Episode 1993 Scott Adams: Persuasion Analysis Of Trump, Crowder v The Daily Wire, Ukraine, Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Hacking The Simulation
Ukraine Drones
Weaponized algorithms control America
WEF is a weaponized algorithm
Steven Crowder vs. The Daily Wire
Matt Gaetz on TimCast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
Today's show will be really something that, well, I feel sorry for the people who aren't here.
Honestly, I do.
You're going to be so much smarter when you're done.
And if you'd like to prepare yourself for the incoming amazingness, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a sty, and 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 of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens.
Now go.
Yeah, you weren't ready, were you?
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
See, sometimes you've got to be ready to leap at it.
All right, today's presentation is going to be primarily about persuasion.
It's the one time you don't all hate me.
I don't think I'm going to say anything today that will offend any of you.
In fact, you'll probably like the whole thing.
I don't know, but we'll find out.
But I want to show you something to start off with the sweetest thing I've ever seen.
Now I hate to be a big old softy, but I just have to give a shout out to this.
Most of you know conservative Matt Walsh, right?
Matt Walsh.
And you may know that if you follow his Twitter account, he had some twins recently.
So congratulations on that.
And he reports that wife and babies were finally discharged from the hospital.
This gets better, by the way.
This gets to something you're going to like.
Hold on.
It just sounds like somebody's baby.
So he gets these twins, and what I learned from his tweet today is he already had twins.
So he has two sets of twins.
Here's what he tweets.
Wife and babies were finally discharged from the hospital today.
I assume there was some concern that they stayed a little extra.
And he says, the older twins haven't left their brother's side since they came home.
My daughter explained that someone needs to be sitting and watching over them even while they nap.
And here's a picture.
of his older twins, who were not that older.
I can't tell what, maybe 10?
10 years old or something?
And they decided on their own that their siblings could not be alone.
So they're sitting there reading, it looks like, and making sure that the babies are never alone, even when they're sleeping.
Now, here's the thing.
I've had this discussion before.
In which, so let's say Matt Walsh is the poster child for traditional marriage.
Wouldn't you say?
If there's anybody who's like the person you think of when he talks about traditional marriage, I think of him.
And I always say traditional marriage is absolutely the best way to go for about 25% of people.
The trouble is, you know, if one of you is an addict or crazy or something, you know, nothing works.
But for about 25%, and I know you would argue, oh, it's higher.
It's maybe 75%.
But today, I'm not going to have that argument.
I think it's 25%.
You think it's 75.
But, you know, it's not 100 and it's not zero.
But talk about winning.
Oh, my God.
How many of you I heard this story and just said, if I could have that life, that looks pretty good.
Doesn't it?
You can already fast forward yourself into the future, where they're having big family events, and all the twins are there and stuff.
That sounds like so much fun.
I'm just going to call it out because it's the best, it's just the best little anecdote of why people like traditional families.
It looks pretty strong.
So congratulations, Matt Walsh.
I'll just add this one thing, that no matter how winning other people seem to be, remember, do you remember the basket case theory?
Basket case theory.
I've told you this before, that what you know about other people is a very small amount of who they are, right?
So if you imagine that the Walsh family has solved all of their problems, I'm sure that's wrong.
I'm sure they have some challenges like everyone.
But on the surface, this is a pretty amazing story.
I just like it.
Elizabeth Warren tweets, apparently a bunch of people are worried that Zelle, the digital payment service that is owned by some of the big banks, including Bank of America, is stealing their money.
What?
I don't even know what to say about this.
Apparently there are a whole lot of people, and I don't know what percentage, and I don't know how true it is, but a whole bunch of people I think Laura Loomer was one of them.
I saw a tweet from her who say that their payments are being sent and then they're not received on the other end.
It looks like Bank of America is keeping it, or somebody's keeping it, or it's disappearing.
So it's a little bit of fog of war right now.
So I'm not going to claim that I know what's happening in this story, because I don't think anybody does.
In fact, Elizabeth Warren puts it as sort of a question.
She says, I've called out serious fraud issues on Zelle and this is their latest failure.
So I don't know what the other fraud issues are on Zelle.
Is there some reason?
Is Laura Loomer credible?
Well, on this she is.
Sure.
Do you think Laura Loomer would tweet that she was having problems with Zelle if she just made it up?
Now, I'm not saying it's true because she said it, but really?
You think somebody would just make that up?
There's nothing in her history that would suggest she would do that.
Is there?
Like, you can like or dislike other things she's said, but I don't think that doesn't sound like a lie.
Could be.
Anything's possible, but it doesn't sound like a lie to me.
Anyway, we'll keep an eye on that.
New Zealand's Prime Minister resigned.
Jacinda... What's her name?
Ardern.
Now, she was Famous for being a progressive and doing things a little differently.
She was also famous for having a baby while Prime Minister.
Because she was one of the youngest leaders we've ever had.
She had a baby.
And she managed to do her job while being a mom as well.
Being a young mom.
But she's decided that it's a little too much.
And she's decided she's, I'll use my own words, burned out.
And that she doesn't have the The drive or energy to run New Zealand and run her family, I guess.
So here's how CNN described it.
And this is in the CNN's website.
It started off by saying, burnout is real and it's nothing to be ashamed of.
That's the conclusion trailblazing New Zealand leader Jacinda Ardern seems to have reached after almost six brutal years in office.
So CNN is first saying, you know, burnout must be recognized as a genuine phenomenon, and we should not ignore it.
Okay.
I'm all with you on that.
Later on in the story, they say, during her time in power, Ardern showed that it was possible to juggle a young family and a demanding role.
Good for her.
Look at that.
She managed to run a country and, you know, juggle her home demands as well.
Very good.
And now she's leading by example to show that when a tank is empty and there's no more to give, it's also okay to opt out.
Now this is pretty good.
This is pretty good on her part.
Not only is she proving that you can run a country and have a family, but she's also proving at the same time that you can't run a country and have a family.
So a lot of people would just try to demonstrate one thing at a time.
She's doing two.
This is quite impressive, and CNN, I credit them for calling this out.
That she's not only proving that you can do everything, have a family and have a demanding job, but also that you can't.
So, what?
I'm going to read a comment.
From Erica.
And she says, so this is not me.
This is Erica.
And you wonder why I don't want women in charge of anything.
OK, I think that's too far.
Too far, Erica.
You've gone too far.
But let's live in the real world.
Who in the world could do both of those things well?
Nobody.
Nobody.
It's not a man or woman thing.
Women happen to be the ones who bear the children.
So they end up, and for other reasons, they end up, I guess, having a big role in the child's life, as they should.
So I don't see how you can do both.
Do you?
How in the world could you do both?
And do you imagine that New Zealand got a good job out of her?
I mean, maybe it was good enough.
I don't know.
It doesn't matter what the external competition for the leader's time is.
Whether it's a baby, or they've got lawsuit problems, or they're having troubles at home, it matters.
It all matters.
So if we're being open-minded about this, I guess the right place to land is everybody should have the opportunity to try anything they want.
