Episode 2028 Scott Adams: Trump Witch Hunt Grand Jury, Ramaswamy vs Cartels, Eric & UFOs, More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
If you're White, don't live in a Black neighborhood
Nikki Haley ahead of DeSantis in poll
Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, & UFOs
The Political Gooners
Georgia Grand Jury foreperson...witch?
Ukraine war, ammo shortage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and today's show, amazing!
I mean, I don't like to get you too fired up for no reason, but it will be amazing.
And that's why I'm going to make the locals' platform private right now, because I'll tell them some secret stuff later.
Well, well, well.
How would you like to take today's amazing moment that you're about to experience, elevate it to the best thing that's ever happened to anybody everywhere in the entire history of civilization?
Well, you'd like that.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or 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 of the dopamine the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
And a special welcome to any Klopp-Berts who still don't know they were the victims of a hoax.
A double hoax.
You got hoaxed once by 4chan and Reddit, and then once by me.
You got double hoaxed.
You're the most hoaxed group in America.
Double hoaxed.
Good for you.
Here's a trivia question for you.
During the time when slavery was legal in America, name two presidents who did not own slaves, did not own slaves, while it was still legal.
So prior to Abraham Lincoln.
Both of them were named Adams, right?
John Adams and John Quincy Adams, the two presidents who did not own slaves back when it was legal.
In fact, John Adams famously defended a slave as his free attorney.
Yes.
So my cousins have always been on the side of the right.
Now, there's a video of me that's going around.
In which I said, in no uncertain terms, that based on opinion polls from Rasmussen, about half of black Americans don't think it's cool to be white.
It's just not okay to be white.
So since I've designated that to be a hate group, black Americans, a hate group, collectively, not every individual, obviously.
Anything I say about a group, you're all smart enough to know that doesn't apply to all individuals, right?
You know that, right?
If I say that most of the presidents until Obama, or all of them I guess, were white, that doesn't mean I was the president.
You get that, right?
You can talk about groups and it doesn't mean anything about any individual.
So if I say that black Americans are a hate group, does that mean I don't like my neighbor who is black and a doctor?
Oh, he's great.
I love that guy.
It has nothing to do with individuals.
I've made no comment about individuals.
I love black individuals.
Right?
And all kinds of individuals.
So as an individual, I'm always going to treat you as an individual.
Whether I want to date you, have sex with you, hire you, work with you, talk to you, it's always going to be who the individual is.
I've never had any I don't think I've ever had any negative interactions with any black American in my life.
Or any black, you know, any nationality.
But, it is nonetheless true that white people trying to help black America for decades and decades has completely failed.
And we should just stop doing it.
Because all we got is cult racists, basically.
There's no payoff.
I think what finally pushed me over the edge was finding out that the school systems in a lot of our inner cities, they're graduating zero people who can read and do math.
Zero.
And as I've said before, the only strategy that works for any group in America is focusing on education.
If that's not your top focus, I don't want to help you.
Let me say that as clearly as possible.
If education is not your primary focus, now I get that it's hard to do, but if it's not your primary focus, I don't want to have anything to do with you.
Helping you improve, helping you succeed, reparations, nothing.
I don't even want to have a conversation.
Who is the most notable black leader Pushing education as a way to improve the life of black Americans.
Who's that person?
Somebody said Ben Carson.
Yeah, probably.
Probably.
Somebody said Bill Cosby.
Okay, I hate the fact that that's true.
I hate the fact that that's true.
I think it's true that Bill Cosby was big on education, wasn't he?
Yeah.
Tim Scott, good.
But you're mentioning politicians who are more famous just for being generally politicians.
But who's the black leader who just is known as the education person?
Now, you're mentioning a lot of people like Thomas Sowell, who's excellent, Ben Carson, Obama.
Yeah, they all say it, but it's not really a focus, is it?
If you tell me that any of them are famous as making it their focus, I would say maybe famous to a very small number of people.
But there's nobody who's really, you know, the brand for that.
Yeah, Larry Elder.
I mean, I'm sure every black leader has talked about education.
But it's not really talked about like a focus, is it?
How much did we talk about George Floyd?
Versus education.
It's not even close.
Right?
So anybody who doesn't focus on education, I don't want to help them.
I'm out.
Completely out.
But just to be completely clear, it has nothing to do with individuals.
I love individuals of all types.
Always have.
That's not changing.
It's just if we're going to treat groups as groups, I'm going to say, well, here, let me say this.
The LGBT group, it's sort of weird to throw such different people in the same group, but LGBT people in America, huge success.
