Episode 1985 Scott Adams: Funny Antics Of Democrats Defending Biden's Handling Secret Documents
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Shrinking attention span
Trump Org. CFO sentenced
FAA computers down
Biden's classified docs at Penn
Stephan Collinson's propaganda word choices
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
We're doing another experiment to see if I can live stream on YouTube and Rumble at the same time through StreamYard.
It hasn't worked yet.
I'm 0 for 3.
But quickly, let me just check Rumble and see if it's streaming there.
Because apparently I can't spell Rumble.
We'll call that up and see if I'm there.
It looks like now, huh?
Apparently not, right?
So, interesting.
All right.
Can anybody confirm that it's not working on Rumble, and then we'll never try that again?
Okay.
Can you confirm?
It's definitely not there on Rumble, right?
Okay.
So, that's the last time I'll try.
Let's do the opening show, okay?
Because I know you have OCD, and I've got to do it the same every time.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's never been a finer moment in your entire life.
But if you'd like to make it even finer, we call it gilding the lily.
You can do that, and all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a stein, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Ah, yeah.
I know there's a whole bunch of people who can't stand sipping or eating noises.
It's a pretty big deal.
Like if you have that, it's like a big deal in your life.
And I was just seeing somebody in locals who says they mute that part.
And maybe you should too.
So get your finger on the mute button if you don't like to hear that sort of thing, which is perfectly reasonable.
All right.
Um, news about me.
I believe my manic phase has ended.
I'm not positive, but I think it has because I slept so well last night.
So I had, uh, like a good, almost three days of a manic phase and oh my God, those are enjoyable.
It's not enjoyable for you necessarily.
If you have to observe me, it's not necessarily a good day for you, but it's really good for me.
Really creative and I get a lot done and it feels good.
I got infinite energy, but it doesn't last long.
Two, three days and I'm done.
Now, here's a little lesson for you on success.
I'm going to give you one of the most useful things I've ever taught anybody.
And this is in one of my books.
Some people are simplifiers, and some are optimizers.
A simplifier will say, yes, I know it would be a good idea to do this and this and this, but it will be so complicated that it will make everything break.
So instead, I'm just going to do the simple thing that I know will work every time, and I will give up, you know, maybe 50% of my revenue or whatever, because I know I just want it to work.
An optimizer will say, well, wait a minute.
Are you telling me that if I just do these other steps, I can get another 10% of goodness, maybe profit or whatever you're looking for.
And I would like to submit the simplifiers be optimizers.
Now, not every time.
The optimizing works often enough that it becomes addicting.
And you'll think, oh, that one time I optimized and it worked great.
I better do that every time, because it was such a good hit when that worked.
My dopamine felt good.
So you can get addicted to optimizing, even though it's the worst strategy.
All right?
Here is your perfect example.
For maybe two years, my followers here on livestream have been asking, and it's a reasonable ask, to livestream on Rumble at the same time I'm doing YouTube and Locals.
And I looked into it and I realized that I couldn't do it in a simple way.
The simple way would be add another device, because I had separate devices for the two platforms, and just call it up just like the other two.
Now that would have been more complicated than having two, but in all cases it's just putting on a title and saying go.
Rumble doesn't do a direct live stream like that yet.
You have to go through StreamYard.
And I've been telling all of you, everybody who asked me to do the Rumble, do you remember what I said for two years?
If you add a little bit of complexity, just a little bit, the entire live stream will fall apart.
And I know that seemed impossible to believe, because it looks like I just turn it on and I go, right?
But I promise you, I have lots of experience in this domain of adding complexity to a simple thing.
It breaks it every time.
So the only way I could get past the, why don't you use Rumble, is I had to do it right in front of you.
I had to show you that that little extra complexity makes the whole thing fall apart.
So this is the third day in a row in which I completely know how to do it.
The problem is not the learning curve.
I absolutely know how to do this.
Three days in a row it's failed.
Because a little extra complexity is all it takes.
Now, what is a little extra complexity?
Adding the rumbles step added approximately 35 steps.
Would you have anticipated that?
Now it's about 35 steps, and I have to get them all right.
And on time.
So the first thing that that did to me is it made my wonderful morning routine.
I love the morning.
I love being up at 4 a.m.
Nobody's around.
I'm just doing my business, getting everything done.
It's a wonderful time.
Adding those 35 steps for Rumble ruined my morning.
So do you think I would do as much work on your behalf if I hate it?
As I do when I love it, which is the case every other day?
Of course not.
No, of course not.
You would eventually talk yourself out of doing it.
You'd find something else to do that doesn't bother you, right?
So I add about 35 extra steps.
Now, what are those steps?
One of those steps is I have to go get my laptop because I'm using it for other things during the day.
My other things are just in place all the time.
Then I've got to get the power cord.
Then I've got to clear out my programs that are on there so they're not interfering.
I've got to find my microphone because it's not connected all the time.
I've got to rewire everything.
I've got to open two different apps.
And then I've got to fill in, I don't know, maybe 25 fields.
Probably 25 fields.
I haven't counted them.
Something like that.
Now, I also tested it before I went live.
So I've now tested going live on Rumble to make sure that I know how the software works.
Three times?
Two or three times?
So I definitely know how to do it.
Every time I've tested it, it worked.
But every time I've gone live, it didn't.
Do you know why?
Complexity.
This was 100% predictable.
But it wasn't obvious to you.
So I did this for you, basically.
Mostly the people and locals were asking me to do it.
I knew it was going to be a lot of work, and it was.
And I knew that the complexity would make the entire operation crumble, which it did.
Because it ruined my show three days in a row.
So this is the last day I'm going to try Rumble.
And just so you know, full disclosure, I own stock in Rumble.
I'm a stockholder.
I want Rumble to be the main thing you look at, but it doesn't work for live streaming unless, and let me give you the caveat, if I had a full-time engineer, it would work.
Because the engineer would just have it set up.
I would just show up and do my show.
To go from my current operation, where I wake up happy every day and do stuff I love the whole time, as soon as I add a second person How much am I going to enjoy that?
Can't do it.
It would take all of my focus away in the morning.
Because the engineer, I'd be like preparing my content.
And what would the engineer do?
Send me a message to tell me there was something different.
And then I would be interrupted.
And then I'd be, all right, all right.
And I'd try to get back to work.
And then the engineer would say, all right, we're ready.
And I'd be like, OK, you interrupted me again.
And now I don't know where I was.
I have to go back to that, right?
So you can't really add an engineer unless you're adding a whole network show.
So if you do it like The Daily Wire, you know, they have a whole operation.
That makes total sense, right?
Because they're going for a big market.
They're going for bigger money.
They can afford that.
That makes sense.
The complexity makes sense in that sense.