And if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out.
So, I don't think there's any judgment to put on this.
Do you?
I wouldn't put any judgment on it.
It's just a thing that happened.
Well, the New York Times has a story, and because it's in the New York Times, that's actually the big part of the story.
If this were some obscure publication who had the following story I'm going to tell you about, it wouldn't mean much.
But because it's in the New York Times, it means it's, let's say, it's reaching common, or because of the story, it's now a common story or a common understanding.
And it goes like this.
Hacking the simulation.
So there are some serious people, and one in particular, I guess it was a professor or a Computer scientist, David Anderson.
And during the pandemic, he did some noodling on if we're in a simulation, so if our so-called reality is a computer simulation, could you hack it from the inside?
Now, I don't think the article is very interesting, so I'm not going to get into the details, but do you think, if we're a simulation, that we could hack it from the inside?
Because here's my take on that.
If that's not true, that we're a simulation and you can hack it from the inside, I can't explain my life experience.
Because I've been using this thing called affirmations that apparently hacks the simulation.
And, you know, the list of things that I've affirmed that actually happened in the real world is so wild.
And you only know some of them.
You know, there's some that are just private.
The private ones are crazy.
Crazy!
Even recently, I'm not even talking about in the distant past, something worked out for me once.
I'm talking right up to this week.
Crazy.
And I'll just put this out there.
If we live in a simulation, and that's not guaranteed, and if we can hack it, and that's certainly not guaranteed, My best instinct is that the affirmations or the amount of basically the amount of focus you put on the things you want to happen might make reality fork in that direction.
So one possibility is that all possibilities exist and they're all here at the same time.
Do you know how Animation works.
Animation is a series of still pictures that if you were to put them together in, let's say, pages of a book and then you flip through the pages, it would look like the animation is moving, which is how you do movie TV animation.
Now, I've always imagined that a reality is a three-dimensional cube In which, you know, conceptually, let's say you're somewhere in the middle of the cube, and your direction of the future is every direction.
So you have infinite directions from where you are.
And each of those directions looks exactly like our reality with a small change.
And the small change is based on whatever, you know, whatever path you take.
My understanding of reality, or let's say the standard understanding of reality, is that you're a conscious being, and you're in this big moving machine.
Reality is moving all around you, and you're also moving.
So it's a bunch of moving stuff.
What if the only thing that moves is your point of view?
That's how I see the universe.
That it all exists, and always has, and there's no time.
It just sits there.
All of the possibilities as a solid cube.
And the only thing that's changing is your point of perception and which path you follow.
And nothing else changes.
The universe is static and always has been.
And that the Big Bang, the Big Bang is simply a location within the cube.
It might be the middle.
Imagine the Big Bang is the middle of the cube, and from that middle, all the possibilities.
And they just sit there as a solid, and it's only your mind or your, you know, you could say your soul or whatever is passing through it, and as you pass through it, it appears to be moving, but that's because your conscious went through a series of still frames.
Now, the reason that I mention that frame is not because I think it's necessarily true, But it would perfectly explain how you could hack reality, because you wouldn't be changing anything except your direction.
And how hard it would be to change the direction of a mind that is not bound by physical laws.
Maybe easy, right?
It might be as easy as dreaming.
It might be almost something we do automatically.
So I just put that weird possibility out there to spin your brains around a little bit.
All right.
It's going to get weirder.
This is going to be one of the most interesting live streams you've ever seen.
And we're going to get to Trump persuasion.
My sweet spot.
So wait for that.
All right.
Let's talk about Ukraine persuasion.
Question number one.
Remember I said that I believe that Ukrainians would outperform expectations at the beginning of the invasion?
And I said primarily because of modern equipment that they would get from NATO in the US, and that drones in particular would be the things that made the difference.
But then other people said, drones?
Really, Scott?
It's really the HIMARS.
It's the HIMARS that are making the difference.
And then they're introducing these new kinds of missiles called GLSDB.
So precise, it can hit the radius of a car tire.
And it can hit a moving object within 150 miles.
And it can go around it and come back in another direction.
So it can evade radar.
It can do anything you want.
And it can hit something under a bridge.
You can hear something hiding under a bridge from the air.
So apparently this is good weapons and apparently these are heading toward Ukraine.
And that they would be especially good for taking out supply lines.
Now remember I told you that I feel like Russia has a real problem because they won't be able to supply as long as Ukraine can drone their supply chains from the air.
So that's what they're doing.
They're doing exactly what would be obvious.
But here's my question to you.
What is the definition of a drone and would you call a HIMARS, the rocket that comes out of it, and the GLSDB systems, would you call those drones?
Here's the definition of a drone.
Any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely or could be autonomous.
So in other words, you can control it directly or you can give us some instructions to do something and it goes and does it.
That's a drone.
I think the HIMARS and the GLSDB systems are drones.
Whenever I talk about this, all of the Russian assets start yelling, Scott Ritter.
You can tell all the Russian assets.
Scott Ritter, and also wrong and big letters.
It's so easy to pick out the Russians now.
Anybody else want to say Scott Ritter, so we know who all the Russians are?
Good.
Let's see if I can quiet them down.
Scott Ritter literally writes for the Russian-controlled publication RT, which is called Russia Today.
So do I think that Scott Ritter would have a different take on whether Ukraine is winning?
Huh.
Why don't we see what the guy who works for Russia thinks?
Hmm.
Hmm.
And Andrew says, and who do you write for?
Got me.
Whoa.
You nailed me.
Burn.
Burn.
Who do I write for?
Whoa.
Whoa.
Well, as you know, I write for UT.
Oh, you didn't know that?
I write for Ukraine Today, the publication that's owned by Zelensky.
Yeah, no, I talk to him every day.
Hold on, he's calling again.
You want me to write what?
Write, Ukraine has nuclear weapons.
You don't have nuclear weapons.
Okay, I'll say you do, I'll say you do.
I will do an article on that.
There's talk that they have nuclear weapons.
Anything else?
F-15s?
You don't have any.
Okay, I'll say F-15s.
F-15s, you got hundreds of them.
Hundreds of them.
Thousands?
Thousands of F-15s.
All right.
I got my assignment.
Gotta write for Zelensky.
Now, for the dumb people, that was just theater, and I don't actually write for Ukraine.
But I think it's funny that you asked.
Anyway, I would just like to make the following point.
I can see why you would call these missile systems not necessarily the same as drones.
I get it.
But I wasn't making that distinction when I talked about it.
My trolls are just so pathetic today.
You know, when the trolls are doing a good job and they're like getting under your skin, Like they're annoying.
But when they do an unusually bad job, they just become part of the entertainment.
And today they're totally entertaining.
It's the same person.
Anyway, that's pretty funny.
Let's talk about everybody weaponizing everything.
So, you know, the Republicans are doing this investigation into the weaponization of the Intel community.
And now the Democrats are going to match that persuasion by saying that the House Republicans are setting up a committee to, that it's the Republicans that are weaponizing stuff.
So everybody is weaponizing.