Am I right?
Have you ever said to yourself, I don't want to go into that gay neighborhood Because of all the crime and littering?
You've never heard that?
You've never heard that?
Nope.
Not at all.
So, you know, you can talk about groups and say some things that maybe are a little bit useful, but, you know, doesn't have anything to do with individuals.
All right.
Have you been to Atlanta?
All right.
And you know how the world works, because I said something provocative that literally everyone agrees with, which is if you're white, don't live in a black neighborhood.
It's too dangerous.
And half of the people there will think it's not okay to be white, according to the recent poll.
That would be crazy.
So, predictably, a white man comes after me on Twitter and says, Oh, you're telling me I should get away from my black family members?
Does that sound like something I would say?
That you should get away from your black family members?
I'm assuming in-laws, I don't know.
That's stupid.
That's stupid.
And then I asked him, do you live in a mostly black neighborhood?
I didn't wait for the answer, because I don't have to.
Because the people who are going to come after me all agree with me.
There's not a single one of those white people who are going to be, you know, what do you call it, signaling, socially signaling?
They're going to come after me to socially signal, but they don't live in black neighborhoods.
They're taking my advice.
That's all I'm saying.
Am I saying that this one individual's probably a sister-in-law or something like that?
Am I saying that his sister-in-law sucks because she's black?
No!
No, I don't even know your sister-in-law.
Don't even know her.
Of course not.
I'll even go further.
I'm not sure that black women are even part of the question.
Because, you know, I don't see a ton of danger from black women.
I mean, you see videos of them fighting and stuff.
Usually it's women fighting with other women, most of the time.
And it's not old black people.
It's not senior citizens.
It's not toddlers.
So it's not even about black Americans.
It's about youngish black males, for whatever reason, and I'm no longer interested in finding out.
It's a dangerous situation.
You should just stay away.
But if any individual young black man comes to ask for a job, should be fully considered with no bias if you can manage it.
So yeah, don't discriminate against individuals.
Don't do that.
By helping as a group would be ridiculous at this point.
Did you see the video of Biden falling up the stairs of Air Force One?
He was going up the stairs and suddenly he goes down to all fours.
But fairly quickly he got back up.
Now, I believe that's been misinterpreted.
Because what I saw was, it looked like he was starting to change into a werewolf.
And you know how that works, right?
You'll be walking along and all of a sudden... And you get onto all fours.
But then I think he caught himself because he realized he wasn't at the entrance to the plane yet.
He's like, uh-oh.
And then once he gets back on the jet, he's like, back into werewolf mode.
I mean, that's just a guess.
I wouldn't put any money on it, but that's just my interpretation.
I don't know.
Like, that's just what I saw.
All right.
Rasmussen did some polling about Nikki Haley, see how she would do in the presidential race if she ran against Biden, and also how she would do in primaries.
Interestingly, she would beat Biden in a head-to-head.
How about that?
So interestingly, I think I lost the signal here for a moment.
But according to Rasmussen polls, in a three-way contest for the GOP nomination between Trump, Haley, and DeSantis, now it won't be a three-way probably, but it might be toward the end.
That's possible.
Let's see.
52% of Republicans would choose Trump if it were a three-way between DeSantis and Nikki Haley.
And when I say a three-way, I will allow you to think naughty thoughts.
That's not what I intend, but once I said it, I realized, okay, that's what you're thinking.
So you're allowed.
You may think naughty sexual thoughts when I say a three-way competition.
Go ahead.
Do it.
You know you want to.
Anyway, so Trump would get 52% in the primary.
28% would say Haley and 24% would say DeSantis.
Did you see that coming?
Now I assume that's because the Trump votes and the DeSantis votes are a little bit fungible.
Like those are the ones that can go either way more easily.
Whereas the Nikki Haley votes are probably an anti-Trump vote.
Does that make sense?
So, under that dynamic, you can see how Haley would be slightly more than DeSantis if it were a three-way.
It doesn't mean it would be that if it were a two-way.
If it were a two-way between Nikki Haley and DeSantis, I think the Trump votes would go mostly to DeSantis.
I think.
I think it would be two-to-one.
Probably two-to-one DeSantis.
But I don't know.
Because I was actually surprised by this result.
And it's also super early, you know, you can't make too much of the polls at this point.
All right, but more interestingly, if Nikki Haley went up against Joe Biden head to head in a hypothetical matchup, according to Rasmussen, 45% of likely US voters would vote for Haley and 41% for Biden.
What do you think of that?
Does that sound legitimate?