But there's this whole middle ground where it doesn't make any sense at all.
And that's sort of where I'm at.
To that same point, CNN had actually a pretty useful article about attention spans shrinking.
Have you noticed that?
Yeah.
To your point, somebody says Sticks and Hammer does Rumble.
I, too, could do Rumble quite easily if it were my only platform.
Does that make sense?
It's only the adding it to what I'm doing that gets to the crumble point.
If the only thing I did was one show, I think actually the software would work if there were only one thing streaming.
Yeah.
And I think Viva might have an engineer.
Is that the case?
Do you know if he has anybody helping him?
Because if he doesn't have an engineer, I will guarantee he does not.
How many times has it not worked?
Have you seen him have technical difficulties during a show?
I think I have.
I think I have seen it not work, and I don't watch it that often.
Yeah, often he has problems, right?
And it totally detracts from the flow.
Yeah, he has problems all the time, sure.
All right.
So apparently it's a real thing.
Our attention spans have been shrinking.
There's some book on it.
CNN was talking about it.
And so in 2004, People's average attention to a screen, if they were looking at one, they'd look at it for two and a half minutes.
But today that's down to 75 seconds.
So you can actually measure the difference in how much we can look at one thing and be happy.
Oh, it's now it's down to 47 seconds.
I'm sorry.
It's actually all the way down to 47 seconds.
And here's the hard part.
If you get distracted, It takes 25 minutes to refocus on your task.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that if you're working away happily and you get distracted, it takes 25 minutes to do your task?
Here's the explanation.
Because let's say you're doing your task, you're working at home, and then the dog needs to be fed.
So you say to yourself, I'll feed the dog, then I'll go back to my task.
Five minutes, right?
Most five minutes.
Right?
So you go feed the dog, and while you're feeding the dog, you realize that there might be a package at the door that you haven't checked.
So you check the door, and there is a package.
So you bring it in, and then you think, oh, I've got to open this package.
I'll be thinking about it.
So what happens is, it's not that you do a thing and go back.
That would only take you a few minutes.
What you do is you do a thing that makes you do a thing that makes you do a thing.
That's sort of modern life.
Everything leads to another thing.
You're getting a lot done.
It's just you can't concentrate on your one thing.
So it's a gigantic problem and yeah, there's some suggestion that there's something you do about it, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure you can do anything about it.
I think we've just permanently rewired ourselves to be unable to concentrate.
Now back to my earlier topic.
The thing that was so special about being in my manic phase is that that went away.
During my few days of mania, or I think it's actually hypomania.
I think I was using technically a slightly wrong word.
It's like hypomania.
So you get the good stuff without much of the bad stuff.
And during that period I could concentrate as much as I wanted.
And it was unbelievable.
Like it was like being a different person for a while.
Well, I guess I was.
Now, I'm going to tie this to yet another topic.
If the problem in the modern world is we can't concentrate when there are any distractions, doesn't that mean that if you went to Starbucks or a cafe and there were like people wandering around, everybody's talking and shit, that that would be the hardest place to work?
Common sense, right?
Your common sense says if distractions are a problem, You need to go where there are the fewest distractions.
That's where you'll be best.
Common sense.
Do you know common sense is just magical thinking?
Common sense is whatever you decided was true.
And then you reason backwards to why it was totally common sense.
Right?
Common sense is completely magical thinking.
Nobody has common sense except for the simplest, the simplest decisions.
Right?
We all get those right.
But as soon as there's any complexity, you know, anything that's judgmental, anything that hasn't been fully settled for millennium, common sense is an absurd subjective experience which you convince yourself is a rational experience.
It's just, it's purely an illusion that happens in your mind that you have common sense.
Now you do have it for simple stuff.
That's why it's so easy to fool yourself.
You do have it for really easy stuff.
Only.
But in fact, the studies show it and my experience shows it.
If I go to Starbucks and it's busy and there's all kinds of stuff happening, that's the place I can concentrate the best.
I don't know why exactly.
I'll give you my best guess.
The guess is when there are lots of distractions, there are no distractions.
There's some amount of distraction.
Where the distraction becomes the background.
And then the background just becomes static.
It's like white noise.
You know, everybody talking equals nobody talking.
Right?
Now, would your common sense have ever been able to get to that point?
Would you have been able to use your common sense to think your way from, oh, there are too many distractions, so the way I'll solve it is to quadruple the number of distractions.
Your common sense doesn't get you there at all.
So don't trust your common sense.
Sometimes you just have to test it.
All right.
Let me give you the best explanation I can give as to why the people on Twitter think I'm an entirely different person than the people who watch me on Livestream and the people who know me in person.
And I think it's this one mistake that they make.
Let me explain it this way.
If I wrote a blog post, a long blog post, or I did a long video in which I said my car's electrical systems are terrible, which is true.
I have a BMW, and all of my BMWs have always been Christmas trees, meaning the front panel is lit up basically all the time.
Maybe 90% of the time I've ever owned a BMW.
I've owned several models.
Probably 90% of the time there's a warning light that's on.
Now, I consider that, you know, suboptimal customer experience.
Now, suppose I wrote a blog post or I did a video and that's the only thing I talked about.
The only thing I talked about was, damn, these things have terrible or, let's say, suboptimal user experience because of all the errors that are always there.
What would you conclude about my opinion if the only thing I talked about was what was wrong with it?
You would reasonably assume that I had all this time that I could have said there's something good about it, too, right?
Wouldn't it be reasonable if I left out anything good a reasonable person could say, okay, you talked for half an hour and you didn't mention anything good about the car.
Clearly you don't like the car.
Would that be a reasonable assumption?
Yeah, it might not be true, but that would be a very reasonable assumption.
All right, now, let's say I send a tweet.
It's the only thing you see.
And my tweet says, damn, the electrical... I always have a, let's say, a warning light on my car, my BMW.
It's the only thing I tweet.
And then maybe a year later I tweet, you know, why are the tires so expensive?
On my model car.
And then later I say, I love my car.
Then what do the, uh, what do the, uh, uh, the clop birds do?
If I say I love my car, they say, do you?
Let's check your Twitter feed.
Um, you've said two things about your car.
One, the tires are expensive.
Two, there's always a warning light on.
So where, where's the tweet about how good your car is?
Where's the tweet about how you love the sound of the engine?
Where's the tweet about how you only have to think about where you want the car and it will be there?
Where's the part about how the steering is really good?
Where's the part about how the the sound system is excellent?
Where's the part about how when you close the door it's a nice solid feel?
Where's the part about how when people look at it they say, oh looks like you know how to pick a good car.
Where's all that?
And the Kloppert's will say, oh you lying Kloppert, you You've clearly been saying this is a terrible car, and now you're flip-flopping.
Or are you on the fence?
