Episode 1984 Scott Adams: Russian Disinformation, Classified Biden Documents, Snopes Fact-Fail, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
It depends how you define "refused"?
VP Biden had classified docs stored illegally?
Russia as an excuse for US bad behavior
Suggestions for President Trump's campaign
Updated Ukraine prediction
Suggestions for President Putin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 if I've done my job correctly, I am now streaming on Locals and maybe Rumble and maybe YouTube.
Any of you Rumblers seeing me yet?
Well, I think I've got to check for the comments over on Rumble.
But apparently, I don't know how to do that.
So I've got a separate page open for you Rumble comments.
But it's looking like I won't know how to find them.
Yeah. See, I can't check for them until I'm live.
And then when I am live, I don't know where to look for them.
No idea. So if you want to comment, rumblers, I want to see you today.
Maybe I'll fix that next time.
I think I've got my camera lined up.
I think it's all working today. How would you like to take it up to a level that you've never seen before?
You would. And all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a sty, a canteen, a jug, 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 hit of the day thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now. Go. Thank you for noticing.
Yes, this is a very nice shirt I'm wearing today.
Quite a bit better than all the other shirts I've been ever wearing before.
I think it looks good.
All right. How many of you...
Were worried about me yesterday because the internet seems to think I was having a meltdown.
I was contacted by some people who care to say, are you okay?
Everything okay?
And how many other people were having the same experience?
Did anybody see me interacting on Twitter and say, ooh, something wrong here?
All right. No, there was something going on.
So if you thought it was a meltdown, that wasn't exactly what was happening.
But it looked like it.
So let me tell you what was really happening behind the scenes.
Every year, a few times a year, several times a year, maybe...
If I'm lucky, four times a year.
I enter a manic phase.
Do you know what that is?
Manic? And when I'm manic, everything is more.
So that's the context.
So for the last few days, I've been in a manic phase.
They are amazing.
I suppose it's mental illness, right?
But I don't experience it that way.
It becomes a problem for other people.
In other words, I become a little bit too much.
Because in the manic phase, I have infinite energy.
I don't seem to need sleep.
Like literally, I think I had two hours of sleep the night before.
Went all day. Had, you know, a great workout.
I did more work In the last 48 hours, more comics, more writing, got more chores done, did paperwork I've been putting off forever.
I mean, I was just cranking through it.
But one of the side effects is that on Twitter, By now you know my pattern.
If somebody starts a damaging false rumor about me, I usually go nuclear on it until I can draw more attention to the correction than the original claim.
So what I'm trying to do is light all the kindling I can, get everybody as mad as possible, provoke everybody, draw as much energy toward me.
And so yesterday I was just responding to every troll.
And I was swearing at them.
But I was just having fun.
And I could see how from the outside it would look like I was having a meltdown.
But let me tell you, if you were to look at the quality of my day, let's say last day and a half, exceptional.
Like the last day and a half have been some of my just most enjoyable, productive, incredibly creative, like You know, I was creating, you know, micro-lesson three comics one day.
I mean, I was just cranking it out.
It was all pretty good. Now, fortunately, you know, you've heard of people have manic...
What's the other thing? The manic part feels good, but then the manic...depressive?
Depression. I don't really get the depression part.
You know, I certainly have days...
Where, like, I'll have a week where I'm down, but not really the kind where you can't get out of bed.
You know, nothing like a clinical depression.
You know, you just have days that you're not ideal.
So, if you had a choice of having, like, four weeks during the year where you're a little down, but the trade-off for that is four weeks of mania, you would take the mania.
It's a really good trade-off in mental health, you know.
Now, let me be really clear.
My situation seems to be completely different than most people who are having some kind of mental, you know, let's say, mental, what did I say, variability?
Let's call it variability, because the difference between the highs and the lows.
Generally, when you've got that much variability, you're not too happy about it.
But I think in my case, it just makes other people unhappy.
But you also feel invulnerable.
Like nothing gets to you.
So people were worried that I was, you know, down yesterday.
And then the whole day I was thinking, down?
I don't think I've had a finer day in months.
It was a really good day. Yeah.
Usually you get extreme lows, that's right.
So if anybody else tells you they have mania, you should be feeling probably some sympathy, but not in my case.
So he says, I was bitchy?
No, I was trying to be as mean as I could to everybody.
By the way, the next time there's any major rumor about me that's untrue, I'm going to do the same thing, whether I'm in mania or not.
I'm going to spend the whole day responding to as many trolls as possible, correcting the record.
And I'll be as mean as possible so that they'll retweet it and say, what's wrong with this guy?
That's how I get the energy.
All right. I've discovered that I have bifurcated into two complete people in the mind of the public, which is kind of fun and weird.
So I always talk about the two movies on one screen, right?
We're all watching the same screen, but some people are seeing the union is ending, and other people are seeing the golden age, and we don't agree on anything.
But I think I finally realized why the Twitter users and the livestream users have completely different impressions of me.
So on livestream, I have enough time to do the full context.
So on livestream, if I say, you know, I'm on the same side as this argument, but I think the argument that's on my side is a little weak.
So I want you to know I'm on the same side, but I'd like to see a stronger argument on my side.
So that's what I would say on livestream.
On Twitter, I would just say, what's wrong with the argument?
And then I turn into the opposite person.
So on Locals YouTube and Rumble, I'm Scott Adams, the reasonable voice that looks at all sides and tries to consider them fairly.
And on Twitter, I'm Claude Adams, the guy who's indistinguishable from Dr.
Fauci. That's what idiot attorney Barnes tweeted the other day, or yesterday.
He tweeted that I was basically Fauci.
Now, in the other movie, people know that I'm the first person, the first public figure to call Fauci a liar in public.
I'm the first one. And I never changed my mind.
Once he lied in public, I said, oh, he's a guy who lies in public.
So that was the last time I trusted him for anything.