Is that good persuasion?
To say everybody's weaponizing stuff?
I don't know.
It feels a little generic, doesn't it?
A little bit generic.
I don't think the weaponization thing is I'm quite hitting.
But we're going to talk about Trump's recent statements.
I'm going to show you how to do it right.
I want you to contrast the weaponization word with where Trump goes.
So you can see the weak sauce and then you're going to see Trump just punching it right in the fucking face.
Now, whether you like it or not, He definitely has a skill, a very specific skill set.
We'll get to that in a little bit.
All right.
Apparently Trump is reportedly, NBC says, going to come back to Twitter.
And he's petitioned Facebook to go back there as well.
Now Facebook would have to say yes.
Twitter already did.
But he's not back, so we'll see if that's real.
I think most people assumed that running for office would require it.
Don't you think?
Now, I don't know what that does to the viability of truth social, so that's gonna take a hit, but... I saw a comment about Trump's support of his work to bring the vaccinations out.
Now, how many of you think that's going to be just a huge problem?
That Trump was behind Operation Warp Speed, and that a lot of his base is pretty unhappy about vaccinations.
So how does he solve that?
Is that solvable?
You tell me, is that solvable for his base?
Yeah, it is solvable.
I wasn't sure how.
But he's putting together a package of persuasion in which this folds into it really well.
And I almost hate to see it, because this time around, I'm not going to support Trump on his policies, except one.
He's the strongest one on fentanyl.
He would go after the cartels, he says.
So far, that's the best take.
So I'm going to talk about his persuasion skills.
If you can be, let's say, alert enough to know that doesn't mean I support everything he says and does, right?
I'm a one policy voter this time, just on fentanyl.
But on Hoodwinked on Twitter, Twitter user on Hoodwinked, who is also a good follow, very provocative tweets if you'd like to follow somebody interesting.
And he says, and this is why Trump won't be re-elected, talking about his support of the vaccinations, he continues to fail to read the room on this issue.
And he says, it wasn't an accomplishment, warp speed meaning, it was a hyper-rushed departure from safety protocols on an experimental drug administered to millions without full informed consent.
How many of you would agree with this statement?
I'll just read it again.
Agree or disagree with this statement?
Warp speed wasn't an accomplishment.
It was a hyper-rushed departure from safety protocols on an experimental drug administered to millions without full informed consent.
Boom.
Agree, agree, agree, agree, agree.
All right?
May I offer a counterpoint?
I'm not going to try to change your mind.
If that makes you feel better.
Because I don't think I need to.
I feel like you've all made up your minds and you can stay there.
But wouldn't you like to see the counter to that?
Just out of curiosity.
Do you think there is any counter to that point?
Here's my counter to the point.
It was fully disclosed.
And it was not mandatory.
Let me say, it was not mandatory from Trump.
There were definitely mandates.
But Trump is anti-mandate.
Now, you're saying that it was rushed and it did not meet the normal safety protocols.
Who didn't know that?
We were told that directly and daily, every single day.
Everyone knew That you can't know what will happen in five years if you've only tested for six months or whatever it was.
Is there anybody who didn't understand the vaccinations had a risk?
And is there anybody who didn't understand that the risk was more than normal?
Anybody?
So when you say there wasn't informed consent, I've never seen more informed consent.
Well informed.
The consent part is optional.
I've never seen more information that this was not the same safety protocol as before.
And I think we were told directly, consistently, and often, that we also don't know how bad the virus itself would be.
So we're looking at two unknowns and we're taking our best shot.
But nobody was presented with safety.
Not a level of safety that was consistent with the past.
So the informed consent thing is ridiculous in my mind.
Because I was informed.
Why were you not informed?
I was totally informed.
Do you remember that I waited from the time that I was eligible, which was early on because of my age?
I waited, I don't know, six months or so?
Do you remember why I said I waited?
I said, because they're telling us it's not as safe as regular things in the past.
I waited because they told me, they informed me, it might not be as safe, and that I acted according to my own desires and wishes.
You don't think Trump can defend that?
Yeah, he can.
Yeah, he can.
Now here's the part you're missing.
Everything is compared to something else.
No matter who Trump runs against, he's gonna look better on this.
Everybody has something to explain about their actions, right?
Everybody.
Including me.
Everybody has something to explain.
He's not gonna run against somebody who has less to explain.
He's only going to be running against somebody who's probably pro-mandate, right?
I mean, it's not even going to be close.
If your only choice is a pro-mandate and an anti-mandate, he wins.
He owns it.
Now, he's barely even tried to defend himself.
He's just said what he did.
But all he'd have to do is say what I did.
Every one of you people complaining knew there was extra risk.
That's why you didn't get vaxxed.
You can't simultaneously say, we all knew there was a risk, and then say you weren't informed.
You can't say both.
Everybody who told me they didn't get a vax, they said it's because it was very clear from day one, this was not the same risk profile as the past.
Right?
So how can you argue both sides?
I totally knew what the risk was, and it was more than normal.
And nobody told me the risk.
Pick a side.
You gotta pick a side.
So, like I told you, I'm not gonna convince anybody to change their mind about this.
I'm just saying that Trump has, he's got a freeway right through it.
I mean, he can slice through this like a hot steel through butter.
It just doesn't feel like it, because he hasn't really ramped up yet.
But he will.
He will.
Now, he could also blow it, right?
I mean, he could say the wrong thing, blah, blah.
He could.
But wait till you see what else he's got cooking.
Oh, this gets better.
This gets so much better.
And it's going to really challenge me to stick to my, you know, single issue vote and, you know, not get involved in his other opinions.
But he's got something that he's signaled today, or yesterday, that is really cool, persuasion-wise.
So again, I'm only talking about his persuasion game.
That's the part that always impresses me, not necessarily the policies.
So here's what Trump has decided to do.
Let's see.
So he's tweeting about the empty folders.
And you're going to say to yourself, but Scott, this is a different topic.
The empty folders and the vaccinations, totally different topics, right?
They were.
Watch what Trump does to the empty folders.
Now here's what he said.
He posted on Truth Social that the empty folders were marked classified.
And then he explained that it was common for the folders to have contents in them during a meeting.
And at the end of the meeting, to keep these classified documents safe, they would collect up the documents, but not the folders.
Because the folders were unnecessary, because they were just going to maybe destroy the extra documents, probably, because they had copies.
And so Trump says that he had hundreds of them, and he kept them as cool keepsakes.
Does anybody believe that?
Does anybody believe he kept empty documents as cool keepsakes?
I don't think so.
I doubt it.
You might keep one.
You might keep three of them.
If he said I kept three of them as a keepsake, I'd say maybe.
They're literally just folders with words on them.
Why would you keep 300 of those?
So, I can't support this take, but he uses this to suggest that maybe the bad people in the FBI would put something in one of those folders to make it look like it was always there.
Now, who knows if anything like that would happen, but I think we'd all agree that the FBI is not above it.
Would you?
I mean, it's an outrageous claim that the FBI or somebody else would possibly plant classified documents just to put them away.