Are you on the fence?
Or are you flip-flopping?
So here's my advice to you.
Twitter is not where you add context.
If you see a tweet, you should judge the tweet in isolation.
Right?
If I say, Joy Behar has a good fashion sense, What should you conclude on that, if that's my tweet?
That's the only thing I've ever said about Joy Behar.
She has a good fashion sense.
Should you conclude, as a smart Twitter user, that therefore I'd like to have sex with her, and also her political opinions are gold?
Because that's what the Klopperts would say.
The Klopperts would say, you're only ever complimenting Joy Behar, so I think that makes you a Democrat.
Right?
So if you have any confusion about why the Twitter people think I'm literally a different person, it's because they believe the missing part is the important part.
Think about that.
On Twitter, the Klopperts believe the part I don't say is actually the important part.
It doesn't work like that.
On Twitter, the tweet is just about the thing.
That's the only thing you can conclude.
But if I do long-form, and I leave out something that obviously I had plenty of time to put in there, it probably does mean something.
So there's your explanation of how to interpret my Twitter personality, which is entirely different from my long-form personality.
Do you accept that?
Yeah.
Yeah, if you only see me on Twitter, I'm a flip-flopping, backpedaling, indecisive guy.
Yeah, okay, well now we've explained it.
Don't have to wonder about that anymore.
It's way too much about me.
But sometimes you have to do it.
All right, Rasmussen asked what people thought about the whole Matt Gaetz and his band of rogues holding up Congress and the speakership.
And I was kind of curious about this.
But interestingly, 39% of voters say McCarthy was more to blame for the delay.
And about the same number, exactly the same, 39% believe that Matt Gaetz and the opponents to McCarthy were to blame.
What do you conclude from the fact that there are equal number of people who think McCarthy was to blame versus Matt Gaetz?
Give me your interpretation.
And that means what?
I'll give you my interpretation.
There you go.
Yeah.
Matt Gaetz won.
Matt Gaetz won as hard as you can win.
Right?
Because here's what I expected.
If nothing good had come from this, Matt Gaetz would just look like an idiot.
Am I right?
If the public, you know, hadn't appreciated on some level that they were pushing, he would have lost.
I mean, he rolled the dice.
Sometimes you need people who have nothing to lose.
They're very valuable.
There's probably nothing more valuable to the Republic than somebody who has nothing to lose.
So his political fortunes were, you know, well-stunted.
But he's back.
You know, he became much more of a national name, and he's now branded more for this at the moment than his other actions in the past.
What a wimp!
This is like the cleanest Smartest win in politics you might see this year.
All right, here's another story.
Apparently the ex-CTO of the Trump Organization has been convicted of his tax related crimes.
Apparently he was receiving money in a variety of ways that he had control over because he was the CTO, which allowed him to avoid taxes until he got caught.
One of those things was he paid a fake check to his wife so she could get Social Security.
That's pretty much a crime.
I pay Social Security.
I'd like everybody to get it who deserves it, and nobody who doesn't.
But somehow, none of this affected the Trump family.
This crime apparently was very isolated to an individual, his own benefit.
It wasn't the Trump company benefit at all.
Indeed, he defrauded the Trump organization.
Am I wrong about that?
This is an interpretation of mine.
But if what he was doing was taking money from the Trump organization, And treating it like it wasn't compensation, that's what he got busted for.
So he didn't have to pay for it because it was treated as not compensation.
But did the Trump Organization get to write it off?
I'm not sure they got the same write-off, because that's why you don't pay people in cash.
The reason the employer doesn't want to pay cash, sometimes, is because they don't get the write-off.
It's just money that disappeared.
So I don't know how they handled it.
They might have taken a write-off anyway in a different way.
But this is all a long way to get to the punchline of the story.
Does anybody know the last name of the CTO who apparently did some sketchy things with taxes?
What's his last name in the simulation?
What would the simulation name somebody like that?
Let me check.
His last name is Weaselberg.
Weaselberg.
That's a real thing.
That's his actual name, Weaselberg.
Now, I think it sounds racist.
You know, maybe that's why it's funny.
So we'll call that out.
We'll call that out as, you know, it may be that it's like vaguely racist, which is why it's funny.
But it's the weasel part that's the funny.
Like, if you have a weasel right in your name, let me just give you some advice.
If you're looking to hire somebody who will be in charge of your money, hey, I'd like to hire you to be in charge of my money.
Don't hire anybody who has a name like Weasel or Thief or McStealer.
We'll take it, let's take it into a More diverse domain.
If his last name is McTheft, yeah, just think twice.
We got a new CTO.
His name is Bob McTheft.
Think twice.
Think twice.
All right.
Well, the FAA computers were down, which grounded most of the domestic flights.
Are they back?
Do you have an update yet?
The flights were supposed to be back online, like right now.
But I doubt it.
Oh, yes?
They're actually back up.
Okay.
So it wasn't the most critical system.
There was some kind of a notification system that was down, but it was important enough because you have to have your notifications if there's any problems or danger.
The thought was that it was not a cybercrime.
Nobody hacked them.
And do you know on what basis the White House spokesperson said it was?
Not a cybercrime?
Do you know what evidence was presented to suggest it was not a hacking problem?
Oh, none.
None.
But don't worry about it.
Now, my guess is it probably wasn't a hacking situation, but it could have been.
I don't think you could know in the fog of war, like when it first happens in the first few hours.
Do you think the White House knows what the problem is?
I doubt the FAA even knows the problem yet.
So how can you rule something out?
But here's the funniest take.
Of course, Pete Buttigieg, being the Secretary of Transportation, he's in the hot seat.
Now, let me ask you this.
When you first heard that Pete Buttigieg would be the Secretary of Transportation, did you not say to yourself, Well, there's a sleepy job where he'll be forgotten and nothing important is ever going to happen.
I kind of thought we would never hear from him again.
But it turns out that maybe, maybe the Democrats knew how to end his political career.
It's like, this guy's getting a little, he's getting a little too much attention.
Let's put him in the Department of Transportation, because I think we've got some problems coming.
That Department of Transportation has some big problems coming.
We better put Pete there and see what he can do.
Now, what in the world can Pete Buttigieg actually do about the FAA's computer problems?
Will he make a statement?
I'm just going to guess.
I think he's going to make a statement saying it's very important that things work properly.
Yes, yes, that feels fair.
He says they should work properly and we're going to do everything we can, pretty generic, to make sure this never happens again and We'll make sure that whoever is responsible is held to account.
So problem solved.
Pete Buttigieg is going to say some words on television.
Do you think he's going to just get in there and start programming?
Yeah, I found it.
I got it.
I got the problem.
Or do you think he's going to say a bunch of statements on TV that will cause the person who is trying to fix the problem?