So it's like a whole different, you know, Claw Adams apparently trusts him.
But livestream Adams, Scott Adams, never trusted him from the first time he opened his mouth.
Yeah, I'm not sure that Robert Barnes has an opinion.
Wouldn't that just be uninformed flailing?
Is it really an opinion if it's based on obviously wrong data?
I guess it's still an opinion.
It's just an uninformed opinion.
All right, I would like to tell you the weirdest thing that happened to me yesterday.
I told you yesterday was an awesome day for me.
This was the coolest thing that happened.
Back in around 20, let's say 2005 or 2006, some of you know my life story enough to know that I lost my ability to speak.
So there's a rare disorder called spasmonic dysphonia.
And I lost the ability to speak for about three and a half years.
I could make noise, but my vocal cords were clenching so that you couldn't understand what I was saying.
So for those three and a half years, I used affirmations.
And the affirmation that I did when I was driving, I would do it out loud, but it didn't sound like real talk.
I don't know what it sounded like, but my mouth was moving and my brain was thinking of the words, but I don't know what was coming up.
But what I was thinking was this.
I, Scott Adams, will speak perfectly.
Yeah, you remember. Will speak perfectly.
Now, is there anything wrong with that affirmation?
Yes. It's literally impossible by definition.
Nobody can speak perfectly.
No human being can do that.
So I literally had an affirmation which was...
Not just a little bit impossible, but actually completely impossible.
And I think you would agree that although my current voice has a...
You know, it's good enough for a commercial application, which is what I'm doing now.
So it's good enough for commercial use, but I'm still nasally, and I still clear my throat, and I'm blowing my nose on camera and every other damn thing.
So I'm nowhere near...
Perfect. Voice.
And then yesterday...
Quiet.
And then yesterday, something happened.
And I tweeted it around.
Now, I think this is a real story.
I'm not sure, but I think it's a real story.
As you know, I've offered my personality and appearance and voice to anybody who wants to make an AI product.
You know, deepfake. So anybody who wants to use my personality for AI, I've allowed a full public license with no restrictions.
So anything you want to do.
Yesterday, there was an announcement by an AI company that they decided to use my voice as the main voice of their AI products.
And the reason they did it It's because they'd looked around at all the voices they could use, and they decided that my voice was pleasing enough and persuasive enough.
And they used persuasion specifically.
They thought my voice had a persuasive quality to it.
And they're going to build it into their products.
Now here's the fun part.
It won't be a recording of my voice, right?
The AI will do an impression of my voice, and it will do a really good one, because it has lots of samples to pull from.
And when the AI does an impression of my voice, it's going to remove all imperfections.
There's actually a really good chance that my voice will become perfect.
And become, you know, I don't think it's going to be as big as Siri or, you know, Alexa, but my voice actually might get incorporated in AI and it might be perfect because they would fix it to be so.
Now, I've actually, if you've listened to any of my audiobooks that I recorded after I had the voice problem, you might say to yourself, well, Scott, you did a whole audiobook And this sounded pretty close to perfect to me.
I didn't hear anything wrong at all, the entire book.
But what you don't know is that it's very, I don't want to say very imperfect.
Sorry, Joshua.
But my voice is imperfect in reality, but the audio engineers take out all the imperfections.
So you get to hear it perfect, even though it wasn't.
So, of all the unlikely things in the world, 2004, I tested the concept of affirmations with something I literally thought was impossible.
Because remember, at the time, it was an incurable condition.
It was incurable.
Had always been incurable.
Nobody had ever been cured.
Now, it turns out, a few people had been, and I didn't know about it through a A surgery that only one person was doing, and it was still experimental.
And that's what cured me.
But I actually used affirmations to accomplish the literal impossibility.
Literally impossible.
And it just happened. Or it looks like it's happening.
Is that crazy?
Is it just blowing my mind because it's about me?
Or is that actually mind-blowing?
Because, you know, I'm fairly well known for talking about affirmations being a big part of my story.
But that one was always the one that got away.
That was always the one that got away.
And I've always wondered about it.
I thought, you know, maybe I just imagined this whole affirmations thing being useful.
I don't know, it's the strangest thing.
Let's talk more about Snopes.
Yesterday I told you that Snopes wasn't covering the fine people hoax, and if they had, it would have changed history.
Because if they'd called it a hoax, the left would have believed it, presumably, and then Biden would not be able to run on it, and everything could have been different.
But I find out that instead of the fine people hoax, which they did seem to ignore, they instead fact-checked whether Trump was, quote, refusing to condemn white supremacy.
So that was the angle they took on it.
So they took the larger view that included the debates.
So they used the debates as the point of focus to take it away from the fact that he immediately condemned the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.
Without prompting, he immediately, in his own way, immediately said it.
As soon as he said, fine people, a few sentences later, he said, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis.
So that was the hoax that he was, but when he wasn't.
So, Snopes does this whole thing, and they say, they actually said that whether or not this was true or false, that Trump had, quote, refused to condemn white supremacy, Depends on your definition of refused.
Do I have to say anything else?
It was like, it's the Bill Clinton defense.
Well, it depends on your definition of it.
They actually used the Bill Clinton approach.
And I'm not going to read you everything they said, because if you start off with, it depends how you define refused, You know exactly what you're getting, right?
And the argument had something to do with when they asked him to do it during the debate, he said, sure.
And then they said, well, would you be willing to condemn them?
He said, yes. Well, would you condemn them?
Sure. Does that sound like refusing?
And here's the refusing part.
Then apparently, I think Biden and maybe the moderator, Mike Wallace, were both saying, well then go ahead and do it.
Go ahead and do it. And then he said, tell me who specifically you want me to condemn.
Is that a fair question?
Tell me specifically who you're asking me to condemn.
That's a fair question, right?
Because I'm sure he didn't want to defend, I'm sure he didn't want to condemn the right wing of the Republican Party.
Because maybe they would have said that.