That's outrageous.
And also well within the range of things they've done recently.
Totally within the range.
So this is the sort of thing that 10 years ago, if you said the FBI is trying to frame me, wouldn't you laugh at that?
Oh, I think the FBI is trying to frame the president.
No, they're not.
But today?
Yeah, it looks totally within the realm of very reasonably possible.
Now, I don't think so.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against it.
But totally within the range of possible.
So Trump puts it out there just to keep that in your head.
Because he knows some people are going to believe it.
But here's the best part.
He said that, oh, he referred to the FBI agents as Gestapo.
Gestapo.
Do you see it yet?
I think he's going to brand the Democrats and the FBI as the real Nazis.
God, I hope so.
If there's... I'm not a believer, but just once, I'm going to pray.
Dear God, please let him just brand the Democrats and the FBI as the real Nazis.
And just, like, hammer it to death.
And please, if I can ask for one more thing, would you ask him to address directly the Fine People hoax?
Don't say a word about it.
Just create a good little video that shows it's a hoax and tweet it.
That's all.
That's all I ask.
What is Trump's biggest problem?
They think he's the Nazi.
Right?
Do you think he could brand the pro-mandate team that sends people in to, you know, rile, let's say, everybody from Roger Stone to you name it?
You don't think he can brand them as Nazis?
They want to take away your guns, Give you mandates.
Give power to the WEF.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
And if you told me there's going to be a politician running for office, and he's going to go branding his enemies as Nazis, what would you say?
You'd say, I don't like that guy.
Or woman.
You would say, No, no, no, no.
You can't be branding your enemies as Nazis.
This is the United States.
We're just political.
We're not branding anybody as a Nazi.
But in this one case, it's exactly the right thing to do.
He needs to brand them Nazis.
Full out.
And just say, you're Nazi hoaxers.
The FBI can't be trusted and needs to be gutted.
The leadership, not the good people who work there.
And he should just go for it.
Just go for it.
And I think he could win.
I think he could win.
What do you think?
Because his weakest point is, hey, blah, blah, blah, you're racist.
Now let's say he took my advice, which I don't think will happen, but suppose he took my advice and had to frame the border.
Hey, we're never going to agree on this border stuff.
Let's get a bunch of economists to tell us how many people to let in, and when, and what types.
And let's have it like the OMB, you know, some quasi-independent organization that can just tell you if it makes sense economically.
And whatever it makes sense economically to the people who are already here, we'll open the door a little bit.
And when it doesn't make sense, should that ever happen, we'll close the door a little bit.
But we're in a new world.
Imagine Trump saying this to, just imagine him saying this to conservatives.
You know, this isn't the world of five years ago.
We might actually have a population problem in the other direction.
We might have too few people.
Then imagine, and again, he's not going to do this, but imagine he could.
You know, the people coming through, we do have to worry about the criminal element.
But let's not forget that the people coming here tend to have conservative ideology.
You know, their family, religion, work.
Family, religion, work.
You can let a few family religion work people into the country without it falling apart.
You can let a lot of them in.
I just don't know what the right number is.
Is it 5 million a year?
I don't know.
It seems like a lot, doesn't it?
It seems like a lot, but I don't know.
That might actually be the right number.
It might be low.
I'm not sure there's any way to know.
That's why you need an independent group to just, you know, help us get a feel for the economics of this stuff.
So Trump could, because the situation is a little different than it used to be, he could totally sell it as something that should be decided by economics and that the politicians should maybe pull back a little bit so you're not just blaming each other being racist.
He can the Hispanic vote.
He could.
Do you know how?
If there's one thing If there's one, like, common stereotype, I hate to do stereotypes, but this one seems to hold up.
The Hispanic community, especially, you know, first generation and second generation, they don't like a lot of bullshit.
There's sort of a no bullshit culture.
You know what I mean?
They're not worried about your wokeness so much.
It's just not on their minds.
You don't think Trump could win a group like that?
All he'd have to do is offer him something.
Now, you know, citizenship would be probably too much for his base.
But yeah.
Now, and I also think that, yeah, and I think he could find some way to have like a I don't want to say second-rate citizenship for people who are not yet legal, but there probably is something like that that his base would live with, as long as the economic argument was made.
If he could make the argument we could keep the country safe enough and it's good for the economy, I think his base accepts it.
And it also accepts that it brings in people who are more like them than the people who are already here, on average.
Not in second rate pay.
No, not in second rate pay, of course.
But you could have somebody who has most of the rights of citizenship, but maybe short of voting.
If you knew somebody was here illegally, but also had a job, they had a job, and how about couldn't own firearms?
How about that?
So suppose there were some caravans.
Say, yeah, they could totally live here, but they can't vote.
They can get a driver's license and do all the work-related things, but they can't vote, and they can't own a firearm.
I'm just picking two random things.
Could you live with that?
If somebody made the argument that it's in your economic interest to allow more in, but be a little more careful about the vetting, could you live with that?
Now, what's the argument against?
If let's just take this as a hypothetical because you need to teach me what there's something I'm missing.
There's something in my mental model that's missing.
Is it just racism?
No, I'm saying if the people who are already here legally, you know, we have a long tradition of pardons and Paroles and, you know, reconstituting people who are in prisons and retraining them.
We have a long history of uncriminalizing criminals.
That wouldn't be new.
So that's not your objection, right?
You wouldn't object to the general concept that somebody who's minding their own business broke a technical law, but they're adding to the country.
You wouldn't allow them to have maybe a second-class citizenship, which would, you know, permanently keep them in, you know, not full citizenship.
But they're out into the country, and they want to be here.
And their kids would be full citizens, and blah, blah, blah.
No?
Somebody says you can't have second-class citizens?
Yes, you can.
What are children?
Children are second-class citizens.
What are illegal You know, immigrants are not citizens, but basically, we always have classes.
What are billionaires?
Are you the same class as a billionaire?
That's not an argument.
You can have all kinds of classes of people in a democracy.
Join the military?
Yeah, maybe they can join the military in certain circumstances.
All right, so I need you to educate me.
If you can handle the economics, And you could check them out better so that you're reducing the criminal element.
If you could know that they're paying taxes, right?
If you knew they were paying taxes and adding to the system, and independent economists said, yeah, we could let in a few more, and let's say Trump agreed to it, tell me the problem with it.
It's all hypothetical, right?
I'm not saying that's the situation.
Right, but if they were let in legally, legally, What would be your problem?
Yeah, they pay for their own health care, right?
They would just be like us, with a few fewer rights, maybe.
Their kids vote blue?
I think you should check that assumption.
Do you know why the kids vote blue?
Because Reds never tried to incorporate them.
The moment Red says, you know what?
We like workers.
We like people who like families.
We like religion.
You know what?
We love you guys.
They just have to say the words because, in fact, they do.
Show me any Republican in Congress.
Pick any Republican and say, all right, look at this guy.
This guy loves his family.
He's working, hasn't broken any laws, just wants to be an American.
You have a problem with that person?
Like, really?
