you know, equal reverence.
From a biological perspective, young, fertile women are the most valuable humans because they're the only ones who can make more humans.
So it does make sense that a risk to that group we would treat as a higher risk.
That actually makes sense.
It's just more evidence of how we rank people, right?
Here's another one. The trans question.
You are aware that I have largely ignored the trans question.
I talked a little bit about the sports, but that's because I think sports are broken, not the trans.
But I'm going to weigh into it.
I'm going to weigh into it for the first time.
And I'm talking specifically about the kids, not the adults, just the kids, and about the kids transitioning.
So I haven't talked about this before, so you have no idea where I'm going to go with this, do you?
Where do you think I'm going to go with this?
Anticipate. Let's see if you know where I'm going with this.
What will be my opinion on children transitioning?
All right, well, I'm going to go at it a little bit sideways.
First question. I saw a tweet by Dad or something.
Keith Jordan, I think, is the name of the person.
And he said the rise of social media is culpable.
First Tumblr, then Instagram, then TikTok are all riddled with people pushing the idea that one can, quote, identify and of one's reality.
Now, of course, that's his opinion of what is reality.
And then there's a Twitter thread that goes into it.
Alright. Who is to blame for kids transitioning?
The children, social media, men, or women?
Go. Children, social media, men, or women?
Okay, the...
Oh, what a difference between the two platforms.
Alright, I'll give you my opinion.
It's all women. Yeah.
This is a woman-driven problem entirely.
Entirely. Now, not to say that men are on both sides.
Of course they are. Men are on both sides.
And women are on both sides as well.
But the power of women is very clear in this.
Because if men had full control of society, it wouldn't be happening.
Can you agree with this?
If men made all the decisions and just ignored women, this wouldn't even be an issue.
This is entirely a woman-generated problem.
Now, when I say problem, I want to be very clear because here's where I always get accused of fencing.
But probability is the only way to be smart.
If you're sure of things, you know, and everything's cut and dried and black and white, I'm not sure that's smart.
In general, it doesn't matter what topic it is.
But here's the problem.
There's kind of a parallel to gun ownership.
The children and trans situation, very similar to gun ownership or the way I treat gun ownership.
And it goes like this.
I guarantee you that some people are better off, individually, owning guns.
Would you agree? I guarantee you somebody, somewhere, is better off for owning a gun.
They might protect their family, etc., right?
Guaranteed. Somebody. Now, I don't know what percentage that is.
Now, would you also get guaranteed having guns easily available is killing people who didn't need to be killed?
Just because the availability and access, you know, somebody's kid gets into it because a parent is irresponsible, etc.
So you could say for sure, one thing I don't think anybody could argue with, there are individuals, individuals for whom gun ownership is definitely better, and individuals for whom they're at greater risk.
Would you agree with that?
Now, I think the trans situation for the kids is similar.
I guarantee you that some of them are worse off for reassignment surgery, while I also guarantee somebody is glad they did it and will grow up saying, wow, glad I did that early.
That totally fit my mind and my body together, and that worked out for me.
It's really tough to have a strong opinion of which way it should go because you're choosing how other people live their lives.
You're saying that your assessment of risk should be superior to someone else's assessment of risk.
So the way I solve it in the gun ownership is that You just can't serve everybody.
You can't make everybody happy.
So I default to freedom.
If you can't make everybody safer, you default to freedom.
And freedom is, it's in the Constitution, you can own your gun.
So that's where I come down on it.
It's clearly bad for some people.
It's clearly good for some people.
Freedom. That's the tiebreaker.
With the trans, if I were to apply that same standard, it gets really creepy, doesn't it?
Which makes me question the standard.
So the standard is, I don't know which kids will be better off.
I also don't know the percentage.
I don't know if 90% of them are worse off, or 90% of them are better off in the long run, do you?
Do any of you know what percentage of kids would always be happy that they did it, and what percentage would later regret it?
Does anybody know that?
I think that's unknowable, right?
Isn't it completely unknowable?
In part it's unknowable because we've never had this mass group of children who even were making this decision.
So my usual default is if you can't tell which way would hurt more children, I default to freedom.
Unfortunately, I default to freedom.
And the freedom is the parents and the kids and their doctors.
Free country. It's a free country.
Now, would I also be in favor of educating people better or making sure that the bar is higher so that you don't make the decision until you've really, really exhausted all options?