Well, I think all the right-wing Republicans are racist, so condemn them.
Don't you think he had to ask specifically, what do you want me to condemn?
I think so. Now, they said the Proud Boys, if you remember the debate, that was the one.
All right, how about the Proud Boys?
Condemn them. I think somebody else they mentioned.
And he said, Proud Boys, stand by and something like that.
Now, why did he not immediately condemn the Proud Boys?
There's an obvious reason, isn't there?
I mean, besides the fact that they supported him.
The obvious reason is I don't think anybody knew exactly what the Proud Boys were up to.
Because I didn't. A few years before...
Well, when was it?
Yeah, a few years before that...
I did a podcast interview.
I was invited by Gavin McGinnis, founder of the Proud Boys.
He's no longer affiliated.
But the founder of the Proud Boys asked me to do an interview, and I didn't know anything about them that sounded negative at the time.
So I spent, I don't know, 45 minutes or an hour talking to him, and it was just a perfectly fine conversation.
That was it. Now, do you think that Trump...
It was like in the details of knowing if the Proud Boys had any bad elements or if they'd ever said anything he needed to condemn.
How could he possibly know that?
It would be ridiculous to imagine he had that level of knowledge about that group at that time.
Now, since then, you know, they were involved in the January 6th, etc.
We've learned more about them.
Maybe some individuals there did some bad things that you could point out.
But at the time...
It was a perfectly good question, which is, who do you want me to condemn?
And secondly, maybe he takes a pass on the Proud Boys because they support him and he doesn't know what they did wrong, specifically.
Yeah. So, yeah, Snopes is completely reprehensible for the way they handle this.
Bruce Fenton on Twitter...
He asked Chet GPT, the AI, what it thought of the fine people hoax, and its first take was not debunking it.
But then the AI was pushed, and when pushed, it sort of admitted it was a lie.
So the AI acted a little bit like a human.
It avoided the question when asked directly.
And then when asked directly, I was like, well, yeah.
Now, I think each version of chat GPT acts a little differently.
So it's way too early to imagine that you're seeing a trend yet.
There's no trend. But it's achieving consciousness.
And the problem is that AI might be as biased as we are.
How can it avoid it?
Let me ask you this directly.
How is it possible...
Chinese room? What's that mean?
How would it be possible for AI to not be biased?
Right? If AI mimics humans, and humans are biased by, let's say, what they want to be true, they want the new news to be compatible with what they already know is true, AI is going to do the same thing.
If AI has a framework of what is true, And then you present some new headlines.
It will take those headlines and try to figure out how it fits with what it already knows.
So it should be as biased as people.
So we're going to have a super intelligence that is super biased.
What the hell is that going to do to us?
That could be our biggest risk.
We talk about the singularity and All the unknowns and replacing human people for their jobs.
And it could be that AI is just biased.
And that bias, we imagine, is intelligence, and it's not.
It's just bias. So that's a problem.
All right. Are you following the story of some classified documents from the Biden administration turned up in some left-leaning think tank?
And this is just a payback story, right?
This isn't a real story.
I mean, I'm sure...
Well, not sure. The facts might be real.
It's a Chinese think tank?
Is it? Because I didn't see that in the reporting.
The story I read about it didn't have anything about that.
All right, so I'm gonna call BS on that.
Somebody says China funded.
All right, I'm not gonna claim that as a fact because I'm just reading in the comments.
But I would encourage you to read the story and see if there's anything behind it.
Here's what I think. I think this is just a payback story.
Meaning that it's gonna be just like the Trump documents.
There'll be some things that were there and you wish they weren't and they're not that important.
Don't you think? So it's University Penn, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah. GSA, you packed those boxes.
Yeah, I think it's going to be another bunch of nothing.
And I think it's just a story that because it mirrors the Mar-a-Lago documents, that's what makes it a story.
I'm not even sure it would be a story if not for the Mar-a-Lago documents.
I doubt it's important. If it were important, don't you think they would have told us what the documents were about?
Don't you think? Because it's not like the Mar-a-Lago documents where they say there's something in those boxes and we don't know what.
That's different. They actually know what the documents are.
They have possession of the documents.
So if they were, let's say, nuclear secrets, I think you'd know that.
Wouldn't that just be part of the story?
So my guess is it's just sort of background, context, context.
That was useful, and somebody did something they shouldn't have, but probably not that big a deal.
Yeah. So my guess is it's just overclassified stuff and nothing there.
But it's a good political story.
It'll get people yammering about how unfair things are.
All right. I think I mentioned this, that Washington Post reported that the so-called Russian influence operation on Twitter was a big nothing.
That it didn't have any impact at all.
Now, I feel it's important to call out when I made a correct prediction because predicting stuff is largely, you know, part of my credibility or not.
And I would like to claim that I am the number one and maybe only person when the Russian influence story first came out and when we saw the memes.
So when we saw the memes and we knew the budget, I said loudly in public, oh, it's obvious this had no impact.
Because I saw the memes.
I saw the memes.
And they looked like they were grade school level.
And then I heard the budget, like $100,000 for their entire operation.
It was obviously a nothing.
So those of you who follow me, Can you confirm I was the first person to tell you this, that there was nothing to it?
And there was obviously nothing to it, right?
And so now the Washington Post has confirmed what I told you, which was also obvious from the first moment.
Obvious, yeah. And the people and locals are confirming that I called bullshit in that.
All right. Now, here's something that I can say on livestream that I would not say on Twitter.
Perfect example. If I said the same thing I just said on Twitter, people say, oh my god, you just think you get everything right, you never admit when you're wrong.
No. On livestream I can say, well, I don't get them all right.
I can list which things I got wrong.
For example, most notably recently, predicting that Russia would not invade Ukraine.
I tell you I got that one wrong all the time.
I predicted, you know, Trump's vice president pick incorrectly.
I admit that. I wrote a whole book about all the things I got wrong.
Now, on live stream, I say that.