Like, that's your problem?
The person who's living the ideal life that you wish everybody would live?
So, if you think that they're all going to vote blue when you could be right, just don't give them the vote.
By the second generation, they're going to be Republicans.
The second generation will just be Republicans.
Because by then, the Republicans will have figured out how to deal with this community in a more productive way.
And the Republicans have a perfect way to do it.
How about we just agree with your character, and we reach some agreement about the economics and who can vote and who can own a gun, and then we're all good.
I don't know.
So the only thing I'm going to try to convince you of is that there's a third path on immigration that's neither Democrat nor Republican, and it's the right one.
It's the one that makes sense.
All right, so let me acknowledge everybody's yelling, legal, legal, legal.
The people who are saying, because they're illegal, you should give them nothing.
Do you do understand that we have a long tradition of making legal people who were illegal?
It's an ordinary thing we do all the time.
So that's not really an objection that makes sense on any logical or other basis.
We do it all the time.
And the reason we do it is for our own benefit, right?
We wouldn't be doing it for the benefit of the criminal.
We'd be doing it for ourselves.
I want everybody to be paying taxes, don't you?
Why wouldn't you?
All right, I'm just going to put it out there as something that could be improved in terms of the messaging.
But I do like Trump saying that mandates are going to be, that's what the Nazis do to you.
I just gave you options.
And then when they say, but, but, but you gave us this risky vaccine, then Trump says, who didn't know it was a risk?
We could not have been more clear about that.
And I would agree.
He also says China is buying up all of our assets.
There's something to that, but I don't know what the extent is.
All right, here's my provocative thought for the day.
Would you agree with the following statement?
That the social media platforms, if their algorithms are favoring one political side or the other, that effectively they're running the country.
Would you agree with that statement?
That the algorithms could program the country so effectively, based on what they see, that the algorithm ends up running the country and not, you know, Congress and not the vote.
Congress ends up just, you know, going along with whatever social media forced into this thing.
Well, here's your provocative thought of the day.
The World Economic Forum is just an algorithm.
It just happens to be a physical one you can look at.
Here's why.
What an algorithm does is decide what you see and how often.
Right?
That's all it does.
An algorithm decides what you see and how often.
What does the World Economic Forum do?
Let's say you went to the World Economic Forum and say, you know, I'd like to have a presentation there.
And I'd like it to be on the topic of we should use more fossil fuels.
Do you think they'd say, you know, we like opinions on both sides, so yeah, here's a full platform for you to say your thing that's opposite of what we usually say, and we'll give you all the attention you want, because we like balance.
Do you think that's happening?
I don't think so.
I think that the World Economic Forum decides what they present, and also who attends.
They didn't invite me.
Did they invite any of you?
So if they can decide who's in and who's out, at least they can decide who they invite, and they can decide what information from their attendees rises to the point where it gets promoted, and what doesn't, they're an algorithm.
They are a physical algorithm, and that's how they can run the world.
Because all they have to do is control The information that they allow to be promoted through them, and then they get everybody on board, and they get their people in office, and everybody's like, ooh, I better make these World Economic Forum people happy, because they invite me on excellent vacations in Switzerland.
I love vacations in Switzerland.
And I get, like, luxury accommodations, and I get to meet all these other people, and all I have to do is do what they want.
And then I get all these benefits.
Yeah.
And the beauty of it is that because it's an organization, they use the fact that they have members who are the members of the ones who are surfacing all the ideas.
So the illusion is that there's some kind of quasi-democracy group decision making.
So it's not Klaus.
Oh no, no, it's not Klaus.
He's just like the organizer guy.
It's all these individuals who collectively Nothing like that's happening.
Because somebody decided who's there, and of course they know what that group of people is likely to say.
That's why they got invited, right?
They invited Al Gore.
They didn't invite, you know, Alex Epstein or Michael Schellenberger.
Did you see Michael Schellenberger anywhere at the World Economic Forum?
Do you think he was invited?
Do you?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Nope.
Bet he wasn't.
So the World Economic Forum acts just like an algorithm on a social media platform.
But if that's invisible to you, you easily get fooled into thinking it's all the smart people who got together and then came up with smart ideas.
And then only the good, smart ideas, you know, filtered up.
And so you're seeing the best of the best.
It's like the smartest, most connected people and all their best ideas.
That's how it's presented, is it?
No.
It's probably Klaus or maybe a handful of people who decide what's in and who's in, and that's it.
It's just like an algorithm.
So it is an algorithm that can control the world in those elements, you know, those areas that they want to, which are primarily financial, which is really everything.
If you control the finances of the world, what else do you need?
You don't want to control their military, do you?
That's just work.
You don't want to control who picks up the garbage, do you?
That would just be work.
No, you want to control the economy of everything.
And then you get your cut, you have your power, you have your influence, and basically the economy influences the military and everything else.
Well apparently Greta has been caught faking a staged arrest.
So we've seen the video as she's laughing and joking with the people who are allegedly going to drag her away.
And they're all putting on a show.
I don't really mind that.
That doesn't offend me.
Because the whole point of activists getting arrested is for the cameras, right?
So the fact that she's such a celebrity that even the people arresting her are just having a laugh with her and they're just preparing the camera angles so that when they drag her away it looks good.
I don't have any problem with that.
No problem at all.
Do you?
Because you know all activists are doing it for theatre.
Nobody's pretending.
They don't pretend they're really going to jail for Long sentence or anything like that.
So I don't know.
As long as it's all theater, I don't care.
I saw Al Gore getting very worked up at the World Economic Forum and just shouting at the world about how they're not doing enough about climate change.
Now, whether or not he is right or wrong, separate conversation and worthy having.
But here's my problem.
As many have noted, He doesn't act the way he talks.
In other words, he takes private jets and lives a lifestyle that uses a lot of energy.
He would argue that he bought carbon offsets.
By the way, did he know that?
I think he did.
So I think he used some of his vast recent money to buy carbon offsets.
Which is not a problem.
I'm actually going to give him a pass for that.
Did you know that?
By the way, I could use a fact check on that.
But I believe he was quite aware that he used more energy than the average person.
And I think he just went to whatever market there is and he bought... Now, the thinking behind that...
Is that if you create a free market for buying and selling carbon offsets, or yeah, I guess that's what it's called, that eventually that drives everything down to a more efficient, you know, less carbon producing world.
And I think the logic of that makes sense.
So in theory, he is being consistent by doing what he says some people will have to do, which is buy carbon credits and maybe that's the best you can do.
But here's the problem.
If Mahatma Gandhi had been fat, do you think he'd been just as effective?
Do you?
Hey everybody, I'm really fat and happy, but we should take the British.
No, he had to starve himself literally near death to be credible.
His credibility came with his suffering that was equal to or greater than the people he represented.
That's a problem, persuasion-wise, for Al Gore, because he's clearly living a more awesome life than the people he's trying to get to give stuff up.
If a rich person tells you to give up your stuff, you're not going to take that well.