Yeah, I think that would be reasonable.
That would be reasonable.
I also think it would be reasonable to put an age limit on it because there's almost nothing that we don't put age limits on.
Yeah. And I have a real problem with parents making the decisions, not because it isn't their right, because you need to give the parents the right, but because they're not qualified.
I don't think many parents are qualified to make that decision, or even be part of it.
They're not even qualified to participate, really, because it's just their feelings.
They're just going to be working on their feelings, and that's no way to make that decision.
Definitely children need to be protected better.
Everybody agree? Children need to be protected better in a variety of ways.
It's not even the only way.
But absolutely, we need to do better.
I think we should be collectively embarrassed and shamed of how we've done as adults.
We should be ashamed of how we've done over the last several years.
Ashamed. Fentanyl is still pouring in, TikTok hasn't been banned, and the kids are changing their genders.
We should be so ashamed that, you know, the schools were closed.
I mean, we should be...
There's no apology that can be big enough, right?
We owe an apology to this generation that is so big that no words could ever possibly handle.
And if you don't think there will someday be reparations for this, you're wrong.
Someday there will be reparations for overly aggressive transgender surgeries.
I'm not saying there should be or that they should win.
That's all different. I'm just predicting.
Guaranteed there will be reparations conversations in the future.
10 years, 20 years.
Guaranteed. Because this is so obviously a problem.
I don't know what the solution is, but it's so obviously a problem made by adults and the government, I guess.
Because the government's sort of allowing it to happen.
Yeah. And lawsuits, etc.
There's always reparations if there's one category of humans that is seemingly abused, no matter what the good intentions were at the time.
Thank you, Klopp Mertz.
All the Klopp Mertz are really putting the energy in.
You know, I appreciate it.
Because when you think about all the things you could spend time on today, you know, you could be working, learning a skill, You could be good to your family and friends, you know, working some kind of charity thing.
But I like the fact that there's so many people who would give up all of that.
They'd give up, like, any benefit of the world, to be part of my fan group, to be the Clopbirds.
And that's the kind of dedication that, yeah, the Clopbirds, I think the Clopbirds need a motto about, we cope the hardest.
How about that? They need a motto.
It's like a catchphrase. Clopberts.
We cope the hardest.
How about that?
Clopberts. We cope the hardest.
I think that's a good catchphrase.
Because you're coping really hard today.
Good coping. Alright, I made this statement yesterday that got the fewest retweets I think I've seen in a long time.
And it's because nobody likes it.
Alright, here's my opinion that nobody likes.
All politics is just fear.
Boom. If you are on the other side of politics from somebody, it's because you fear different things.
That's it. It's the whole thing.
So... I'm not one who says we should stop using fossil fuels.
Why do I say that?
Why am I not like a maniac about stopping those fossil fuels?
Is it because of my good analytical abilities?
Is it because I've researched it better?
And I know that, you know, you'd eat it for a while no matter what?
Maybe. Maybe.
But could it be that I'm just not afraid of climate change?
Could it be that I'm just not afraid of the future because I think we'll figure it out?
Do you think I really have a logical, rational reason?
Or is it a coincidence that I'm not afraid of it?
How about mandates and masking and further vaccinations with what we know now?
So forget about the past for a moment.
With what we know now, Am I promoting mandates and masks, mandatory masks and mandatory vaccinations?
I'm not. Why am I not doing that?
Because I'm not afraid of the virus.
That's it. If I were afraid of it, I'd be like, oh, do everything.
Now, during the During the initial phases when the images from China made it look like it was a bioweapon, because people were allegedly dropping over.
We know it's fake now.
But at the time, we didn't know.
Was it reasonable to be afraid of the thing you didn't know, but it looked like a bioweapon?
Yes. I would say yes.
I would say yes, being afraid of it before you knew.
Based on the information you had that looked really scary, totally reasonable.
Okay, totally reasonable. Now once we learned more, was it reasonable to release on the fear?
I think so. Or at least reduce it greatly.
So a lot of people have been the clopberts.
The clopberts like to argue that my opinion should have been the same Even as the most basic information completely changed, actually reversed.
So the initial information said, you know, get off the planet if you can.
We're all going to die.
And then it didn't take long, a few months, before we realized, oh, it's actually the comorbidity problem, etc.