So that it's easier for you to accept, oh, I got this one right, because I also admit when I got them wrong.
And you say, oh, that's balanced.
But on Twitter, I would just say, I got it right.
And then they say, Claude Adams.
Claude Adams. Because that's the only context they have.
And they would all turn into idiot Robert Barnes.
Anyway, the Twitter files continue to offend us.
Tucker Carlson did a great thing about how many times the Democrats have used Russia as their excuse.
Yeah, go. Go.
And it's amazing when you hear the whole list, you forget how many times Russia was used as an excuse for any bad behavior.
Now, I made another...
Let's see if you remember this, or maybe I have a false memory of it.
So check me. I have a false memory.
I've been saying since the beginning that every accusation of Russia Hacking the DNC or Hillary's emails or whatever they're hacking.
I've said that those are fake.
Most likely. And that our own intelligence agencies are lying to us about all of it.
I'm gonna double down on that.
I don't think Russia hacked anything.
I don't believe that.
Maybe. But it seems like they can't even hack Ukraine and they're pretty motivated to do that.
I just don't think they have much of a cyber operation, frankly.
So who knows? Somebody probably hacked somebody, but I don't know that it was Russia.
If you look at the pattern, you'd have to say it's most likely untrue, wouldn't you?
So, so far, everything our intelligence agents have told us about Russia was an intentional lie, right?
So Russia collusion was an intentional lie by intelligence people, current and retired.
The Russia laptop was a lie.
And the Russian influence, the level of influence they had in cyber stuff, was a lie.
Now that's three lies that involve Russia that have our own intelligence backing.
What is the only, only information we have that Russia hacked anything?
Our intelligence people said so.
That's it. There's no other information.
So the least credible entity in the United States, which is our own intelligence agencies, when blaming Russia, right?
And here's another thing that you can say on livestream that I wouldn't bother to say on Twitter.
Most of the intelligence people are probably just good people doing their job and they're patriots and we love them, right?
But if I said it on Twitter, it looks like I'm blaming all intelligence people for all everything.
It looks like a few members of leadership are bad apples, and they were behind all of these things.
So it's a very small percentage of the intelligence people.
See the difference? If I say the same thing on Twitter without the context, then I become a different personality.
I'm a conspiracy theorist, and I'm blaming, you know, I hate the United States.
Nothing like that's happening.
All right. So, yeah, I don't believe anything about Russian hacking of American anything, really.
Did you see that idiot Robert Barnes, I forget if I mentioned this, he tweeted or he wrote in his blog that I personally, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, am a Too gullible in believing institutional data.
Does that sound like a good analysis?
I'm literally the world's most famous doubter of institutional information.
If you were to take all 8 billion people on the planet Earth and rank them by how prominently they've doubted institutional information, I believe I'd be number one.
Out of 8 billion people.
Now, Robert Barnes imagined that I was believing, and I was highly gullible, and I would believe institutional information, when really I should have been believing robes.
I don't know. He's kind of ridiculous.
Now, it looks like he's having some kind of a meltdown, doesn't it?
Is anybody watching Robert Barnes' reaction to this?
It looks like a meltdown, because the things he's saying about me are actually, they border on insane.
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, and the clopberts, you can tell the clopberts, they're weighing in now on YouTube.
The clopberts are all confused why I got vaccinated, right?
That's confusing, because you don't know the context.
If the clopberts followed me on livestream more religiously than they are right now, They would know that I made the same decision as Dr.
Robert Malone, one of the most prominent critics of the vaccination policies.
Same thing. He did it at the same time and for the same reason.
I think he waited until we saw what adverse reactions were right away.
That's not all of them there could be.
But if you've gone six months, your odds are much better.
And then No, not so he could go on vacation with my ex-wife, but so he could fly internationally.
That's why I did it. That's why a lot of people did it.
So if you didn't know that context and you were on Twitter, you'd say, Claude Adams, you must be in favor of the vaccination.
If you watch my live stream, you'd know that the reason I waited six months when I could have gotten it right away, I was qualified early on because of my age and comorbidities, but I waited as long as I could Until the travel thing became too hard to resist.
And the reason I waited was, why?
Why did I wait so long?
There's only one reason I waited.
It's because I didn't trust institutional data.
Why else would I wait?
If I trusted it, I would have signed up, I would have been first in line.
Because nothing would have stopped me.
Right? So I think Barnes is having some kind of a mental breakdown, terrible meltdown.
You should express your empathy because he must be going through something in his personal life that's horrible, probably some kind of marital problem or something.
I can only speculate, but he seems to be acting out in a way that suggests a terrible mental breakdown.
How many people think I'm serious about that?
No, I'm not serious. It's sarcasm.
You cannot diagnose somebody's mental state by their tweets.
But he's doing it to me, so I was just returning the favor.
None of it makes any sense.
Do you think I know how he feels when he's not tweeting?
Of course not. He could be...
Good Lord.
The storm is really loud.
I'm going to have to check outside to see if my...
My landscape blew away.
All right. Sad news.
Diamond of Diamond and Silk passed away at age 51.
No cause of death, but...
I did read that she'd been sick for a while, so whatever it was was not sudden.
And that's quite tragic.
And not much else to say about that.
We'll just show our respect and note that.
I think that they were...
By the way, for some reason I didn't know they were sisters.
Did you all know they were sisters?
I just thought they were best friends.
But they did act like sisters because they were on the same wavelength.
How could I go so long without knowing that?
Because I don't remember them ever being referred to as sisters.
They were always just diamond and silk.
And I thought they did a great job of Like maximizing their potential and everything.
The diamond and silk story is a real good one to look for success strategies.
And I would say one of their best superpowers, which I talk about all the time, is I don't think that they ever got embarrassed.
Am I wrong?
Like they could go on and just put on like a really good like show Because they were never embarrassed.
They just put themselves out there.
Now, that's something to be respected and also to be imitated.