If somebody who's suffering more than you and has less than you, basically lives in one dirty diaper, you're going to say, Well, if you can do that, I can give up a little bit.
I can take on some risk to get rid of the British rule or something.
So that's definitely working against Gore, is that even though I think he's on a logically solid basis, people don't work on logic.
It just looks like he's not walking the walk.
So that'll be a problem.
Let's see what else.
Are you all aware of the Steven Crowder versus the Daily Wire controversy.
I don't know if that's...
Risen to your attention yet.
So I'll give you a, alright, a lot of you not.
So Stephen Crowder recently, I think I have the details right, recently out of his contract with The Blaze, and he always, I think, independently produced his show, so he can just do his show with or without any other platform.
But the Daily Wire, realizing that he was a, you know, a superstar in their, in their domain, made him an offer.
And there was one element of the offer that he objected to, and he talked about it on the air.
He didn't name the entity that made it, but everybody figured it out in about a minute.
So, I was asked who was winning the persuasion.
Because, on one hand, it was a very generous offer, $50 million over four years, but he would have to do his own production, so that $50 million would have to pay for his production costs as well.
So let's say that, I don't know, Takes 10 or 20% off of that, still a real big number.
And then an option for two more years at the same per year price.
Now, the party objected to was there was some language in there that if he gets strikes or bans on other social platforms, you know, let's say Facebook or Twitter or something, that they would pay him less money.
So there would be penalties in there for getting banned on platforms.
And he always gets banned on platforms.
Like, he's always getting strikes and stuff.
So he thought that that was... I don't know what word he'd use.
Inappropriate?
Or unfair?
Or too much control?
Too much control, right?
Probably.
But he thought that was sort of icky and... Don't talk like that.
We don't like those words.
So over $10 million per year, you know, after expenses probably.
And I'll tell you the most interesting part of the story.
So first of all, here's my persuasion analysis.
I thought they both won.
You don't see that often.
But I think the Daily Wire and Jeremy Boring, who did a video about it, I thought he totally came off looking great, because in the process of explaining the offer they made, he also got to explain how substantial their operation is.
And I wasn't fully aware of that.
And I thought, wow, that looks like a really... The Daily Wire, as a business model, and as a new business, is really something to behold.
I think they do everything right.
Like, just everything.
It's one of the few companies you can look at and say, all right, it looks like they just keep doing all the right stuff, and they're growing, and now they're going to make movies.
And here's how they explain the movies they're going to make, because they want to be a media entity, not just a bunch of podcaster types.
And the movies they make are movies you want to watch.
Isn't it funny that that's like a real thing?
That somebody saw an opening for making movies you'd want to watch.
Last night I tried to find a movie I wanted to watch.
I ended up with a movie from, like, the early 90s that I had already seen.
That's it.
There wasn't any movie currently out that wouldn't make me uncomfortable, right?
Because if you turn on basically any movie, it's going to be somebody tortured in a chair, somebody lost their money, somebody's loved one died.
I don't get any entertainment from that.
That's like stuff I run from.
But you don't see sitcoms and funny comedies anymore, because that's sort of phased out.
So the fact that The Daily Wire It has a theory that they want to make movies you might want to watch.
It's pretty interesting.
And it's also right on target.
Right on target.
And some TV shows, I guess.
But here's what I found out about the Daily Wire.
They have 600,000 subscribers.
And they have 150 million, I think it's revenue, per year.
That's really substantial.
And the part about the subscribers is that that makes them not fully dependent on advertising, although advertising is part of the model.
Everything about that's smart.
Everything about that.
And the offer that they made, as Jeremy Boring explained, was a first offer.
So in the normal give and take of negotiating, They made an offer that apparently Steven Crowder did not like.
There was one part of it that was just totally unacceptable.
But instead of doing what people normally do, a counter-offer, he sort of went public with it.
Now, does that make him a bad person?
Well, it might make him a person who's not experienced at negotiating contracts, but I think he has an agent.
So...
I feel like maybe there was a better way to handle that.
But here's what I found out about Steven Crowder that I didn't know.
He has about 5 million YouTube subscribers.
Did you know that?
5 million?
He's one of the biggest media stars in the world.
I had no idea.
Like, I was well aware of him.
I've seen his content a bunch of times.
But I had no idea.
I had no idea he was that big.
And so when you see this $50 million offer, my first thought was, are you kidding?
Like, in what world does that make sense?
And then I saw his numbers, and you run the numbers, and you go, oh, yeah, actually, that was actually a perfectly reasonable first offer.
Perfectly reasonable.
He might have gotten more.
In fact, He would have gotten more.
All he had to do was push back a little bit and he would have gotten more.
Now maybe he wouldn't have been satisfied with the parts about, you know, if he doesn't perform on social media in some ways.
But he probably could have negotiated that a little.
There was probably a way to You know, make that work?
I don't know.
Because if he got kicked off of YouTube, that would be a big hit to the Daily Wire.
So why should they just accept that risk without trying to mitigate it?
Now, how they mitigate it, that could be a longer negotiation.
But his best, in a traditional world, let me give Steven Crowder more credit than it sounds like I gave him so far.
In a traditional world, you should just negotiate these things privately.
Go back and forth and see what you can do.
Not go public.
The going public part is the weird part.
But, he's Steven Crowder.
The rules don't apply to him.
Russell Brand.
The rules don't apply.
There are a lot of people for whom the rules don't apply.
Greg Gottfeld.
All the rules don't quite apply.
Joe Rogan, the rules don't apply.
So when Steven Crowder goes public and he says this huge solid entity offered me a deal, and then certainly you find out what the dollar amount is later, He's really making himself more famous and looking more valuable, which he succeeded at.
So here's the persuasion play.
After looking into this and just being aware of their little fight, I came away with a much higher opinion of Steven Crowder's business model and value of it.
At the same time, I came away with a huge respect for The Daily Wire, just how they're running their business.
That's a win.
That's a double win.
Two wins.
Now, is there anything that would stop them from still doing the deal?
No.
Absolutely not.
Because they're business people, right?
In negotiations, you do get some bad feelings and stuff.
But if you're a Jeremy Boring or you're Ben Shapiro, you don't think they know how to get past a little bit of a tiff.
You know, and get back to business?
Of course they do.
Of course.
Easily.
Easily.
You don't think Steven Crowder can say some things about some people and then get past it?
Of course he can.
So neither of them lost anything.
Zero loss on either side.
Both of them raised their profile quite appropriately.
Win-win.
When you see people seemingly having a conflict and they're all high-end operators, because these are people who are killing it in their independent fields.
Well, same field, I guess.
So when you see them fight, you've got to put a whole different frame on it, because their world of options isn't like normal people.
Crowder can throw away a $50 million deal With confidence that it might get him another one.
Or a higher deal or a better deal or something.
So they're not like us.
Let's talk about dumb Joe Biden and his... I can't stand it when he says that people with the AR-15s, they're not going to be much good against the F-15s that the American government has if they're going to fight the government.
Number one.
Every country that the U.S.
military has tried to conquer, they had their own firearms.
That country won.