So, right, and I'm saying right here, there's a clopper who's doing a hard cope.
He says, I'm the master of moving the goalposts and flip-flopping.
So, changing my opinion as the data and information changed is considered the greatest sin to the clopperts.
The Klopberts are doing a hard cope because somebody altered or modified their opinion as the information changed.
And if you want to see something funny on locals, just open a second window and look at the Klopberts.
They're all just going nuts.
Klopberts. Give us some entertainment.
Go. I'd like you to say in public, in front of the others, that it's a bad idea to revise your opinion when the information changes.
Go. Cope.
Projection. There it is.
Projection. All right.
Let me give you some more examples of why all politics is what you fear.
The people who are the purebloods.
What do the purebloods fear?
Do they fear the vaccination?
Or do they fear the virus?
Yeah, the government slash vaccination.
Well, they fear the vaccination.
Right. So...
So I would say that the Kloppers and the hard copers over here, they're all people who are deathly afraid of the vaccination.
Now, I got vaccinated after waiting as long as I could to find out, you know, what the risks were.
But then I made the same decision that Dr.
Robert Malone did, which is, okay, I've waited months and months.
Most of the side effects usually happen in the first months.
The information, of course, was still...
The clot birds are going crazy now.
I'm doing this intentionally, by the way.
I'm just seeing how much I can spin them up now.
The clot birds, no, you promoted it.
The clot birds think I promoted it.
The Klopberts think that I was on the fence.
I'm a caver. Yeah.
So I made the same decision as their hero, Dr.
Robert Malone, and for the same reasons in about the same time.
Same decision. Now, that makes the Klopberts go crazy, as they are.
But don't you think that the Klopberts are deathly afraid of the vaccination?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be.
I'm not even saying they shouldn't be.
But don't you think they're deathly afraid?
They seem frightened to death.
All right.
So that's my take.
Mostly we rationalize our fears, and that's what politics is.
I do think... It's not mind-reading to say we rationalize our fears, because that's the basic operating system of people.
If I said you're rationalizing your fears, but I'm not, that would be batshit crazy.
Don't let me do that.
Right, you get that? If I said you are rationalizing your fears, but I'm using my rational thought and I'm not rationalizing my fears, you shouldn't listen to me at all, ever again, for anything.
No, we all have the same operating system.
Everything's a rationalization.
See, the only reason you would disagree with that statement is that you believe sometimes we act rationally and sometimes we don't, right?
That's what most of you think.
Sometimes we're rational, actually most of the time.
And then every once in a while we could get crazy.
It's the reverse. You are irrational nearly all the time.
You just don't realize it.
And again, I don't mean just you.
I mean me. Let me explain that.
That's the hypnotist reframe.
It's in my book that's upcoming as well.
The hypnotist reframe is that you're not rational 90% of the time, but sometimes you're crazy.
Everybody gets a little crazy sometimes.
It's really the reverse.
90% of the time, you don't know why you do what you do.
It's just a rationalization.
10% of the time, you're balancing your checkbook.
And that might make sense.
It's a rational process.
But all of your decisions about who you marry, where you live, what job you take, how you feel about politics, that's all fear-based stuff that we rationalize as doing deep research.
So that's the hypnotist's reframe.
The Klopperts are saying, I'm doing mental gymnastics.
Or I am agreeing with the entire field of psychology.
By the way, you know that that agrees with the entire field of psychology and science.
There's no disagreement.
What I just told you, that we decide first and then rationalize it, that's not Scott talking.
You know that, right? You know that's science?
Did you know that? So it would be interesting to be pro-science.
Just think about this irony.
The science of psychology and brain scans and everything else, they know for sure, they know for sure that your rational brain doesn't activate until after the decision.
That's been proven for decades.
And every time they try to repeat the experiment, they prove it again.
So the people who say, you've got to use science.
Are just rationalizing their fear, but selling it to you like they're the logical ones that you're not.
Nothing like that's happening. There's nothing like that happening.
All of the believed science people are just afraid of something.
And the don't believe science are just afraid of something else.
Now, that will offend at least all of you.
It usually offends everybody.
But it should be an equal opportunity offense.
Because remember, every bit of this applies to me.
You have to keep reminding yourself of that to accept this.
Everything I say is a flaw in me because it's a flaw in all of our operating systems.
Nobody's exempt. Everybody thinks they are.