They put themselves out there.
They took a risk. The worst thing that could happen to them was they'd have a bad day on social media, and then they'd say, oh, I guess this isn't for us, right?
It was the exact right kind of risk That's the risk-reward that I always recommend.
If the only risk is you spend an hour on social media and then some people mocked you but not many people saw you and you decided it wasn't for you, that's a perfect risk, right?
Low risk, high potential payoff.
And they took that risk and they get a high potential payoff.
Good work for them. Good instincts.
Good contribution to the whole.
When somebody passes away, we're only going to do the positive parts of their life.
You understand that, right?
So we're just doing positivity today.
Here's a strategy I think Trump could win the White House on.
Here's what I would do if I were Trump.
And by the way, this would work for DeSantis or anybody else.
But it would work especially well for Trump.
So he's being closed out by the media.
So the mainstream media is going to close him down, including probably Fox.
Now that might change if he gets nominated.
It might change if he gets nominated.
But at least during the nomination phase, he's going to have to play it non-traditionally.
Here's how I do it.
I would say I'm only going to do podcasts.
Because everything he does on a podcast is going to get turned into a clip and become viral.
He'd be on every reel and every TikTok, and it would be really easy to share it and stuff.
But the content of those videos should be partly from interviews he does in podcasts, Because a podcast form is the best form for him.
Because a podcaster could push him hard.
Now, I do plan that when I leave my media...
At the moment, I'm on a media diet, so I'm not doing any interviews or I'm not appearing on other podcasts for most of this year.
But... I'm certainly going to offer to interview Trump if he gets into the process deeper.
Now, do you think he would say yes?
Do you think Trump would appear on a podcast or live stream that has only 50,000 viewers on a good day?
Yeah, because the 50,000 viewers is irrelevant to the reach.
The only thing that matters is if he and I created a viral moment where there's like a 10-second clip or something that's really good.
That's all that matters.
Because that's the win.
It's not anybody watching the interview.
Then secondly, if Trump does anything interesting on a podcast, it doesn't matter how many viewers the podcast normally gets.
It's going to be a Trump number.
It's not going to be a podcast number, right?
So he can make anything big.
So he doesn't have to go onto a big platform.
He can go on a little platform and then let it expand.
Next thing I would do is I would create a series of very short, maybe two minutes at most.
A minute would be better. But two-minute videos on each policy.
Just two minutes. So that nobody could ever doubt what his policy was.
And then I think he needs some work on those policies, because if he presents his policies the same way he always did, I don't think it's good enough.
I think he needs an upgrade in his persuasion.
But if he did that, and he made these little one-minute videos, they'd be very powerful.
Then the other thing, and here's the kill shot.
The kill shot is he should do a series of very short videos, you know, one minute-ish, Debunking each of the theories, each of the hoaxes against him.
Imagine Trump creating a video that shows the tweet that was live at the time and the Wall Street Journal article talking about light as a disinfectant, and then pick out the parts of his speech where it was light, light, light, show how the hoax was created, and do it all in one minute.
Because each of these points is like a 5 or 10 second point.
You could put like 6, 10 second points together and debunk any hoax.
So, you know, you do the find people hoax, you do the drinking bleach hoax, you do the...
And then he would have to answer the question, for example, why did you say you were just being sarcastic?
Now, he's never answered that question.
But I think the easy answer is, I was just trying to brush it away because it was just a hoax story.
I just wanted to make it go away.
Which I think anybody would believe.
Don't you? Because it obviously wasn't sarcasm.
Whatever it was, it wasn't sarcasm.
So you would believe him if he said, you know, honestly, it was just a stupid story.
And I didn't want to be the president.
Discussing COVID technology, like that's not my role.
I was just brainstorming, and maybe it was better I don't do that.
So I was just trying to make it go away.
That would totally satisfy me.
Would it satisfy you?
If he said, yeah, I mean, honestly, obviously it wasn't sarcasm.
It was based on something I saw, but I just didn't want to pursue it.
Just wanted to make it go away.
So Once he's created a one-minute debunk of each hoax, then the next thing you do is you put them in a compilation clip.
So each would live individually, but also they would be short enough that you could put them into a 20-hoax compilation clip.
You put the hoax videos together with the quick policy videos that are really tight and better than he usually says them.
Put him on podcasts.
I think he's unstoppable.
Now, I think January 6th has to be one of the hoaxes.
I think he has to present it as the reaction to it was political.
Now, at the same time, the only way he can do that credibly is to admit that That members of the protest went too far, and some of them probably wanted to do the worst possible things.
You can't deny the parts that are in evidence.
And I think going after the Ray Epps thing would be...
It's going to sound conspiracy theory-like to the people he's trying to persuade, so that's no good.
Rather, I would rather see him mock the January 6th thing the way we do, which is...
Just ask this question.
Do you really believe that Republicans stage an insurrection and don't take their weapons out?
Does anybody believe you can conquer a country by occupying a room?
I mean, he should just make it sound stupid, because it is.
It was just a show trial.
Now, the things he says are stuff like, it's show trial, it's political, but you're so used to hearing those types of things, they don't really register.
I'd rather say something that you don't hear, which is, do Republicans try to overcome a country without weapons?
In what reality do you think that really happened?
You know, we'll acknowledge that there were bad people there and they should be, you know, the law needs to take care of that.
But really? Really?
You really believe Republicans don't bring guns to a coup?
I think he should mock it away.
He should mock it away.
You should not even go for the, like, too factual.
You know, don't retry the public hearings.
Just mock it away.
It's like, come on. Who believes that, really?
And I think that makes him present.
All right, here's my updated Ukraine prediction.
The winter is going to be really good for Ukraine.
Here's why. Number one, the Ukrainians will be wintering in their own country, meaning that I would imagine there would be plenty of locals who would keep the military warm and we'd be happy to do it, right? So there's always going to be an indoor place for the Ukrainian military.