Because I wonder if Nikki Haley would pick up some of the, you know, the person of color or woman vote just automatically.
Because that's how it works, right?
No matter what you are, you sort of pick up that group, at least some of them, automatically.
And we don't typically have Republicans running for office.
Who can sort of automatically get any Democrat votes just by being who they are.
It doesn't work that way.
So it would be interesting to have a person of color running as a Republican.
Speaking of which, we'll talk about Ramaswamy in a bit.
All right.
I could not be more amused or interested in the latest Joe Rogan conversation with Eric Weinstein.
How many of you saw that?
Talking about UFOs.
That was one of the most interesting conversations.
It was super interesting.
But I'll give you the part that I loved.
So according to Eric, there is some governmental group, top secret governmental group, who has, as long ago as three years ago, I believe, started offering to Eric, and also to Sam Harris,
That they could personally be taken to a secret government facility to see what Eric supposes might be something in the UFO domain, but the actual topic of what the government wants to show them is not disclosed.
So there's an assumption happening here that it's about aliens, but I think that's just short of being confirmed.
Now, here's the funny part.
Apparently there have been a number of back and forths in which the offer was made.
Hey, we'll take you to see this top secret stuff.
And then it would fall apart.
And then they'd come back.
Oh, we mean it this time.
We're really going to show you this stuff.
And then they'd say yes.
And they'd be planning to do it.
And then something would change and they'd delay it for three years.
So they'd never seen anything.
But for three years they've been teased.
Now here's the funny part.
Sam Harris bowed down after the third one.
So after the third time they said they were going to do it and they changed their minds or they delayed, Sam Harris said, I think he just called BS on it.
Yeah.
Now, uh, Eric is still interested and I don't know, it would be hard not to be interested because if they ever come through and actually show him something, it'd be interesting.
But here's my question to you.
Just on the surface, you don't know anything about the situation except what I tell you.
And here's what I'm going to tell you.
Of all the people on the planet Earth that the top secret organization wanted to show their UFOs, they chose Sam Harrison and Eric Weinstein.
Can you explain that?
How is that now funny just on the surface?
And by the way, I'm not making fun of the two individuals.
The two individuals I like a lot.
I like Sam Harris.
I like Bret Weinstein.
Even if I don't agree with them on different things, they're both very serious, American, patriotic, good citizens.
They're good people, very smart, mean well.
I have only positive thoughts about both of them.
But I think it's hilarious That the two of them entertained the concept that they would be allowed the secret peek at the UFOs?
Let me tell you this.
Do you know how a prank, like the best prank, is organized?
Do you know how to do that?
Let me tell you.
I think I've explained this before.
The best kind of prank is the one that wouldn't be believed by anybody except the subject of the prank, the target.
So let me give you an example.
Let's say you had a friend who believed he or she to be quite beautiful, but the rest of you, not so much.
You were thinking, well, maybe you think you're beautiful, and it's good that you have a good high opinion of yourself, but maybe not.
Now, if there were a person in your life like that who believed they were beautiful, but objectively didn't seem like it, a prank on that person would be, A model agency is calling you because although you do not have standard beauty, you have exactly the kind of beauty that's in vogue and we want to make a major magazine pictorial of you.
Now what would make this a funny prank is that nobody in the world would believe it's true except the one who got pranked.
They're the only one who thinks that's plausible.
Now take this back to Sam Harris and Brad Weinstein.
And by the way, this prank would have worked on me so easily, right?
I'm glad it didn't happen to me.
But imagine coming to me.
It's the same problem, right?
It's an ego problem.
Imagine coming to me, some government agency, and they say, Scott, you're the only person in the country we trust to show you our UFOs.
And I'd say, why?
Why would I be that person?
And they'd say, well, we've been listening to you on social media, and you say such smart and unbiased things that we think you're the best messenger to tell the world about it.
What would I do in that situation?
If that were a prank, what would I do?
Oh, I would fall for that so hard.
I would fall through the floor for that prank.
Because it's right on the nose of what I would want to believe.
It's sort of like it makes me look good.
So of course I want to believe it.
Well, that makes perfect sense.
Of all the people in the United States, they've been watching me on Twitter.
Yes.
Yes, that's got to be it.
And all of my wise tweets have finally put me in a position where I alone can see the secrets of the UFOs.
When do I buy my plane ticket?
When do I buy my plane ticket?
I want to go now.
If it turns out that we have captured alien spaceships, or dead aliens, or Bennyette alive in cages, and it turns out that Erica sees them and takes some pictures and tells the world about them, then I'm wrong about everything.