I think I found that bug.
To get distracted.
And if Pete Buttigieg distracts the people trying to solve the problem, how long does it take him to get back to the problem?
25 minutes, according to CNN.
25 minutes.
So, I think it's hilarious he's going to get the blame, and there's absolutely nothing he can do to fix it.
Except say stuff on TV.
But he's good at saying stuff on TV, so at least he's got that going for him.
All right, you all want to talk about those classified government documents that were found in Biden's office at the University of Pennsylvania, where he had an office to do some important sounding things.
We don't know if he ever showed up to that office.
That was between his vice presidency and his presidency for several years.
And we know that as soon as that office started, the Biden blah blah blah office, that China donated a whole bunch of money to the college and some of that money may have gone to fund his million dollars a year pay for doing who knows what.
So it appears that we have untangled, we the right-leaning press and those of us watching, have untangled how the Pretty much have the Biden's profit from China and profit from their positions.
And it looks obvious to me.
Am I missing something?
Is it not obvious that Biden was being used as an attractor for Chinese funding?
And why in the world was China funding the University of Pennsylvania's anything?
Maybe we should start there.
Why in the world Why in the world was China funding anything at the University of Pennsylvania?
Anything.
Anything at all.
Just anything.
Why is that okay?
Why is that okay?
That should be so not okay.
Then we heard the story, if you were watching Tucker Carlson last night, it was another master class.
You know, every once in a while there'll be a news topic where only Tucker Carlson can do it right.
Have you noticed that?
Have you had that experience yet?
You know, there's some things that only Tucker can do right.
Right?
And he just... It was just a masterclass yesterday.
Just the way he was tying everything together.
It was very entertaining, very informative.
It's about as good as you can do anything on television, honestly.
He is so at the top of his game, it's just fun to watch.
Even if you disagree with him.
You'd have to agree that his...
You know, his work right now is just crazy good on a lot of topics.
But one of the things he mentioned, which I hadn't heard, is that we now know that a professor at the University of Pennsylvania contacted, I guess, Biden's granddaughter, who is attending there.
Suspiciously, everybody in the Biden family is smart enough to get into an Ivy League school because he's associated with it.
You know, no big surprise there.
But she was offered from China to have an expense-paid business class trip, hotel paid for, come to China and attend some seminar.
And the professor said directly, he said it directly, you know, it's because of your family connection.
And this is the way China does business.
And it's just right there.
It's like right in front of you.
What possible benefit could Biden's granddaughter have to China?
China's really like, oh, we'll never be able to handle our demographic collapse unless we hear from Biden's granddaughter, who's still in college.
So you've got this money flow that clearly ended up in Biden's pocket indirectly from China to the University of Pennsylvania to Biden.
And then you've got the flow directly to his granddaughter.
I don't remember if she said yes or no, but you know, it was there.
Uh, yeah, the think tank, the think tank.
So I guess it was a think tank at the University of Pennsylvania, but really it was a fundraising mechanism.
It looks like, yeah, it's just cultural differences.
Yes, it's just a cultural difference.
The Chinese just like to talk to people who are connected to people.
Just a cultural difference.
So every part of that looks funny, but the funniest part is watching the Democrats explain why Biden's classified documents were completely different than Trump's.
Have you ever heard me say that analogies never work for winning an argument?
And so we have this natural analogy.
So people's brains are just obviously going to compare it to the Trump Mar-a-Lago documents.
Can't help it.
Is that a fair comparison?
Well, yes if you know how to use an analogy, and no if you don't.
Here would be the proper way to use an analogy.
Oh, there are some important parts of both of these stories that are similar.
The wrong way to use an analogy is the way the Democrats are doing it.
This is so different.
Are you kidding me?
I can't believe the Republicans are trying to make political hay out of this.
These stories are so different.
For example, one of them happened to Biden, and one of them happened to Trump.
I mean, how could you call that the same?
What, you think Biden and Trump are the same person?
Just listen to Joy Behar.
Joy Behar explains it this way.
Since we know that Joe Biden is honest and not a thief, as opposed to what you know about Trump, she would say, then you could know that Biden's explanation of why they were there, and that it was probably an accident, must be true.
Because you start with the conclusion that a person is honest and he doesn't lie.
There's no evidence of Biden lying, apparently, according to Joy Behar.
No evidence at all?
He's a liar.
But also no evidence of theft, at least in a, you know, mugging you with a gun kind of way.
And so since we know that Biden is this good person, but we know by contrast that Orange Man bad?
People, how can you compare The best man you've ever heard of, Joe Biden, with his honesty.
How do you compare that to Orange Man bad?
I mean, that's, that's like night and day, night and day.
And so the Democrats have literally, they're literally selling to their public that they can start with the conclusion that he's honest and use that to reason backwards to the crime didn't happen.
I'm not making that up.
You check for yourself.
Joy Behar said that on TV.
If you're starting with an honest person, you can reason backwards to know the crime didn't happen.
Do you know who was honest until he wasn't?
Alan Weisselberg.
Until he was accused and convicted of cheating on tax-related stuff, he had no criminal record.
As far as anybody knew, he was the honest guy who never stole anything.
Until he didn't.
So why don't the Democrats use their same logic?
He hadn't done any crimes for 74 years or whatever.
Therefore, if you think he did a crime, you can reason backwards to prove he didn't.
Because he's not a criminal.
How can you do a crime if you're not a criminal?
Duh.
Now, so CNN and everybody else is trying hard to explain this is completely different.
Now, I'm using an exaggerated example, but the differences that they say are completely ridiculous.
Sometimes they're talking about the contents and they're thinking it's completely different because there were different contents.
You don't know what the contents are of either one.
You probably never will.
How do you know the contents were different?
There's two things we'll never know.
The contents.
How about when Trump's documents were discovered, the Democrats were saying, it's going to risk the sources and methods.
And my God, it could be nuclear secrets.
And that's totally different than the unknown documents that happen to be about three countries.
That are the most sensitive in our world.
So, am I wrong that watching the Democrats trying to respond to this is hilarious?
I'm not wrong, right?
It is literally hilarious watching them spin.
It's really fun.
Now, let's see what else is happening.
Here are some things that CNN said.
So, Stephen Collinson.
You might know him.
He's the major anti-Trump guy back when CNN was more directly biased.
And I'll give CNN some credit.
They've definitely made a shift, but they've got some work to do.
They're moving in the right direction, toward the middle, but some work to do.
And here's how Stephen Collinson said it.
Quote, Republicans are dot, dot, dot, because I'm leaving out an unimportant part of the sentence.
Republicans are dot, dot, dot, belatedly voicing concerns Why are they belatedly voicing concerns?
What makes the Republicans' voicing of their concerns belated?