There's a reason we're no longer in Afghanistan.
There's a reason that Vietnam kicked us out.
We're not really good at beating anything except the military.
But when it comes down to getting into their homes, that's sort of a police thing.
And there are not enough police in the United States to handle all the residents who have guns.
The F-15 isn't going to strike your house.
And the F-15s just won't be part of anything.
Now, the part that I like to add is that if you're trying to keep an American tyrant from taking over and turning it into a tyrannical regime, That dictator would have to know that all of their family would be killed in a week by the people who have guns.
Nobody's going to go after Joe Biden, but they'll kill Hunter within a day or take him captive, right?
Hunter doesn't have a chance.
Now, just to be clear, I don't recommend any violence, especially against families, you know, so I'm not promoting any of this.
I'm just describing.
If we actually got to a point where whoever was the leader of the country wanted to turn it into a Nazi regime or something, the people with the guns wouldn't go after the leader.
But that leader could never go in public again.
And nobody in their family could ever be in public again.
Who wants that?
They would be winning something they didn't want.
It would be a terrible life.
You could never go outside because somebody would take a shot at you.
Now, an ordinary rational person will not try to assassinate a political leader just because they don't like their politics.
But that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about like a Hitler-like entity taking over the country.
If that were to happen, we would all take a shot at the leader.
We would just need an open shot.
We would all do it.
I'd do it.
I would risk my life to take out a killer.
I would just have to have a shot.
That's all.
I might do myself right afterwards, so I didn't have to get tortured to death.
But we'd all do it.
Yeah.
So every time I hear that, oh, those AR-15s will be useless against F-15s, I don't know what Hunter Biden's going to do when they go to round him up.
And all of his family and everybody that you like and all of your friends.
You're basically going to lose everything.
Nobody you know will be able to go outdoors ever again.
So good luck if you want to conquer the country and have that kind of life.
So it's a good disincentive.
Yeah, that worked in Venezuela.
Venezuela didn't have enough guns.
Yeah, anything you do to compare the United States to any other country is a waste of time.
We're just not like any other country.
We're just not.
Yeah.
Read the screenshot?
What screenshot?
Why does Joe provoke?
What screenshot?
You retweeted the screenshot.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I retweeted the screenshot.
Oh, the 4chan thing?
All right.
Yeah, 4chan had a good rant on this.
So you can see that in my Twitter feed.
Please reconsider what?
Why do they focus on the ARs?
Because they look like military weapons.
I think.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
And how many of you know what AR stands for?
How many?
Go ahead, say it.
What does AR stand for?
Somebody actually said assault rifle.
It is not.
It is not Assault Rifle.
But that is a... Oh, this is interesting.
It's not Automatic Rifle, it's Armalite.
Armalite... Is it Armalite Rifle?
Or is the AR for Armalite?
Well, Armalite is the A, for sure.
So it's not assault.
It never was.
Geraldo is funny.
Yeah, I think you're totally missing the value of Geraldo on The Five.
Geraldo is great on The Five.
Because he gets them all worked up.
He takes some alternative views that you don't like.
He supports them well.
I think Geraldo was great on The Five.
But I also think Juan Williams was great.
Because in both cases, they know their role.
Geraldo's fitting a role where he's trying to be a little provocative and get something going.
That's his job.
I think he does it really well.
I absolutely love Geraldo.
He's one of my favorite TV people.
Brave as hell.
Can't get embarrassed.
You cannot embarrass him.
So, I just love that stuff.
But I understand.
He seems unpopular because you think he's arguing against the people you like.
But, you know, that's the show.
Alright, was there anything I missed?
Any topics I should have mentioned?
And by the way, let me just do a little test with you.
When I talked about what Trump could do, did it sound like he could win?
We don't know what he'll do.
But did I describe a path where he could just walk into the White House?
I think I did.
Yeah.
And again, he's very unpredictable.
He's going to do what he does.
But I think he drew up a plan that if he stuck to it, he could walk into the White House again.
It looks like it.
Yeah, Armalade rifle, I think, is the right answer.
Amen.
All right.
You're flooded with illegals.
Yeah.
Okay.
Amish rifle.
Who is advising Trump?
I don't know.
Oh, how many of you saw Matt Gaetz on Timcast?
Highly recommended.
Tim Poole does good work.
The Timcast, this is another business model that I have a lot of respect for.
Even if you just go to the Timcast website, it's a really good website.
It's really put together like exactly It just looks exactly right.
He got good advice or good help on that.
And then the show itself looks like high production.
It's always interesting.
But anyway, so Matt Gaetz comes on.
And I'm going to say something that I want you to test.
You tell me if I'm wrong.
But you have to watch Matt Gaetz on Tim Pool.
If you've seen a lot of Matt Gaetz, he's usually just doing quick one-minute hits for a media hit.
His one-minute hits are really good, but his long form, where he can actually expand on something, the best in the government.
There's nobody on either side who does long-form explanations better than he does.
Period.
There's nobody in his class.
Now here's the thing that's just amazing.
He went from as politically dead as you could possibly be to Are you going to be running for president, and would you accept the vice president role if Trump asked you, and everybody wants to talk to you, and by the way, you did that great job with McCarthy, and it's good that you can work with him now.
Everybody came out ahead.
You're the only one fighting for us.
How did he do that?
How in the world did he pull that off?
But he did pull it off.
Am I wrong?
Is there anybody here who saw him on Timcast and does not feel he's not only fully redeemed politically, but he has some impressive power levels there, more than we've seen.
And here's one of the other things that he does consistently right that I don't see other people doing consistently right.
He defended Eric Swalwell from the Fang Fang accusation.
Just hold that in your mind.
Now, he's consistent.
He also defined Katie... Who is the woman in Congress who got... There were some pictures that came out.
Porter?
Was that her name?
Hill?
Katie Hill.
Yeah, he defended her.
Like, you know, leave her alone, basically.
That's just her private life.
And now, so here's his defense of Swalwell.
And by the way, I didn't know this.
This was all new to me.
So that tells you how bad my bubble is.
He said that the Fang Fang thing, the affair anyway, happened when he was a single man.
So that's a big deal because I thought it happened when he was married.
I didn't know.
That's a huge deal.
All right.
It's a huge deal for trust.
But also happened when he was a councilman in Dublin, California.
Now, As Matt Gaetz described it, he described Dublin, California as Nowhere, California.
He was a councilman in Nowhere, California.
I have a small objection to that, because I lived in Dublin while he was a council member.
Yes, I lived in Nowhere, California.
And let me say this about Dublin, California.
It's one of the best towns in California.
It is fiscally solid, with really good schools, low crime, and you would definitely want to live there.
Pleasanton's better.
It's got a downtown.
Dublin doesn't have a downtown.
But if you live next to it, you get all the Dublin benefits plus the Pleasanton benefits.
It's one of the best places in the country, honestly.
But living in Dublin's not as good as living right next to it.
And then you get all the Dublin goodness.
So that's my defense of Dublin.
But apparently he had an affair, didn't know she was Chinese, a spy.