You think you're exempt.
We're not. Nobody's exempt.
Yep. So the clobberts are deathly afraid of clots and can't really talk about anything else.
I mean, I think that's pretty obvious.
Do you think that they would talk obsessively about it if they weren't concerned about it?
Would they have any care whatsoever about my opinion if they weren't frightened to death of clots?
No. It would be completely irrelevant.
It's only their immense, petrifying fear That gives them the energy to come over here and spend time doing this.
Because of all the things that they could be doing right now, they decided, a lot of them right now, even at this moment, a lot of them have decided to come over here and do this, because they're just frightened to death.
I mean, they're just shaking.
You can almost see the comments, like, shaking.
So now they're yelling, projecting, First in caps, and now it's in all capitals, with spaces between each of the letters.
Projecting. That's a tell for cognitive dissonance, by the way.
When you get totally pinned, yeah.
So now all the frightened-to-death clobberts are yelling, projection!
Because they know they've been totally owned.
When you get totally owned, then you say projection.
That's always the last thing.
So I know when the conversation has ended and I've won, when they're yelling projection in all caps with a little space in between.
That's as good as you can win.
You claimed projection earlier, you midwit.
but Right, the first person who claims it might be right.
The second person who claims it, never.
All right, so all the clot birds, I'll bet if you were to check the health of all the clot birds compared to regular people, I wonder if it'd be different.
Thank you.
I wonder if they'd be any different.
You know, the weirdest thing is that I'm in perfect health right now.
All the people are sure I made a wrong healthcare decision.
I don't know. Doing pretty good.
My workouts are better than they've ever been.
So there's that.
All right. And then we all fear inflation.
Inflation is one of those things that isn't bipartisan because it affects everybody.
But everybody is about equally afraid of inflation, wouldn't you say?
There's nobody, Democrat or Republican, who isn't kind of worried about inflation.
So that one ends up not being especially political, because we're all afraid of it.
But I do think there's a difference in the conservative mind versus the...
The progressive mind.
It does seem to me that conservatives see the greatest fear in changing things.
Would you agree? I think that's backed up by science, right?
That conservatives are more afraid of a change because that change could be bad?
Of course it could. That's reasonable.
You should definitely fear change.
You know that famous book, Who Moved the Cheese?
It's supposed to teach you not to fear change.
You should totally fear change.
I can't think of anything smarter than fearing change.
Don't you fight every day to prevent change because you fear it?
It's totally reasonable.
But you know what's also reasonable?
To change anyway.
It's reasonable to be frightened to death of change.
It's not reasonable to let that be the reason not to change.
Completely different. You know, the ideal situation is that you do the things you're afraid of because you know they have to be done.
That's your perfect situation.
So somewhere between the progressives who are willing to change things because they think that staying the same is the dangerous part.
They're afraid of staying the same.
It's like, ah, it's going to be more of whatever we don't like.
I mean, the wokeness thing, I think, is fear.
It's power, but it's also fear.
So it's power in the sense that if you can push your wokeness agenda, it gives you power over other people.
So power is pretty predictive of what people do.
But also, its base is that they're being discriminated against and their success is based on other people holding them down.
It's fear-based.
I mean, it's victim-based and fear-based and power-based, but there's still fear there.
There's something they're afraid of.
Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.
Why aren't conservatives afraid of climate change?
Because they're afraid of change.
And the change is what we would do to ourselves.
The change is what we would do to ourselves.
The change is not what nature does.
Conservatives are afraid of their own initiated changes, like government-initiated changes.
And that's why they'd be afraid of climate change.
I've never seen a conservative who was afraid of the weather.
And here I'm doing the conservative framing, where they're going to say, ah, climate change is just weather.
I don't say that, by the way.
But that's a common framing.
Yeah.
Not afraid, just alert to change.
So, Well, you know, I think a lot of you are going to try to wiggle out of your own fears.
Because I'm not saying that every political fear is like in your heart, you know, your stomach is hurt.
There's some things that you just think are better than other things.
Because you say, you know, if we do this, I'm worried that it'll be a slippery slope.
I would call that a fear.
If you want to call that a reasoned opinion of what is worse than something else, I would say that's just, that's your interpretation after the fact.
You start with a fear, and that's the rationalization you put on it.
No, it's not a fear. I did a cost-benefit analysis.