What would you intuit from that?
I would intuit from that that they've known about it for a long time, and they didn't think it was important until now, so now they're bringing it up because they're going to make some political hay out of it, right?
No, the reason it's belated is because Biden hid it from the public until now because he wanted to hide it until the midterms were over.
Didn't they hide it until the midterms were over?
By the way, give me a fact check on that.
I don't want to be wrong on that.
It's being reported that they hid it, they knew it, and they concealed it until after the midterms.
Amazing.
Amazing.
All right.
So the belated is a propaganda word.
There was nothing belated about what the Republicans did.
The Republicans pounced.
So if you're on the left, whatever the Democrats do is either a pounce or it's belated.
There's no such thing as Republicans doing something in the right time and appropriate way.
It's either pouncing or belated.
I was pouncing.
Now it's belated!
Too late.
Too late.
I know you tried to transition from pouncing into just right, but you didn't make it.
You didn't make it.
No, you went all the way to belated.
Sorry.
Credibility gone.
All right, what else?
I love you looking at the word choice, because that's where all the bias comes out.
And then this again, according to available evidence so far.
Now, when did a CNN opinion person ever say, according to the evidence so far?
Only with Biden.
Do you think they've ever used that phrase talking about Trump?
Maybe they have, but I would imagine it's less often, right?
Maybe with Trump, they'd say, what if?
With Trump, they wouldn't say, available evidence so far.
They would say, it might be nuclear.
It might be sources and methods.
We may have compromised the entire intelligence operation of the United States.
We may have surrendered to Russia.
That's the way they would handle it.
But with Biden, it's like, well, available evidence so far.
I mean, so far, so far, Alan Weisselberg has never done a thing.
And then the next part of the same sentence.
According to available evidence so far, comma, Biden appears to be giving it to Americans straight, as he promised to do on the campaign trail.
Did he promise to give it to Americans straight on the campaign trail before or after he used the fine people hoax as his main campaign theme?
Literally, Biden ran on the most well-known lie in American politics.
Now, well-known by, let's say, half of the country.
But well-documented.
I mean, there's no question about it.
It's a lie.
He literally ran his campaign on a lie.
And he still says that Trump suggested drinking bleach.
A lie.
He didn't say any other kind of disinfectant except light.
Now, this is hilarious to me.
All right.
But yeah, so Stephen Collinson wants to soften us.
He doesn't want to look like some kind of a pro-Biden, completely in the tank kind of guy.
His bosses have told him to play it straight.
So he softens that and says, yet that does not mean we shouldn't have to consider questions about how the documents came to be in that office.
Listen to the sentence, yet that does not mean we shouldn't.
When do you ever write a sentence like that?
It does not mean we shouldn't?
Wouldn't another way to write that sentence, Joshua Lysak, wouldn't a better way to say, There's a good reason to do this.
Shouldn't you say, we'd better look into this?
There's certainly a strong signal that says we should research it.
Why would you not use a direct sentence?
Do you know when people don't use direct sentences?
It's when they're trying to decrease your reading comprehension.
Literally.
Literally.
This is a sentence that's written to decrease your ability to understand it.
It's written as a double negative.
If he wanted you to understand it, he would say, it's important we look into it.
How hard would that be?
How hard is it to say, you know, we don't think there's anything there?
I mean, that's an opinion, right?
A reasonable opinion would be, there's no evidence of anything bad.
True, true.
But it's important we look into it.
By the time you're done with his double negative, you're not even sure what he was talking about.
Let's see, what else?
Let's say special counsel, or he talks about Trump as the comparison.
And also the Democrats are complaining that the Republicans are going to take advantage of this for political purposes.
Can you imagine that?
Oh, can we all share some disgust that the Republicans would, really?
You would try to take advantage of the fact that the guy who's been blaming you for A jailable crime was committing the crime as he was accusing you?
Oh, and you're gonna make that a thing?
Well suddenly, suddenly that's important.
Oh, oh, belatedly?
So belatedly, now suddenly it's important if you've got top-secret government documents in your office?
Oh yeah, oh yeah, suddenly that's important.
You can't, you can't even describe the Democrat position on this Without making a face like you're an idiot.
Like I could try.
Watch.
I'm going to try to describe the Democrat view.
I'm going to try to keep a straight face and see how long I can maintain it.
Hold on, hold on.
Okay, let me try.
And we can see that the documents in the University of Penn that Biden had there, we can see that there's a completely different Very different case than the Trump documents, because the Trump documents seem to have like top secret information.
But, whoa, completely different.
I couldn't do it.
Couldn't do it.
All right.
So I was watching CNN failing on this topic.
And a hilarious thing.
I don't know the name of the correspondent.
But if you saw Anderson Cooper talking to one of their CNN correspondents about this topic, you could see Anderson Cooper understanding what his employer wanted him to do, which is not overly politicizing.
And I thought, during the brief clip I watched, I thought he did.
I thought he actually was trying to cover it as a story which has facts, and then will just give you the facts.
But his correspondent did the Trump face.
Do you know what the Trump face is?
It's when a CNN or an MSNBC person talks about Trump, and they do the face.
And I'll just make this one up, but it's like, you know, if you're not doing the face, you'd say, and President Trump had a very similar situation with his documents.
But here's the CNN face or the MSNBC face about Trump.
And a lot of people are saying Trump had a similar situation, but it's obvious it's very different.
Very different.
Right?
When you see the CNN face, the MSNBC face, that is either... I can't... I'm not sure how to interpret it.
Because I can't tell if they believe what they're saying.
Because this is a trigger for cognitive dissonance.
So in theory they should be just operating in cognitive dissonance and don't know that they're being ridiculous.
I think maybe they don't know.
But other times they must know they're lying.
Don't you think?
It doesn't look like they should know they're lying, meaning saying that the comparison is inappropriate.
It's a very appropriate comparison.
Now, I don't think you should treat one the same just because there's some similarities.
They have to still be treated individually.
But the comparison is fair.
You know, it's a fair comparison.
And I actually thought Anderson Cooper was feeling uncomfortable, but that's probably just me reading it into it.
Because here's something I like to say often.
Anderson Cooper is very smart, as are I would guess, most of the people on CNN.
So he must have known, as he was listening to the correspondent, I feel like he knew the same as I did, because it was obvious, that Anderson was trying to do his actual job as his employer wants him to do it, which give us the facts.
Whereas his correspondent was clearly still on the Orange Man Bad channel, Like, it's like she hadn't got the memo from, from Chris Light.
Licht?
Light?
I don't know how to say his name.
Uh, the, the new boss.
And, and I felt like Anderson was probably thinking, and again, this is just my mind.
I don't know what Anderson Cooper's thinking, of course.
But in my mind, it looked like he was being uncomfortable.