As soon as he found out, he worked with the FBI, got rid of her.
I'm going to accept that.
I accept Matt Gaetz's defense of Eric Swalwell.
And as Matt Gaetz says, you don't need any of that.
To kick him off the Intel Committee, because he was part of the Russia collusion hoax.
I mean, that's good enough.
That's good enough to kick him off.
So you don't need any of that.
It's just a distraction.
And it also puts you in a weird situation, because you know there's going to be another Republican you like, who has some kind of, like, sexual impropriety.
So just taking that stuff off the table is the smartest thing a politician could do.
There's no other Republican who is smart enough to do that.
Now, don't you trust him more, Matt Gaetz?
Don't you trust him more because he wasn't willing to just take a narrative?
He rejected the narrative.
I do.
Does it tell you that... Oh, and he also admitted he got caught on tape or video talking to AOC, and he said, yes, I talked to AOC, I talked to Ilhan Omar, and who was the other one on the squad?
And you talk to them about whether the Democrats were going to walk out or vote with the Republicans or not.
So he had a reason to talk to them, Rashida Tlaib.
Yeah, it was Rashida, I think.
I think it was Rashida.
Now how much do you like the fact that Matt Gaetz can occasionally defend a colleague against really an unfair attack, and can also talk to them and they seem to be able to respond to him, and he can also talk to McCarthy?
Was it Presley?
Oh, maybe it was Presley, yeah.
I may have the third person's name wrong, you're right.
Oh, you would have a strong border.
The only way the economists making decisions about who comes into the country... There was a question here on YouTube.
The only way it makes sense to have economists tell you who to let in the country and when, is if you completely control the border.
So that's just a given.
Under all conditions, We should tightly control the border, but we should also decide how to let people in separately.
So that's the problem we make.
We keep conflating how many people to leave in with the physical security.
Those should not be the same topic.
One should be total physical security.
Second topic, when do you open the door?
Just like your house.
You don't say, well, people might sneak into my house so I won't have any doors or windows.
Nobody makes that decision.
Trump versus Newsom, who would win?
I hate to say it might have to do with, you know, mail-in votes and other things that where the system would favor the Democrats.
So probably the system elements are bigger than the candidates at the moment.
Maybe Trump could get past that.
But I think the system decides who's president, not the voters exactly in our current situation.
So if, for example, the total media shut Trump out, Then he couldn't be president.
So it's not up to Trump.
It's also up to the system and how the system works.
But yes, I think it's at least a coin flip.
Trump versus Newsom?
I think that's a coin flip.
With what we know today.
How about let the wisdom of crowds specify the number of immigrants?
Interesting suggestion.
The wisdom of crowds.
Let me try to support your idea before I give you an opinion.
So that would be, instead of asking the economists who get everything wrong anyway, which is the problem with my suggestion, you let the, let's say the public, decide.
The problem is the public is poorly informed.
So you might need to limit it to people who voted, because they're going to try a little harder to be informed.
But let's say the people who voted came up with a number of people to come in.
The good part about that is that the wisdom of crowds would pick up how people feel about it.
And how people feel about it is actually part of the question.
Because if you have a really bad attitude about it, you might vote differently, you might treat them differently.
So how they feel does matter, and the economists might ignore how people feel, and just say, oh, the dollars are better this way.
But if it were the wisdom of the crowds, where you just polled the public, and you said, should we let in another million, yes or no?
Then people would look around, and they'd say, well, how do I feel?
Does this feel like a risk to me, or not?
Because our feelings are part of the decision.
If something makes you feel bad, it costs you.
That's a price.
So you can't ignore that.
And I think the economists would ignore that.
Whereas the wisdom of the crowds, if we just sort of voted on it, would capture how we feel and also a little bit a sense of the economics as best we could.
That's a good suggestion.
I think that's a productive suggestion.
All right.
Should cops attack?
What?
Let the economists suggest and the people decide.
Well, there you go.
There you go.
That would be a twofer, wouldn't it?
That's not bad.
All right, so the suggestion is, you let the economists make their recommendation, but you don't follow it.
You see how the public feels first, because their feelings matter.
You could easily imagine that the economists say, you know, that this is going to be a good thing to let in a million people.
And you could imagine that the public saying, you know, I don't feel comfortable with that.
Like, I see your numbers, but I just don't feel comfortable with it for whatever reason.
And then maybe have the president have the final vote.
But then the president could look at the economists, or it could look at the public, or it could look at the both of them.
Still, you probably want the President to make the decision.
Or Congress, I suppose.
But I'd love to see it informed by the public and the economists.
Let the crowds specify and the economists verify.
If you flipped it around... I think the public is better at responding to the experts than the experts are at responding to just, like, an uninformed feeling.
I think it works better, economists first.
But that's a good suggestion.
I like all the suggestions that, you know, at least make you think a little deeper.
So that's like a great suggestion.
Yeah, tyranny, blah, blah.
Experts responding to feelings is how we got lockdowns.
Maybe.
How much would you like to see me interview Rob Reiner?
Would that be wild?
No?
Really?
You said no?
Seriously?
You don't think that would entertain you?
Or is it just you don't want to hear any more from him?
Oh my god.
See, here's why I would be the perfect one to interview him.
Because I like him.
I like him.
I don't know, he's just likeable.
Like, the stuff he says just looks, you know, batshit crazy, but that's because we're so political animals at this point.
But I know I would have a fun conversation, and I think we'd both learn something.
It actually could be useful.
Might be good for the country, you never know.
I'm still planning to do interviews, but probably once the real political season gets cranked up.
Because then I'll have an unlimited number of people who want to talk to me for politics.
So I think I'll do them not live.
Because the tech isn't quite ready for live.
It would fail too often.
So I think I'll do that not live and make some recorded videos.
The people I want to talk to are Trump.
And I think Trump will do a lot of podcasts, because that's really a strong play.
He'll do that, obviously.
I don't know if he would do mine, but he'll do most of the big podcasts he gets invited to.
And do you think I could get Newsom?
I mean, I live in California.
And here's the thing.
I would let all of them show their best face.
It would not be my job to embarrass somebody who was nice enough to do the interview.
I would certainly be forceful in my counterpoints, but I'm not going to get excited about it.
Steve Cortez.
You're recommending him as a guest?
I love Steve Cortez.
Everything he does, I like.
Yeah, I don't think I would ask the same questions as other people, do you?
I think that my questions would be completely different than anybody else's.
So that would be fun.
I'm guessing that Scott would push Fentanyl.
Well, I'd certainly mention Fentanyl.
Carrie Lake, Matt Gaetz.
I'd love to talk to Matt Gaetz.
See here's what I think you need to do a good interview.
The person you're talking to has to believe that you're not there to take them down.
And I wouldn't do that.
Because it would be unfair.
So I think I convince people that I'm there to let them show their best side.
Andrew Tate.
Tate's not a political figure.
And I don't think Nick Fuentes is a political figure at this point.
Set up the chairs like Shatner did, where the chairs are like knee to knee.