However, this has all the hallmarks of a very good prank.
I don't know.
I don't know, but if I had to choose between we have a UFO in custody and the two people that the government wanted to see at first were Sam and Eric, I think I'm going to go with prank as being a little bit more likely.
There is, however, one other possibility.
And I can't tell you the details.
But I will tell you that years ago, a person in a sensitive government department, I guess you'd call it, oh, I'll be vague, I'll call it a department, an area of the government, asked if I wanted to have a preview of the government's most secret knowledge about a topic that I won't mention.
So I won't mention the topic.
But I was asked if I wanted to see the biggest secrets of the government.
Things that you would love to know.
Trust me, you would love to know.
And it was all bullshit.
Because I did say yes.
And I did go look.
And it was all bullshit.
In my opinion.
Now the person who was in charge of it did not think it was bullshit.
The person in charge believed that they had found something of value.
And I listened to it, and I listened to the evidence, and I said to myself, no.
So the other possibility is that it's not a prank on Sam Harris and Brett Weinstein.
It's possible that the government has something, and they don't know what it is.
It could be like a piece of metal that they can't identify.
And in their minds, they've built it up to be more than it is, which is just something they can't identify.
So my guess is, they keep thinking they have a UFO, and then they're going to show some people, but the more they think about it, maybe they just have a piece of metal that they can't identify.
Right?
It might be just something like that, where they think they have something, but they don't.
So again, we're just speculating.
Can't read minds.
But I'll tell you what I would not bet on.
I would not bet on we have any captured UFOs and the government wanted Sam Harris and Brett Weinstein to see it first.
That feels unlikely.
Do you know why that's unlikely?
Because obviously they would have asked me to see it first.
Am I right?
All right, that was sarcasm.
Alright, I love that story.
That's so good.
Speaking of Sam Harris, he's getting a lot of trouble by saying something that I say.
So of course I'm going to defend him on this, because he says exactly what I say.
And he's getting all kinds of internet trouble.
So he's even trending, Sam Harris is on Twitter today, and he quit Twitter.
So one way to trend on Twitter is to quit Twitter.
So here's what he said.
This is it.
Well, I think he said this.
It's a quote.
I didn't see it on video, but it sounds like he would have said it.
So I believe it's true.
So here's the quote from Sam Harrison.
During the pandemic, we witnessed the birth of a new religion of contrarianism and conspiracy thinking, the first sacrament of which is to, quote, do your own research.
Does that sound familiar?
Goes on.
The problem is that very few people are qualified to do this research.
And the result is a society driven by strongly held, unfounded opinions on everything from vaccine safety to the war in Ukraine.
Agree or disagree?
That's not word salad.
Are you kidding?
You're in cognitive dissonance if it sounds like word salad.
This is completely clear.
This is very clear.
Alright, here's why I agree with him.
He did not exclude himself from the category of people who can't do their own research and get a good answer.
Right?
He did not say, this is a skill I have, but you don't have it.
Now if he had, then we'd have something to quibble with.
But if he's saying none of us have that, you know, except very rarely somebody in the field, then Then I'm on board with that completely.
Yeah, no, nobody has that skill.
And even the most qualified people in the field often don't have it.
We see this all the time.
So, does that sound like I might have influenced that opinion?
I'm just asking.
Because you know I've been saying exactly this for like three years.
I've said it out loud a bunch of times.
Yeah, it's common sense.
So that would be the argument that I did not influence it.
But the wording of it feels a little Scottish, so to speak.
All right.
I'm going to try to introduce a new phrase to politics.
I'm going to call them political gooners.
You ever heard that phrase?
A gooner?
It comes from another context.
I want to see if anybody knows what it is before I explain it.
Those of you who know what it is, you're revealing too much about yourselves.
All right, let me tell you.
In the naughty world of adult entertainment, when usually a man is so interested in his own self-pleasure that he takes on sort of a zombie appearance, I would give you an impression But it would be the biggest meme that you ever saw.
So I can't give you an impression.
But imagine a zombie face while one of the hands is busy.
And you know what a gooner is, like, whoa.
You know, that sort of thing.
So, but I feel like there's a political gooner class.
And that's the people who believe hoaxes.
They're obviously not true before you research them.
Now, I agree with Sam Harrison.
Nobody's good at research.
Even if they think they are, they're not.
But sometimes you don't need to research things to know what's true.
Am I right?
Let me give you an example.
If you heard a story on social media that said that Joe Biden was an actual cannibal, and we're just finding out, and that he eats children every night for dinner, like actual living children.
Kills them and eats them.