Cause like, did you not get the memo?
We're not supposed to act like that anymore.
It's not all about Orange Man bad anymore.
Sometimes we can just tell the news.
So.
I'll make a distinction between Anderson Cooper, who appeared to be playing it the way you would want him to, and his correspondent, whose name I can't remember.
So the Republicans, now that they've got control of the House and they've got their own speaker and everything, they're starting this big committee to investigate the, quote, weaponization of the government.
Of course, it was approved on a straight party line concept, and they're going to look into Biden administration efforts they say to influence, well it's pretty well documented, to influence content on social media platforms.
Now, what do you think of that?
What is your impression of the, let's talk first about the branding of it.
What do you think of the branding of it as quote weaponization of the government?
Does that sound right?
Does that sound like That's the proper way to frame it?
No.
No.
No, if you think that's right, you're just being political.
That is so not right.
What did I just get done telling you?
I just got done telling you that the left was starting with a conclusion.
They're starting with the conclusion that Joe Biden is honest, therefore everything he did must have been appropriate.
The Republicans are trying the same play.
The Republicans are saying, weaponization of the government, and they're going to make you think that that's a fact.
And then they're going to work backwards to prove it happened.
I'll tell you what did happen, for sure.
For sure, there were Democrats who took advantage of the fact that they could work with private industry and get a good result.
That seems to be a fact.
Would you agree?
There is a pattern of Democrats working with private industry in a way that from the outside it looks like too much pressure and inappropriate for our Constitution and our system.
That seems true.
So I think that the things that they're looking for will definitely be there.
But do you think that weaponization of the government is a fair and balanced way to describe what they're doing?
You know, now I do get that they're trying to lump several things together, right?
So for example, if you use the IRS to go after your enemies, I guess Obama did, right?
That's the reporting.
That would be a weaponization of government.
So if you were to take the IRS example and add it to, let's say, the, what do you call it, the Patriot Act, where they're spying on people?
That looks like weaponization.
If you look at the fine people hoax, that does look like a collusion between the Democrats and the media.
That looks like weaponization.
If you look at all the other hoaxes, those are weaponization.
If you look at the laptop scheme, you know, saying that the laptop was, that looks like weaponization.
So we do have a bunch of examples which absolutely fit that label.
Right?
There's no shortage of well-documented examples that you could put in that category.
I just have an objection with calling it the weaponization of government.
Even though it is.
Because it's a little bit conclusion-y.
Right?
It's a little bit conclusion-y.
It's a little too far for me.
And let me... Now, do you see how, if I tweeted my opinion on this, it would be taken wrong?
If I tweeted this, all I would say is, that seems like you're starting with a conclusion.
It would look like I disagreed with having an investigation.
No.
No, I disagree with that.
So on Twitter, they'll think that I'm I'm attacking Republicans.
But if they see the live stream, they'll say, oh, I see you're totally on board with this investigation.
I am totally on board.
But maybe the way they framed it is a little more political.
That's all.
Just be aware of it.
Thomas Massey spoke to this bill and used the word transparency.
That's what I want to say.
Yeah.
He described this as increasing transparency because the public absolutely needs to know.
We absolutely need to know what happened.
If you're already concluding it was weaponization of the government, you've gone a little too far too soon for me.
Just a personal preference.
But yes, when you see Thomas Massey speak, he says rational things that do not seem to be intended for anything except helping the country.
Now, he went further.
He said, make sure you put some serious Democrats on the investigation.
He said, they exist.
I've worked with them.
We've got legislation to get through.
So, get some Democrats on the thing.
Now, when he says that, do you think he means it?
Or is that just a political thing?
What do you think?
Can't read his mind.
Nobody can read anybody's mind.
Everything he is, every action so far, suggests he means it.
Because he approaches it like an engineer.
An engineer just looks at the engine and says, okay, this part and this part need to be replaced.
The politician looks at it and says, oh, this part's good, this part's bad.
Because this part agrees with me and this part doesn't.
He's just looking at the engine.
And he's saying, this engine requires some oil in the form of transparency.
And if you're going to add that oil, the wrong way to do it is bipartisan.
The right way to do it is with, I'm sorry, the right way to do it is bipartisan.
So do it the way the machine needs it done.
Right?
If you look at the government as a machine, he's just saying, this part's broken.
Here's the oil to fix it.
You know, the transparency.
So of course we need it, but the transparency won't be effective unless you put some serious Democrats on the committee.
Now, you tell me what politician has said something smarter or more useful than that lately.
Like, nothing.
Like, that's just the most practical, smart, clean narrative.
I'll say everything's a narrative, but some of them are clean.
Meaning that it's not overly politicized.
That was what I want to say, right?
I want him to be my president.
Like, just based on that.
Not just on that, of course.
But that's what I want to say.
Now, and he also said, the very words expressed by those opposed to the creation of this select committee on the weaponization of the federal government demonstrate the dire need for it.
So in other words, the people arguing that you should not have more transparency, that's all you need.
That's the whole argument.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Are you telling me that the Republicans want transparency and the Democrats are saying, no, if you get that transparency, you can imagine all the problems.
All the problems.
See the face.
I can't even do it without the face.
You have to do the face to say things ridiculous.
It's like, oh, I don't want any transparency happening.
How do you even argue against transparency in public?
And I love the fact that Massey called them out.
If you're arguing against transparency, we really need some transparency.
That is a good point.
They proved his point.
Which brings me to my related topic of useless people.
I need you to give me a bias check.
Okay?
I think there's something going on, a pattern, but I could be completely in confirmation bias territory.
If there's one thing I can teach you, that I'll try to stay consistent to, is if you're having confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance, you're the only one who doesn't know it's happening.
So if it's happening to me right now, I'm the only one who doesn't know it.
Or you should be able to spot it.
So I'm going to tell you what I think is true, that even I think is... I don't know.
It's even sketchy in my own mind why I think this is true.
So here's my bias, and you tell me.
The people that the Democrats put forward as their spokespeople are different in a very important way than the people the Republicans put forward.
For example, Democrats put Adam Schiff, Swalwell.
On the entertainment side, you would see your Joy Behars, right?
So those are the kind of voices that seem to get elevated on the left.
Now, what voices on the right?
Tom Cotton, serious, smart guy.
Thomas Massey, the most reasonable person who's ever held office, in my opinion.
Let's see, DeSantis, one of the strongest, Mike Lee, reasonable, strong in every way, right?
Now I know some of you have like some Tom Cotton issues because he voted for something that you couldn't avoid.
I don't know what was he supposed to do, didn't matter.
But you tell me that there's not a difference there.
Now I have a theory for why there's a difference.
You want to hear it?
Do you have a theory?
Like an actual theory of how we got here that you could say yes or no to.