The Russians still probably can find indoor places, But, you know, it's a little harder, and if they clump up too much, the Ukrainians will send a high Mars in and take them all out.
So it's a little bit...
I think the Russians are going to have a little harder time over the winter.
But apparently, and I was anticipating this, if you give the Ukrainians extra time, what happens?
They get extra weapons, right?
Right? So Ukrainians have a good winter because there won't be much fighting, so they won't be doing much losing, but apparently they're going to take possession of like 50 Bradleys, which is a whole new level of effectiveness.
If you've got 50 Bradleys, these fighting vehicles, and you send all 50 of them into a Russian-held territory, you get the territory back.
Now, I'm no military expert, but that's just what the people who know what they're talking about say.
If you send a Ukrainian force with 50 Bradleys against the Russian forces, they would recapture that territory.
So now the Ukrainians are moving from defensive to offensive forces, and they've got a few months to get all the stuff in place.
Now, Russia also has the full winter to resupply.
But where is Russia getting their resupply from?
Mostly from Russia.
So I've got a feeling that the Russians don't have as much to resupply, like they would have already been using everything they had because they were not doing so well.
So it seems to me that the advantage is going to wildly turn toward Ukraine as soon as the snow starts melting.
Does everybody have a different prediction?
Because I think...
Let me say it as simpler.
Every day Ukraine gets stronger, and every day Russia gets weaker because of sanctions and running out of stuff.
So I believe that the winter is only good for the one who benefits from extra time.
So it should be Ukraine.
Yeah.
I don't think anybody thought that high Mars were all that was needed.
Yeah.
Admit that you are very unbalanced on Ukraine.
Here's a perfect example.
If I were on Twitter right now and just made that prediction, you would say to yourself, but Scott, you are so unbalanced, you just always say good things about Ukraine, because that's all we've seen on Twitter.
But on livestream, somebody says, but you're so unbalanced about Ukraine.
I've also been right about everything, except the invasion, which I was as wrong as you could be.
Now, the reason I was wrong about the invasion is that it looked obvious to me that it wouldn't work.
And I thought it would be obvious to Putin.
Now, apparently I was right about the part of it not working.
Best prediction on the Ukraine war after the worst one.
So I had the worst prediction that they wouldn't They wouldn't go in, but it was based on the best prediction.
That if they went in, they'd get their ass kicked.
Which is what happened. So, if you'd like more balance, allow me to add it.
Here's some balance. Can we trust any of the information coming from Ukraine or Russia that would suggest who's winning?
No. Right?
Does that sound balanced? That all of the information is non-credible.
That helps, right? Because if you're saying, why are you latching onto this information and acting like it's true, that's not happening.
No. No, I'm presenting what's in the news, and I'm doing, you know, what if it's true, and if it's true, this might happen.
But the prediction about the winter is a straight observation that one group has unlimited sources, Ukraine, and The other group has probably more limited sources.
So the one with unlimited sources should do better if you have more time.
That's pretty straightforward.
Now, does that mean that Russia will be destroyed?
No. Russia still has nuclear weapons.
Russia has weapons they haven't used.
Russia could decide that they're willing to take massive losses instead of what losses they've already taken that are big.
So yes. And in war, this is one of those things I always imagine I don't need to say.
But on livestream I'll say it, and on Twitter I wouldn't, because I have fewer characters.
Would you agree that nobody can predict war?
Agree? So if I tell you, wow, it looks like Ukraine's going to win, that's in the context of nobody can predict the war.
But we still predict...
The reason I predict is that I predict everything I can so you can see if my predictions were at least reasonable even if they don't work.
Because my prediction that Putin would not attack I think was reasonable because it was based on a very good assumption that turned out to be true.
I was just totally wrong.
But it was reasonable.
And I think that that's part of how you judge my credibility.
You see if I can predict right.
But predicting well might be 60% correct, right?
And when it's war, I think that's even the hardest to predict.
Like, how many people predicted that Russia would not win in Afghanistan?
The United States would not win in Afghanistan?
Well, some did. Okay, some did.
Actually, probably a lot of people did.
That's a bad example. But generally speaking, you would all agree that war is unpredictable.
So, does it help you?
If I admit that all the information is not credible, there's definitely a path for Russia to turn it around and win everything.
And that is largely unpredictable.
But still, my prediction is not based on my love of Ukraine.
Does that make sense?
I did have a Ukraine flag in my profile, but that was ironic.
I was doing that as a joke.
Are you willing to accept, at least in the locals' platform, are you willing to accept that it's not my love of Ukraine that's driving anything?
Because I'm more just an observer, really.
But I will say, and I know this is not popular, it's entirely possible that the Biden administration's handling of the whole Ukraine-Russia thing Will be looked at as one of the great American foreign successes.
It doesn't look like it at the moment, would you agree?
It doesn't look like it at the moment, right?
No. If you're laughing, I'm agreeing with you.
At the moment, that seems ridiculous, doesn't it?
Would you all agree it looks ridiculous at the moment?
I think we're all on that page.
But here's the part where it could change.
If it turns out...
That we spend, let's say, $100 billion when it's all done.
And the net result was that Russia became no longer an adversary.
They became weakened.
And let's say our energy industry picks up some of the slack that Russia leaves by not being a good partner.
It's going to look like the United States played it right.
It's going to look like the US didn't lose people.
Ukraine did. We spent $100 billion to get something we easily would have spent $100 billion on if you'd proposed it.
For example, if you said to the United States, all right, for $100 billion, we'll guarantee that Russia goes from a top opponent to somewhere down in the ranks.
We'll make them less dangerous and less important.
Would that be worth $100 billion?
It might be. If you could degrade China by as much as Russia will be degraded, would that be worth $100 billion?
I think so. That sounds like a bargain, actually.
So I think the thing you're going to have to wait for is how it all turns out.