Would you need to research that?
This is a serious question.
Would you need to research that?
No, no.
You don't need to research that.
Who would believe that?
Only a political gooner.
Somebody who is so busy masturbating to their own team that they can no longer think in any coherent way.
Now let me give you an example that's almost like that.
That the gooners actually believe.
They believe that the President of the United States once premeditatedly And with full intention, got in front of the country and said that neo-Nazis are fine people.
Did you have to research that?
Did you have to go and really look at the transcript?
I mean, I did.
But not because I needed to know.
It's because I was trying to unprogram the gooners.
But the gooners can't hear it.
Because, you know, their hand is going furiously and the brain is just turned off.
Oh, my team, my team.
OK, I'm going to give you the meme.
I'm sorry.
I have to give you the meme.
It goes like this.
Oh, my team, my team, my team, my team.
OK, there's your meme.
Have fun with it.
Have fun with it.
I release it to the universe.
All right.
So how about if you heard that a president suggested drinking bleach as a solution to COVID?
Did you need to research that?
No, you didn't.
You did not need to research that.
You should not have had to research that.
That was clearly and obviously something that didn't happen.
And if you say, oh, but Scott, maybe it wasn't bleach, but it was a liquid disinfectant.
No.
No, you don't have to research whether he thought Listerine was okay.
No, you don't.
You don't have to research that.
The only people who would be confused by that would be those people.
You couldn't possibly see this on the surface and believe that you have to look into it.
You don't.
You don't have to look into it.
All right.
Political gooners.
I also love the fact that the people who believe all the Trump hoaxes, they start with the assumption that they're smarter than Trump.
And yet they fall for every hoax.
It's a weird assumption.
If you start with the assumption you're smarter than him, then anything he says that isn't what you say, you say, oh, well, it must be Racist who thinks you should drink bleach or something, I don't know.
But if you start with the assumption that he's an intelligent person, who might, in some cases, know more than you do.
We've seen examples of that.
If you start with that assumption, the hoax just disappears.
You have to assume that Trump has an IQ of 70, and somehow became President of the United States anyway.
And apparently that's a real belief.
I've actually talked to intelligent, successful people who believe that Trump has such a low IQ that he only became president by accident.
Just, you know, a weird conflation of events.
That's a real opinion.
How do you have that opinion?
There's only one way.
You're a political gooner for your team.
All right, this is funny.
Speaking of doing your own research, you're all aware that Bret Stephens from the New York Times did a big article in which he talked about the new study of studies that said that masks don't work.
You all saw that, right?
So it was a big study of other studies, a paper about other studies.
It wasn't exactly a meta-study, but it was sort of a review of all the science.
And the conclusion was, masks don't work.
Kurt Eichenwald, also at least an ex-New York Times writer, says in his tweet, the New York Times has published an absolutely reckless and wrong New York Times opinion piece by Bret Stephens about a scientific paper he clearly did not read.
He allows one of the authors to state in the article, quote, masks don't work for COVID-19.
The paper says no such thing.
In fact, You know, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So he goes on to say that the paper is pure garbage and etc.
Now, do you believe that the New York Times article from Stephens that looked at all the science about masks and found no evidence that they help, do you think, do you find that reliable?
Because you did your own research?
Do you know that a lot of the studies were done before COVID?
Did you know that?
They were pre-COVID.
It wasn't even tested COVID.
Did you know a lot of the studies were about whether you could contract it versus whether you're gonna, you know, breathe it out?
Yeah.
Yeah, we are private.
Basically, the research was garbage.
But...
The research that says masks don't work is garbage, but so is the research that says they work.
So, do your own research.
You can find anything you want.
You can find that they work, which I've done, by the way.
I've done my own research, and I found huge, you know, very reliable evidence that masks work.
I've also done my research and found that they don't.
You can find both.
You can totally find both.
How could I tell the difference?
The only thing I would say for sure is that science has not demonstrated that they work with any data that seems useful.
If science, at this point especially, at this point, if they can't prove they work, Well, then the question of using them is just easy.
Right?
It's already a meme.
Yeah.
It's just easy.
Anyway, so I think we're all against masks, but this is just an emphasis for Sam Harris's opinion that doing your own research is absolutely useless.
It's completely useless.
In fact, there are three things that don't work.
Follow the science.
Would you agree?
Following the science didn't work.
Did it?
I don't think it works for anything anymore.
How about do your own research?
Well, people who did their own research had different answers.
We know that doesn't work.
How about listen to the experts?
Is that working?
Listen to the experts.
No.
No.