It's not a fear. So that's exactly the rationalization.
Alright, fear is too broad.
Yeah, everything about politics is too broad.
True that. Alright, that's all I wanted to say today.
And already, I think we can guarantee this is the best live stream you've ever seen.
Scott is afraid of mockery, they say.
Am I? Am I afraid of mockery?
Yes or no? It's actually a yes-no.
I deal with it by embracing it.
But I suppose there's some kind of mockery that would be bad for me.
Stick's love is greater than clot fear.
Yeah, I'm afraid of water.
That's true. Afraid of drowning.
I'm not afraid of water.
I'm afraid of too much of it with too far to the shore.
Ben Garrison, Mockery.
Well, Ben Garrison I just use as kindling.
I've had some smart, well-meaning people say, Scott, you seem to be answering your critics too much.
Just let it go. Let it go.
Terrible advice. Terrible advice.
Really bad advice.
Here's why. Here's why I don't let it go.
First of all, I do let go 90% of the things.
I just don't let go anything that would decrease my credibility, because my credibility is the only asset I have, that's, you know, matters, that allows me to do what I'm doing, which I judge to be useful for other people.
So for me to be useful to the tribe, you know, to the country, to the world, for me to be useful, I have to be seen as credible.
And there are some kinds of rumors that I have to squash because they go directly toward the credibility.
So that's why the clotters who refuse to read the profile link in my Twitter profile, they're all worked up and excitable because they have no idea what my actual opinions are.
But I'm using them as kindling and Ben Garrison because the more energy I can attract, To the complaints, the more energy I can divert to the explanation that makes the clopberts look silly.
So the more clopberts there are now, the better it is for me.
In the beginning, they were annoying trolls.
Of no value whatsoever.
But when they reach a certain level, then their value starts to be expressed.
Because then, as an energy monster, I can start moving their energy where I want it.
So that's what's happening now.
So we're in the phase where the clop birds have fallen into the trap.
I know at this point they're saying, wait a minute.
You're just saying that after the fact.
This was not, in fact, a cleverly designed trap to attract a bunch of people exactly like is happening right now.
No, it was. No, it actually was.
It was literally a plan to get as many of you here saying exactly what you're saying as I possibly could.
And I wanted to get it into the media.
So far it's only some sketchy media.
Hasn't gone to the, like, real media.
But if I can drive this a little bit further, and if the Klopp-Bertz could maybe make a little bit more noise, we might be able to move this onto regular media.
And if I can get it into the major media, then that's my win.
That would be my big win.
So you guys are helping me out now.
The NPCs that I needed, You're exactly the NPCs they needed.
Because the authors of the reality just use the NPCs for kindling.
Do I care about Ben Garrison has a bad opinion of my opinions?
No. How could I possibly care about that?
It's just electrical activity in the skull of a person I've never met.
How in the world would that bother me?
Not at all. But acting like it bothers me Generates all the activity from the clobberts.
And then the clobberts can make me trend, if they keep going after me.
And if the clobberts make me trend, then I can move to the regular media, and then I can exploit it as a proper energy monster.
So you're all part of the plan.
And the copers are excellent.
So the copers and the clotters, sort of two groups, are exactly who I need to come after me.
So if you could do some tweeting, you should see the comments over here.
Oh, I'll just show you. I'm going to show the locals' people, the clot birds.
Let's see. Can you see each other?
Why is this not working?
I don't know why this isn't working.
Damn it.
The cameras on these two things are not lined up, so let's see.
Where's the camera on this one? This camera is over here.
Oh my god, this is so hard.
It's like quadruple mirrors.
I literally can't figure this out.
Why is it I can't point to...
They're literally just pointing at each other.
Why are they not...
If I go this way...
Why doesn't that help?
Interesting. Neither direction improves it.
Well, that is a weird little illusion.
There's some weird little illusion where if I try to line up those two cameras, moving it to the left makes it worse, and also moving to the right makes it worse.
I don't exactly know what's going on.
I don't know how that's possible.
Because it was literally just two iPads facing each other, but they weren't lined up right.
If I move it one way, it makes it worse, but also the other way makes it worse.
Moving in didn't help.
Moving in didn't help at all.
What's up with that? That was weird.
I'm sure that's a user error.
But anyway, the copers and the clobberts A little more of that, please.