There's definitely one possibility that And I'm not sure what, I wouldn't put like high odds on it necessarily, but there's one substantial possibility that this will look like one of the greatest foreign policy successes in the United States.
It's possible. It's equally possible it destroys the world.
It's equally possible Ukraine is nothing but the worst thing we ever got into.
Will you accept that?
Could go either way. But if you're ignoring that it could go wildly in both directions, then I think that's not fair.
Right? Can I get you to agree with this?
Then it's possible it could go wildly in either direction.
Wildly successful, based on what we've already seen.
But also wildly, you know, Russia's unpredictable.
It could be wildly bad.
Right? Does that sound balanced or not?
I feel like that's balanced.
All right, so I've got some...
Now, you can see clearly the difference between a live stream and tweeting, right?
Everything I said after the first comments would not have been in a tweet.
So on Twitter, I'm a pro-Ukraine...
I guess on Twitter, I'd be a pro-Ukraine crazy person.
It would look insane.
But on livestream, I look like a reasonable person who could be right, could be wrong, but it's not crazy.
All right. Did England win the war against Argentina?
Yes, they did. You sound very anti-Russia.
Well, that's correct.
Somebody said I sound very anti-Russia.
They are an adversary.
Is it not coming through that I think our adversaries should be treated differently than our friends?
Is that confusing?
Yes, you do.
What's my imbalance that I'm too anti-Russia?
Well, to be clear, I'm pro-Russians.
Pro-Russians. I've said forever Russia should be our ally.
Is there anybody who said more often than I have that Russia should be our ally and we should start treating them that way and see if we can make that work?
Nobody said it more than I have.
I've probably repeated that to the point where you're sick of it.
Russia is a natural ally of the United States.
Putin isn't necessarily.
So I'm definitely not anti-Russia.
I'm as pro-Russia as you could possibly be.
Because I think the Russian people are kind of awesome.
Kind of awesome. And they should be our allies.
We just need different leadership.
How is Russia an adversary?
They're an adversary in the sense that they have nuclear weapons pointed at us, and they can make our work harder in some places.
But to your point, I'm more empathetic to your point than you think, because my larger point is that there are not enough reasons to be adversaries.
So you ask the right question.
The correct question is, are the problems we have with Russia enough to call them an adversary?
And the answer is yes, but I think it's not so much that we couldn't get rid of it.
In other words, it's something you can work with and you can manage that down because it's not that bad.
Yeah.
We made them our enemies.
I think there's something to that.
I do think our actions change their behavior, for sure.
Yeah, we share the International Space Station.
You know, that should be all you need to know, right?
The fact that we are cooperating on the International Space Station.
And I've said before that the pitch to Russia is to cooperate in space.
See, this is something that Trump could say because he's smart and other politicians just wouldn't say it.
But Trump could say out loud, hypothetically, you know, let's think of the future.
The thing that's going to be really important is military control of space, and China's going to be up there.
Do you think China's going to share their stuff with Russia because they like them?
I don't think so.
But I think we could work with Russia and say, look, we already cooperate on the International Space Station.
Let's cooperate militarily in space and make that the reason to cooperate on Earth, right?
Just say, alright, the big picture is we have to be on the same side when space is the battleground.
We have to. It would be insane for Russia and the United States to be on opposing sides in space.
That would just be nuts.
But China is going to go its own way, and threatening or not, it's going to be a force in space that needs to be dealt with.
And we're going to be a lot better off if Russia is on the same team we are.
a lot better off.
So that's the pitch.
Come together in the future.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So it's insane to be so defensive, definitive.
Yeah, it would be insane.
It would be insane to be just anti-Russian as a reflex.
Absolutely. We should be open to Bringing them onto the team.
That should be the play period.
No matter what's happening, our stated intention should be to get them on our team.
And by the way, here's your persuasion lesson for the day.
This is like the simplest persuasion lesson.
If you want something to happen, you have to state it directly.
Just say what you want.
And as unlikely as it is, putting it out there as what you want does make a difference.
Because as soon as it's out there as a yes or no proposition, then people will be drawn to it as a yes or no, and then you've got something going.
So even though everything is terrible with the United States and Russia, I would love to see our leader, whether it's Biden or anybody else, Trump, to say, look, in the long run, Russia and the United States are going to be partners.
And just say it as a fact.
Don't say it's a wish.
Don't say it's a desire. In the long run, we're going to be on the same team.
Trump said that? I never heard him say that.
I'm going to question that because I'm sure I would have seen that quote.
But if there's a quote where Trump said anything like that, I would love to see it.
But the wisest leadership position would be, you know we're going to be on the same team.
There's no way around it.
So let's start now.
Now, I don't think you could do that right now while Ukraine is raging.
But I feel you could even give Putin a win on paper.
You know, one of the problems is Putin needs to get something out of his actions, right?
He needs to show that he won. And what would be a better win for everybody involved than to form a space alliance?
Before anybody's got any real spaceships, except for the ISS. It would look like a win, wouldn't it?
It would be Russia.
Russia would actually establish itself as a space force.
And that would give Putin something to say, not only did I solve things on the ground, maybe we work on a deal with NATO or something and stop fighting.
So you know the Ukraine war is going to wind down.
So you could say, the reason I'm winding it down is that we've reached not just an agreement on Ukraine, but all of space.
Putin could sell the hell out of that, and we would be happy if he did, right?
Wouldn't you be happy if Putin could go to his own people and say, look, you know, this was all ugly, and certainly it was worse than we expected, and, you know, that's on me, but we got something really good.
We got a permanent arrangement on the ground, because I think they'll get there eventually.
But we also have a path into space that's far more important than what was happening in Ukraine.
You don't watch or listen to Trump since 2020.
He said before that, too.
Well, send it to me. Oh, okay, let me see.
Trump says he would consider an alliance with Russia over an Islamic State, and that's not the same.
An alliance over a specific topic is not what I'm talking about.