All right?
Here's my hypothesis.
Not a theory.
It's a hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that because the Democrats controlled all the cancelling, all the clowns on the right got cancelled.
If there were more clowns on the right, you would see them more.
But they got cancelled.
If the cancelling had worked in the other way, Schiff and Swallow would have been cancelled.
Am I right?
The crazy people on the left have been free to run around and get attention.
And the news will always focus on who?
The news will always go for the crazy people.
I'll just give you one example.
Now, if you will allow me, I'm using the phrase crazy people as a sort of a proximate stand-in for credibility.
Will you accept that?
When I say the crazy people and the clowns, I'm really talking about credibility, mostly to the other side.
Because I think the Democrats believe Schiff and Swalwell, right?
It's just, you look like a clown to the other side.
So, Imagine, if you will, that Alex Jones had never been cancelled, and that every time there was a national story, the press put Alex Jones on for his comments.
And he was still exactly Alex Jones.
Nothing's different, right?
I'm not trying to insult Alex Jones.
I'm just saying as a point of objective truth, he's considered non-credible by half of the country at least, right?
So on the Republican side, they never have to deal with that because they've already been cancelled.
So if Fox News is looking for somebody to put on for a comment, they can't even find a Joy Behar.
Cancelled.
All they can find is like a serious senator or a serious member of Congress.
That's all they got.
Now, what do you think of the hypothesis that the cancelling Worked against the Democrats in a very non-obvious way.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think there's something to it.
It's not the whole story, but there's definitely something to it.
And I think we need some kind of new name for the useless people.
Because useless is, you know, sort of not fun.
And also that Worson Watergate guy.
Bernstein?
Now the worse than Watergate guy is literally just a clown, isn't he?
Not literally, but you know what I mean.
If you bring the worse than Watergate guy on just to say it's worse than Watergate, which is all he's done for years, that's all he does.
How do you take that seriously?
Now let me ask you, what does the right do when they have somebody who's like that?
What does Fox News do If there's somebody in their universe who's sort of the Carl Bernstein.
They move them to a show on Fox Nation.
I'm not going to name names, but they put their least credible people into the, what do you call it, the minor leagues?
They put them in the minor leagues.
And they still have a show and an audience, and people are happy.
People who watch the show are happy.
But they do take it off of the main enterprise.
There's a difference.
All right.
There's a story that the left wants to ban gas stoves, apparently based on no data whatsoever.
But they're not banning existing ones.
They would ban sale of new ones.
But I just can't imagine this will happen.
Can you?
Now, they say it's because there's a ventilation problem in some homes.
Probably there is.
But apparently there's no data to back it.
And if you're well-ventilated, it doesn't seem to be a problem, based on tests.
So, I don't know.
It's just a silly little thing.
I don't think it's going to become law, but anything could happen.
Did you know, according to the Wall Street Journal, that oil and gas production are booming in the United States?
Gas production is at an all-time high.
Now, here I'm going to do something that the Twitter people would never see.
This is something I only do in long form, but rarely in short form.
I'm going to say that the Biden administration did something right.
Not everything.
But I do believe that from a purely financial perspective, squashing Russia's energy program It's probably good for business.
And I've said this before, that I think there's a really good chance that the Biden-Ukraine focus, which never made sense to a lot of us, I think it's going to be a good investment.
It's way too early to say, because anything could happen.
You know, war is war.
But at the moment, it looks like it's working as an actual investment.
I never would... Oh, NPR said it yesterday?
Yeah.
That could turn into a narrative.
Now, here's where I'm trying to be an honest broker on this.
If Trump had been the one behind this Ukraine stuff, don't you think I would be saying it was a good investment?
You would expect that, right?
Because it looks like it might be.
And so I'll just say the same thing about Biden.
If what we did was spend, let's say in the end we spent $200 billion.
If we spend $200 billion and take Russia out of the energy game, or degrade it enough so our energy program takes off, I think it was worthwhile.
Financially.
Certainly not in terms of life and destruction and the things that happened over there.
But financially.
So don't be surprised about that.
I have a new strategy to suggest to the Ukrainians, because I know They've been waiting for this.
So there's a little bit of news coming out that could be interpreted different ways.
Here's something that the people who watch Twitter only will never know about me.
I do not believe anything that comes out of Ukraine, pro or negative Ukrainians or Russians.
It's all unreliable information.
I do, however, speak about it in some cases as if it's true.
But I tell you that directly.
I'm speaking as if it's true.
We don't know.
Can't trust anything.
So one of the reports, as if it's true, is that the Russian artillery strikes are down 75% in some important places.
Now, how would you interpret that?
Is it because it's winter and there aren't going to be any gains either way and there's not much benefit of artillery?
Is it because they're saving it for a big push?
Is it that they're saving it for the spring?
Or are they running out of artillery shells?
Don't know, do you?
But there's at least some suggestion that they might be running low on supplies.
Or maybe running low on the actual artillery, what would you call it?
What would you call the device that launches the artillery munitions?
That would be just artillery?
Cannons?
Guns?
You call them artillery guns or mortars?
Launchers, whatever they are.
So maybe they don't have enough launchers to do what they need to do.
Who knows?
But I read an interesting thing.
Oh, so another fact, again, don't believe anything, is that Patriot systems are coming to Ukraine soon.
Those would be the defensive systems.
At the same time, they're getting more Bradley armored vehicles for offensive moves.
So, If you were to just look at what you're told about Ukraine at the moment... Oh, and one other thing.
Apparently one of the biggest critics of Putin within Russia, who has not been killed, is the leaders of the Wagner Group.
So the Wagner Group, correct me if I'm wrong, they're mercenaries, right?
So Russia is using a professional mercenary group that are Russians.
Because they're badass fighters and they want to be there.
They're volunteers.
So yeah, they're professional fighters.
So the Wagner group has been doing a lot of damage and it's a big part of Russia's whatever success they get.
I think the Wagner group probably does a lot of it.
So we know now that the head of the Wagner group thinks he's not getting enough support from Putin.
So he's actually criticized him, which is a big deal.
Now, Probably that's the only person in Russia who could criticize Putin right now.
Because the Wagner group is too important to the war effort, you can't kill the head of the Wagner group right away.
Maybe later, but at the moment you can't kill the head of your most important military wing, probably.
Yeah, and the Wagner group was a big part of why Chechnya was eventually, what would you call it, suppressed.
So, here's my strategy for Ukraine.
Are you ready?
They should retarget everything and put 100% of their efforts on the Wagner Group.
Because you want that Wagner Group to complain even more than they are.
Right?
You want to make sure that the Wagner Group knows that no matter what else happens, the Wagner Group will be gone.
Because at the moment they're part of the bigger military.