And tomorrow we'll be here at the same time.
Tell your friends.
Tweet about it. Bring everybody.
Bring them all. Why are you so quiet?
They all got quiet all of a sudden.
No, I know where the camera is located on the iPads, and I was lining up the camera to the screen.
It didn't make any difference.
I don't know why. It's just weird.
Did they all leave at once?
Was it showing...
I think just turning the...
They all disappeared at the same time.
Oh, my God, were they all organized so much that they left at the same time?
They're completely gone.
It was the entire feed until I turned the camera on to show you, and then they literally disappeared.
They're all gone.
Oh, there we go. Here's another one.
Cope, Claude Adams.
Only one left. There we go.
See, they're a little bit shy.
I guess they're shy. Now they're back.
All right, come on, guys. Get those coping clotters back.
They're projecting coping clotters.
I only engage with the caps lockers.
That's probably true. I do engage with the people who yell at me in caps lock, because mocking them is more fun.
That's bright. Shy copers.
The cringe killed them.
So now we have a new theme, the cringe.
So now I'm a clotter and a coper, but there might be some cringe in the way I'm dealing with it.
A little bit of cringe. Go with that.
Go with the cringe, too.
So I would add the coping to the cringe and the all caps.
And especially you should say, make sure you take this message forward.
Make sure you say, I got everything wrong about the pandemic.
Don't pick your shots.
Say, I got everything wrong about the pandemic.
Because that works in my favor.
Because that would be an obviously false claim.
But I think I can goad you into it.
Just say I got everything wrong.
I'm coping and clotting.
How'd you get over your fear of riding a bike?
I didn't. I just did it anyway.
You know, some of the best advice, you've heard this before, the best advice is not about conquering your fear.
Like, I don't know who said this first.
Somebody smart. But, um...
You're a midnight toker.
I'm a clotter. I'm a coper.
I'm a midnight toker.
Okay, that's good.
I'm a clotter.
I'm a coper.
I'm a midnight toker.
Those of you who remember the 70s are laughing at that.
Those of you who don't have no idea what's happening right now.
Hold on. Trump just declared war on drug cartels.
Stop the press.
Stop the press. Did that just happen?
Hello. Stop the press.
Open my truth. I don't know if that's true.
But we'll see. Truth social, which has clearly demonstrated its value.
Let's see what Mr.
Trump is saying. I don't see it on truth.
Nope. That doesn't look real.
So that's not real, right?
Trump didn't say anything about the cartels recently.
What about April 1st, 2020?
Would I ever host a Twitter space?
Maybe. Maybe.
I don't need another platform.
Um... Gets his money on the run.
Yeah, okay. Why did I ignore the trans issue for so long?
Well, I didn't ignore it on the sports side.
I was actually way into it.
On the kid side, my thinking was it wasn't my business.
And I'm not too far from that.
There's some things that if it looks like a family decision, you know, I also don't weigh in on abortion.
You're all aware of that, right?
I don't weigh in on abortion because I think that's a decision between individuals who are in that situation.
And I prefer the women to have the primary voice in that.
And I also am worried that I'm too influential.
And I don't think male influence on the abortion decision is helpful.
He said he would attack the cartels, but he didn't say that recently, right?
Can you confirm there's nothing recent from Trump about the cartels?
You're just looking at old statements, right?
What's that? Look over here.
Oh, you've got the...
There's a video.
All right, let's look at the video.
I'm trying to click it.
Come on! Comments are going...
Alright, let's see if I can see this.
I'm playing it on the...
Fentanyl, heroin, meth, and other lethal drugs are pouring across our wide open border.
Stealing hundreds of thousands of beautiful American lives.
Am I going to have to endorse it?
Like never before in our history.
Children are being left without parents.
Families are being ripped apart.
Communities are being decimated.
I don't know if you can still hear me on locals.
Our neighbors and fellow citizens are having their entire worlds destroyed.
Destroyed like nobody thought possible.
Our country is being poisoned from within by the drugs and by all of the other crime that's taking place.
All right, let's listen to this. The drug cartels are waging war in America, and it's now time for America to wage war on the cartels.
In this war, Joe Biden is sided against the United States and with the cartels.
They are making more money than they've ever made before, times 10.
There's never been anything like it.
They're major, major companies.
They're bigger than even some of our biggest companies.
Biden's open border policies are a deadly betrayal of our nation.