So, these are three things we all thought used to work.
Follow the science, listen to the experts, but also do your own research, just, you know, for a double check.
None of those have any evidentiary value at all.
None.
Let me tell you how to know what's true.
It's the only way.
Can you engineer a product out of it?
That's it.
Engineering is the only way you know if something's true.
It'll take a moment for that to settle in.
Just think about it.
Engineering is the only way you know if something's true.
Science doesn't give you that.
Because science is always, you know, even when it's a fact, it's still subject to revision.
But if you're an engineer and you say, okay, you claim I can make a satellite.
All right.
Your scientific claim is if I use this science, I can make a satellite and it can communicate with Earth and maybe do GPS.
Well, let's find out.
So I'm going to build a satellite.
I'm going to put it in the sky and see if it tells me where I am.
Oh, shit.
That works.
It's true.
That's truth.
The app is telling me from the satellite that I'm approximately in this room.
That's truth.
Everything else is tentative.
Everything else is just a maybe.
So I think this is where we've been fooled forever.
Science is not where you go to find out what's true.
Engineering is.
Engineering tells you what's true.
Let's take it to medicine.
Science says this pill will work.
Do you know how you know?
You've got to make the pill.
The only way you know is you put it out there and see what happens.
That's engineering.
I mean, it's medical engineering in this case.
Chemistry.
But I'd call it engineering.
No, I don't mean that only an engineer can determine what's true.
I'm saying that your way to know if something is true is if somebody can make a product out of it and it works the way it's supposed to.
Now, even that isn't 100%.
Because you could engineer something that works for the wrong reason.
For example, we talked about this before.
If you believe that the wing of your airplane Had to have a Bernoulli effect in order to get lift, and you built that plane, it would fly.
Years later you'd find out that the Bernoulli effect had nothing to do with it.
So you can test something in engineering and find out it works, but then you have to fly the plane upside down to find out what was true.
If you fly the plane upside down, which you can do, and it flies, then you know the Bernoulli effect at least wasn't necessary.
It might have helped, but it wasn't necessary.
All right.
Let's talk about this Georgia grand jury, because the walls are closing in on Trump.
And this time, well, this time they got him.
Let me tell you, all those other times, No, that was just play.
But this time, this time, they got him.
And do you know what he did?
He used the word find for votes.
Yeah, just find this many votes.
As Alan Dershowitz explains, last night on, I think, Hannity.
As Alan Dershowitz explains, the word Find implies they already exist.
Had he used the word invent, or possibly concoct, or possibly lie, or possibly pretend, or possibly cheat, or possibly do something illegal, then I would say he committed a crime.
But if you ask somebody to find something that you honestly believe might be there, either through a recount or potentially there's a barrel of ballots that didn't get counted somewhere, you don't go to jail for that.
You don't go to jail because you used the word find and other people thought you meant cheat.
You don't go to jail for what other people thought you meant.
That's not a crime.
It doesn't matter how many people think you meant something.
It still matters what you said.
It doesn't matter what they think you meant.
Nobody goes to jail for that.
Nobody.
The odds of Trump going to jail for that, and now I heard that Georgia or Atlanta, whoever it is, the prosecutor, wants to use RICO because there are a whole bunch of people talking about what to do to Have the election changed, basically.
Is it illegal for a bunch of people to talk about how to get a political outcome?
It's not illegal unless you break the law.
Now, there is a troubling element to this, which is the so-called fake electors.
But even the fake electors were operating under a legal theory.
Am I wrong about that?
I believe there were lawyers who said, and they were minority lawyers in the sense that other people disagreed, but I believe there were a few lawyers who said, yeah, I think we could do this and it would, you know, maybe pass constitutional muster.
I don't think anybody thought it was like an insurrection.
I think they thought they were trying to get the right result.
So you'd have to find somebody who admits that they knew they lost, And they did it anyway.
If you can't find anybody in this whole Rico conspiracy who didn't honestly believe that Trump won, there's nothing.
Am I wrong?
Wouldn't you need at least one person in this conspiracy to say, yeah, we knew it wasn't real, but we're trying to steal the election anyway?
Have you heard of one person, even one, Because usually you have whistleblowers by now.
But as even one person said, you know, we really didn't believe you won.
We were just sort of acting like it.
Now, the Ricoh thing is so ridiculous.
And the Fein thing is so ridiculous.
And once again, who believes that Trump broke the law?
It's obvious.
It's been demonstrated.
It's part of the public record.
And he's going down.
Should I give you an impression of the people who believe that?
How could you believe that?
I mean, seriously.