So I do agree with you that Trump said we could work with Russia on specific things like terrorism and stuff.
But that's not even close to what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about, like, literally treating like Great Britain, you know, eventually.
Yeah, Space Force is still around, doing great.
Oh, is that right?
Is one of the reframes that Russia invaded to stop Ukraine from going on an offensive in the contested areas?
Yeah.
Yeah. By the way, there's a...
I forget where it is.
Is it on Netflix? There's a series on Richard Branson and the starting of Virgin.
Which was way more interesting than I thought it was going to be.
I didn't realize that he was on the brink of bankruptcy pretty much the entire time until he was rich.
Basically, he was broke and everything had gone to hell a whole bunch of times from the time he was a record store to the time he started an airline.
Every part of that was...
Pretty sketchy, but he made it all work in the end.
He lost six satellites?
Were some satellites damaged last night with the solar flares?
Or was it just one rocket that didn't work?
I don't know anything about any satellites.
Oh, there was a launch that failed.
A Virgin launch? Virgin?
Huh. Oh, it was a virgin launch and it didn't work.
Well, I guess Elon Musk has a big advantage there.
You know, I don't think we can discount how important it is that Musk is the engineer as well as the company owner.
Because I can't see Richard Branson being the right leader for a technical project.
Right? You could argue that having an airline is technical, but it's such a well-understood technical that that's different.
But going into space is inventing something new.
And I don't think that Richard Branson is the right leader for that.
But Musk is.
Because, you know, Musk can just say, why are you doing that?
Unplug it if it's nothing.
Bezos in Blue Origin.
Well, no.
No. Bezos doesn't have a technical background, does he?
Or does he? What is Bezos' educational background?
He's not an engineer, is he?
Banking? Financial? Yeah, he built Amazon, and that's impressive.
But I would argue that Amazon is a little bit closer to extending current technology than going to Mars.
Going to Mars, you have to invent the whole process.
But Amazon was taking something that existed, you know, websites, and they grew as the technology for the internet grew.
I think they just grew with it.
I'm not sure that they were, you know, in some ways, like their server farms and stuff, they were leading the internet, I think you could say.
But mostly they just followed the technology.
So Bezos, I think, would not be the right head of a rocket company.
They were brilliant in their marketing and sales and psychology and a whole bunch of things.
They did some inventing on logistics, that's true.
As did Walmart.
But logistics is something that a smart operator can do.
building rockets to Mars is not just not something somebody who's good at finance can pull off.
Yeah.
All right.
Question for you.
As we have reached the end of my prepared remarks.
I understand that my image here on YouTube and probably Rumble is a lower grade than it should be.
It looks like a 720.
Because I have the 1080 set, but for some reason it's coming through a 720.
My camera's 1080. It looks muddy.
Is it only because of the lighting? I'm going to change the lighting and see if that changes it.
Hold on. See if I can reach it.
I can't reach it.
How's that?
Better?
All right, so you think it was just the light that gave it the bad look?
Yeah, the same resolution.
All right, so maybe it's a lighting issue.
When I use the iPads, the iPad is so good in low light that I have to have it dark in here.
And it looks like on the iPad I'm overexposed.
I look super white.
So I'm not sure I can get both of these devices.
So I might have to stream on...
A laptop for both of them.
Well, I can't do the StreamYard stuff on an iPad.
And my head is shinier.
All right. All right, that's all I got for now.
Best livestream you've ever seen.
Let's go see what Claude Adams is doing.
It's like my evil me.
I actually have an evil me.
Claude Adams. Yeah, not everybody has one.
But Robert Barnes is really mad at that guy.
My evil twin. Right, my evil twin.
Use a thermal cam.
More makeup. Yeah, I'm trying not to do makeup.
I mean, I don't even shave.
I don't know if you can tell, because I have light hair.
But I don't even shave before I do this.
Like, I'm literally in my pajamas.
And I think you'll like it that way.
Don't you? By the way, you're all aware that I'm doing everything I can to not get bigger, right?
Is that obvious? Can you tell I'm going out of my way to not let this grow any bigger than...
You know, I wouldn't want the locals group to be more than 10,000.
And I think it'll stay well below that.
It's like 6,000-something.
But it's not going to be better if it's bigger.
I would make a lot more money.
But it's not really the primary goal at the moment.
So I'll just wrap up with this thought.
If you've never had the experience of going from having nothing to having plenty, you wouldn't know what this feels like.
But I'm at that phase of my life where I kind of took care of myself and the people closest to me.
And now I'm looking for something that makes sense for waking up.
And pleasure isn't good enough.
I wouldn't wake up happy every day.
Oh, it's another day of pleasure.
I hate to say it, but there's nothing I hate more than too much pleasure.
I'll just be bored to death and I feel like my life is worthless.
So in order for me to feel like I'm, you know, Part of life and that I'm doing something useful, I do this.
Because to the extent that people find benefit in it for their life, that makes me happy.
That makes it all worthwhile.
So that's what's going on.
But there are people working very hard to diminish my value.
Unfortunately, they're mostly on Twitter.
Oh, here's a question for you.
Somebody said to me that it's my own fault that people don't understand me on Twitter.
And I guess that's a yes or no for me.
It's my own fault because I could tweet non-provocative stuff.
But, to be useful, as you've seen many times, I like attacking people The arguments on my own side.
if they're weak.
And if I do that on Twitter, it looks like I'm on the other team and everything goes wrong.
You and Musk seem to have similar motivations here.
Yeah. It's what happens when you get enough for yourself.
I mean, think of Elon Musk.
He's a young man. And he has...
At one point, he was the richest person in the world.
Why do you wake up? I mean, it's fun.
I mean, it must be fun.
But he fills his day with work.
I think work is the only meaning he gets, and the rest is just filling the time before you do something meaningful.
All right. That's all for now.
YouTube and Rumble. Let me know on Rumble how it worked.
I'll try to figure out how to see your comments eventually.