Keep going. When I am president, it will be the policy of the United States to take down the cartels, just as we took down ISIS and the ISIS caliphate, and just as unlike the situation we're in today, we had a very, very strong border, the strongest border, in fact, in the history of our country, and drugs were at a low of 40...
All right.
Can you see me again on Locals?
Could you hear that?
Could you hear the audio?
So if I click a video, you just go dark, right?
Alright, sorry about that.
Alright, so the part that I heard, that the YouTube people heard, is that Trump said he would fight the cartels like he fought ISIS. I hereby endorse President Trump for 2024.
Amen. I only asked for one thing.
He's the only one who's offered it.
Only one person said it clearly.
And that's as clearly as you can say it.
And by the way, I give him A-plus for that.
As clearly as you can say it, he said we're going to treat the cartels like ISIS. There is nothing I wanted to hear more than that.
Nothing. Because you know what treat them like ISIS means?
Invade fucking, I'm sorry, invade Mexico.
That's what that means.
That means that we will not respect the territorial integrity of Mexico, and we're going to take care of business.
That's what I wanted to hear.
I wanted to hear somebody say, if you put me in charge, I will not respect the territorial integrity of Mexico.
Now, he didn't say that directly, but he said we'll treat him like ISIS. I don't know how else you can interpret that.
Because we're not going to respect anybody's territorial integrity over ISIS. We've proved that.
He said everything I wanted to hear.
If he had said we're going to bomb them, I'm not sure that would be a complete picture.
But when he says we're going to treat them like ISIS, I'm all in.
I'm all in. I think I'll tweet it.
Caused some trouble today.
Yeah, let's make it official.
You know, I really wasn't expecting that.
I'm not even sure if I like it.
Because I don't want a president that age, honestly.
But let's cause some trouble here.
Where the fuck?
Alright, we're going to tweet.
And endorse.
Do I call him President Trump or Trump?
What is the...
Yeah, this is a promise, so I'm keeping my promise.
Do we call him President Trump?
Even X, right?
Okay, we'll do that.
For 2024?
Based solely, I'm going to say solely, on...
On his promise to treat the cartels like ISIS. I endorse President Trump for 2024 based solely on his promise to treat the cartels like ISIS. I'm a one- Issue the voter.
Boom. Well, there's your headline.
Now, we already know that Trump wants to ban TikTok.
He didn't get it done, but I feel like he could get it done.
You know, I said I had one criteria.
I'm a single-issue voter.
That's it. And by the way, I don't think I would believe a Democrat who said the same thing, would you?
This was exactly what I wanted.
Now it's a fight.
Now it's interesting. I'm all in now.
I'm all in. Do you know what I care about January 6th?
Nothing. Nothing.
Suppose Trump did everything he was accused of.
Don't care. Suppose there's some new thing that's like a scandal that he did.
Don't care. I want to be really clear that I don't care about anything else.
Single-issue voter.
Let's get one thing done.
Let's just get one thing done.
Yeah, the plan was for Oracle to manage TikTok in the USA. Sorry, that doesn't get it done.
Because that would only be the data.
The idea for Oracle to manage some data in the United States was only about data security.
It wasn't about managing the algorithm.
The algorithm is the dangerous part.
Anything that protects our data but doesn't affect the algorithm is a non-starter.
It's of minimal interest to me.
Trump has been searching for an issue to run on.
Well, he found one. You got one.
I'll tell you, Trump's political instincts are really sharp.
Really sharp.
They just caught the largest drug lord in Mexico before Biden's visit.
Is that true? I doubt it.
Boebert nominates Trump today.
Are you just guessing, or is that happening?
Oh, El Chapo's son.
What is... Look at how quickly all the clot talk goes away when you say something reasonable.
Did I finally say something reasonable for once?
All right, endorsement sip.
Here's to President Trump in 2024 for attacking the cartels and treating them like ISIS. That's all I wanted to hear.
Mr. President, go get him.
I'm all in. Totally didn't want that to happen.
Totally did not want that to happen.
I do not want to be, once again, associated with whatever the hell Trump does that makes people hate him and hate anybody.
I don't want any of that.
I'm going to do this for you.
This is entirely for you.
My stepson's already dead.
I can't bring him back.
This is for your kids.
I'm going to promote the guy who's trying to protect your kids.