How could you believe that he's in legal trouble over this?
Here's another one.
CNN is still talking about how the The Dominion lawsuit surfaced all these internal Fox memos.
Oh, I'm not done.
I'm sorry.
I'm not done talking about the grand jury.
I forgot the best part.
So apparently this grand jury only recommends to another grand jury.
I didn't know that was the thing.
Am I getting that right?
That the grand jury is only making a recommendation to another grand jury, and that other grand jury would have to indict.
Is that right?
Two grand juries for one case?
Oh, there's an investigative grand jury and then a regular one?
The indictment grand jury?
All right, I guess I didn't know how that worked.
Which is good, because it means I haven't been in that much legal jeopardy.
So here's what I think.
We saw the foreperson who apparently identifies as a witch.
Now, as I said on Twitter, if I were writing this simulation, you know, this thing you think is your reality, but it couldn't possibly be real, it's just too weird.
If I were writing it, and I saw that there was a witch hunt to get Trump, Who would I make the foreperson of that effort to get Trump the witch hunt?
I'd make it an actual witch.
Or at least somebody who identifies with witchcraft.
Yeah, an actual witch.
And then I would have that actual witch go on every TV show and talk about the things that you're not supposed to talk about.
Unless you're a witch, I guess.
I suppose if you're a witch, they expect that.
And then laugh and be really, really happy.
Act really, really happy that you might send Trump to jail.
I've never seen Trump in less legal jeopardy than he is right now.
At this moment in time, Trump is in the least legal jeopardy of his entire presidency, and maybe his whole life.
I mean, he's been so thoroughly researched, all they could find was a witch to claim that the word find means something different than English.
That was their case.
But maybe there's something with the fake electors that they can pin on Trump, but I'd be surprised.
All right.
I feel like I just have to stop explaining all the hoaxes because they're so obvious at this point.
Here's how CNN says it.
CNN in one of their pieces online said that the grand jury investigated former President Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Is that the right way to characterize what happened?
Would you have said that Trump was attempting to overturn the 2020 election?
Sort of.
You can imagine that's technically accurate.
It's also fake news.
If you don't mention the fact that he and half of the country believe that the election was not legitimate, how would you describe trying to correct an illegitimate election?
Now, I'm not saying it was illegitimate.
I'm saying that's what the people seem to have believed.
I wouldn't call it trying to overturn an election.
I would call it trying to get a recount.
I would call it trying to audit it.
I would call it trying to make sure we got the right answer.
But they're sort of assuming he's guilty.
They've sort of characterized him as, well, they've characterized his intentions.
They've characterized his internal intentions that have never been spoken in this way.
If his internal intention was simply to get the right answer, which would make him happy, of course, That's not trying to reverse the election.
That's trying to get the election right.
CNN is so weaselly.
Anyway.
Let's talk about Vivek Ramaswamy.
So he tweeted this today.
He said, I'll call President Obrador, President of Mexico, on day one with a message.
We'll arm you to decimate the drug cartels pumping fentanyl across our border.
The cartels may be your sugar daddy now, but there's a new daddy in town.
If you don't do it, we'll do it for you.
Your choice.
America 2.0.
Now, I love the energy of that.
I love the energy.
I like the vibe.
I like the toughness.
I like the priorities.
I'm now accepting Decimate as Annihilate.
I was corrected that apparently Common Use has already elevated Decimate to be equivalent to Annihilate.
I thought that was sort of in the process, but it looks like Dictionary.com calls them the same.
Anyway.
Let's see.
So, here's my problem with this.
Americans believe that the President of Mexico is owned by the cartels.
Do you agree?
How many of you would say that's a true statement that the government of Mexico is essentially owned by the cartels?
Now, whether that's true or not, that's what we believe.
I'm sure it's true.
But even if it's not, this doesn't work.
Because how can Americans get behind arming the cartels?
Because that's what it sounds like.
To me, it sounds like arming ISIS because you've got some short-term gain.
But in the long run, arming ISIS, probably a bad idea.
Probably a bad idea.
So here's how I would modify this.
I wouldn't even talk to the president of Mexico except to tell him what we're doing.
Now, we might need to sort of pretend there's a government in Mexico Before we do what we need to do.
So, you know, maybe he's right with his instinct.
They have to at least give the government a try.
But I wouldn't give them weapons.
That sounds like the wrong play.
So, I don't know, maybe he'll adjust that messaging a little bit.
I would prefer to negotiate with the cartels directly.
And the way I would do it is I would publish a drone picture every day of a cartel facility.