So I'm sure Ukraine gives them a little special attention because they're effective, but they're still spreading their fire across multiple domains.
My strategy is, for the winter anyway, focus all of your fire on the Wagner group and make them complain until Putin has to do something.
What's he going to do?
What's he going to do?
Because the last thing he wants to do is turn the Wagner group against him.
And then, before the Wagner group is completely defeated, you make him an offer to change sides.
When there aren't many left, you say, I'll tell you what, we're just going to keep going until there are none of you left, but we wouldn't mind having you on our side to finish this war.
I doubt they would change sides.
Maybe some would.
But you want to put those thoughts in everybody's head.
Like, it would only take one Wagner person to change sides, and then Ukraine knows how to turn that into propaganda.
Just one.
Just one to say, oh, Russia's a waste of time.
We'll make twice as much money for Ukraine.
It looks like they're going to win.
Boom.
Let me speak to our Bruggemann's comment, because remember I started saying nothing can be trusted, and our Bruggemann says that Ukraine isn't winning anything at the moment.
There's no winning going on.
In fact, they've lost territory.
In the war so far, Ukraine is smaller.
And in bad shape.
So they're certainly losing in that sense, and they're not making gains on the battlefield, according to reports that are not credible.
And also, according to not credible reports, the Russians might be gaining a little bit, but that's disputed.
All right.
So, does that satisfy you that I've added the proper context?
That I do not believe you could say Ukraine is winning in the larger sense yet.
But it looks like if you believe the reporting, which maybe you shouldn't, it looks like there is something that looks like a momentum shift that you can never be sure about because it's still war.
Everything's unpredictable.
But at the moment, it looks like a momentum shift.
And then secondly, I'll just add that focusing on the Wagner Group could probably get them to the end of this faster.
That's what I think.
Now, it could be that that's exactly their strategy, and I don't know it.
All right.
Now, once again, do you see how if I did any of this on Twitter, I would not have taken the time to agree with the critic who says my context is insufficient?
Because I actually agree with your comment.
My context was a little bit insufficient, and so you challenged me on it, and so I tried to shore that up a little bit.
That's the way the long form works.
If you think that should be happening on Twitter, you don't know what Twitter is.
Twitter is just talking about that one little point, and it's all it means.
The stuff you left out of Twitter doesn't tell you anything.
But if I'd left that out of this, I think it would have told you something, right?
Would you agree with that statement?
If I had not taken the time to agree with you that you really don't know if Russia or Ukraine is winning or will win, that it would be missing, and it would maybe be misleading.
So I added it.
It was the same problem with the pandemic stuff.
All right, so that's the end of my prepared comments.
And is there anything I missed?
Anything you'd like me to speak about that I have not.
By the way, if you're following the SpaceX stuff with the starships that they have that big tower that grabs them like chopsticks, apparently they have four of them that are all loaded and ready to go at the same time?
When did that happen?
When did we go from, I think we can launch A ship like this, two, four of them fully loaded and ready to go, and it looks like they're trying to gear up where they could just be launching spaceships all day long.
Like literally, like an airport.
Just launch them like an airport.
Here's one, here's one, load one up, here's one, and then return them and load them up again.
Apparently we'll be able to put some pretty heavy stuff up in space.
And my first question is, what is all that stuff?
Is it just satellites?
At the moment it's just satellites, right?
Or maybe something for the ISS, but there's nothing heading to Mars, is there?
How soon before Musk actually sends something to Mars?
And what would be the first thing?
I'd love to know their planning.
If I were doing this, the first thing I'd send would be robots, right?
Wouldn't you send the Tesla robots to space?
Assuming you had some way to recharge them, which you would.
I think you would, right?
Let me put a wild thought into your head.
It might take a long time to get humans to Mars, you know, in any kind of quantity, but we might have lots of robots there before then, if the robots can handle the climate, etc.
Do you think we'd ever get to the point where the robots could be AI-driven and simply build a civilization to be ready when we got there.
So we didn't have to give them every order.
We would just give them an objective.
The same way they're teaching robots now to assemble IKEA products successfully.
So the robot can actually pick up the directions and then assemble something it had never assembled before.
That's a real thing that's happening now.
So if you could do that, could Musk get to the point, because he's building robots.
They're almost ready to launch, and they'll be the industrial kind.
Could he get to the point where he could dump a shitload of robots on a planet and just say, build a civilization?
Here's your endpoint.
And then figure out what you got.
You know, you're gonna have to figure out what assets you have there, plus what you brought.
Then figure out how to get to here.
And just figure it out.
And we'll show up when you're done.
I feel like I could.
Yeah, 3D printing.
So you need some 3D printing.
You might need to be able to mine, though.
So here's a question for you.
Are there any mineable materials on Mars?
Yes, do we know that for sure?
You say many?
Because every orb in space has good mineable stuff, don't they?
Like, as far as we know, pretty much all of them.
Whether it's an asteroid or a planet, they all have something you could mine.
Now, I don't know if they would have the right mix of stuff, because the very least you'd want is enough to build another robot.
So let me ask you this question.
Would Mars have all the minerals that would be necessary to build the robot that goes to Mars?
Would it?
It only needs to get close, because if it's close but not completely, they can always send a rocket with the extra stuff that's hard to build on Mars.
Not the electronics.
Because the electronics have rare minerals.
We don't know if there are rare minerals on Mars, do we?
So it might be that the rare minerals are the stuff you have to ship up there in the short run.
But the rare minerals tend to be low weight, right?
Let me ask you this.
For a robot, what would be the total weight of raw rare minerals?
It'd be just like a handful, right?
Or less than that?
Yeah, wouldn't it be just like An ounce?
Maybe an ounce of raw materials for the entire robot?
Everything else is common materials?
Does that sound about right?
You wouldn't be able to do chip fabrication right away, or would you?
If you knew what kind of chips you were going to make, You couldn't ship up enough equipment and build an environment for it?
Just impossible.
It might be impossible.
But I can also imagine that you could build a mini-fabricator.
In other words, if the earth fabricators require a whole building and lots of systems, you don't think there's some chance, just like a nuclear plant, It's usually a big building with domes and stuff.
But you can also build a little one and put it on a submarine.
Which always puzzled me, by the way.
That for a long time we've been able to build little nuclear reactors for military, but not for citizens.
I've never understood why that wasn't happening.
But I imagine there's a way To build a mini self-contained chip fabricator.
Especially if it's only going to make one or two kinds of chips.
It's just for the robots or something like that.
Seems like it's doable.
Because the engineering would still be off-site, so you don't need any administrative space.
It's just the mechanical fabrication part.
I'll bet you could fit that in a rocket.
Or maybe several rockets and pieces.
Something like that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube for today and talk to the locals people privately.