Now, it could be a home owned by somebody who's known to be cartel.
So just here's the facility, and then you say, this will disappear tomorrow because a missile's going to drop on it.
So then you give a chance for all the innocent people to say, what?
I'm in this house.
I work in this house.
There's a missile going to drop on it and then you run out the door and you're safe.
And then we should just continue and never stop.
Every day.
Here's a new picture.
That's that's a cartel asset.
In 24 hours it's going to disappear.
Now of course if they had drugs and money in there they would grab it all and they would leave with their drugs and money.
That's OK.
That's OK.
Blow it up anyway.
Now, you'll still try to catch them with their money and their drugs and kill them too.
But just make it a daily occurrence.
Here's the photo.
Here's the crater the next day.
Here's the new photo.
Do whatever you want.
Go nuts.
You can do anything you want, but this is disappearing.
This won't be here tomorrow.
And you just make it non-optional, non-negotiable.
This stuff's just going to start disappearing.
Maybe.
Or annex Mexico.
I would be in favor of that as well.
Yes, literally.
In case you wonder if I'm kidding.
Yes, I'm literally in favor of annexing Mexico.
Literally in favor of annexing Mexico.
Yep.
Absolutely.
Yeah, not kidding.
Not hedging.
Absolutely in favor of annexing Mexico.
Now, if they can stop the drug flow and the immigration flow, then no reason to.
But at the moment, they're a mortal enemy of the United States.
And we should just own it.
Now, we could give it back.
Maybe fix it and give it back.
That'd be cool.
Yeah, that would be good.
I'd love that.
Imagine that?
We take it over, put in some kind of effective government if we can.
We can't do it in America, but let's say we could do it there.
And then turn it back, if you could get rid of the corruption.
I don't know if you could.
Anyway, so I do like that the candidates are going to compete on fentanyl.
And so I like Vivek Ramaswamy on that topic.
Now I saw you prompting me in the comments.
There is, apparently he has some history that he was asked to join the World Economic Forum a number of times when he was a successful young entrepreneur.
And even his name was on a list at one point.
But he says he flatly turned them down.
And then there's a story I saw today that when he was a young student, he got some kind of funding from a Soros organization for not a scholarship, but something like a scholarship.
Some kind of money.
Now, do any of those things bother you?
Yeah, he went to Yale Law on... It wasn't a scholarship, it was a... What was it?
What's the word that sounds like scholarship but isn't... I forget what the word is.
But I don't really care about that.
A grant?
Fellowship.
Maybe it was a fellowship or something like that.
Yeah, I don't care about that.
You know, if a student wants to take money for an education, they can take it from Satan.
I don't care.
I don't care at all.
If he then became a Soros puppet, I'd be worried.
But if all he did is get some funding from a grant that could have gone to any young, smart person, take the money.
No problem.
So there will be lots of stuff coming out about his background.
You should believe maybe 40% of it tops.
All right.
So CNN is giving major coverage to the Ohio chemical spill.
This is different, right?
Isn't it?
This is a change.
I thought Fox was sort of covering it almost by themselves.
But maybe, you know, the fact that Trump visited.
Makes it impossible not to cover it.
So now it's part of a political horse race, not just the story about one town that CNN probably wouldn't care about.
But now it's political.
So Trump very wisely visited, not only because it's a base of support for him, but also because Biden was in Ukraine and Buttigieg is delaying for reasons that aren't clear.
It was a brilliant political move, would you agree?
Brilliant political move.
And would you also agree that every time Trump is doing something like that, he's winning?
But when he's just, you know, griping at DeSantis and stuff?
He doesn't seem much like a leader when he does that.
Now, he was hilarious in one of his truths that made it over to Twitter today, in which he was mocking somebody.
I forget.
But when he's just mocking somebody, he's so funny.
I mean, just the words he chooses are just frickin' hilarious all the time.
So anyway.
So Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, said he would stay in East Palestine overnight until the toxic train derailment cleanup is done.
What do you think of that?
So the governor went there and drank the water in front of people, and now he's going to sleep there until it's done.
Now that's some good governing.
That's some good governing.
Now maybe he should have acted sooner or differently or something.
But this part?
This party's strong.
Yeah.
It's maybe one of the strongest leadership moves I can remember.
Because this is, well, you say it's symbolic, but I think it's more than that.
It looks like he's leading from the front.
And people like that.
They like it from their leaders.
You know, I don't even know if DeWine is Republican or Democrat.
What is he?
Is DeWine Republican or Democrat?
He's a Republican?
I didn't even know that.
But there's a Republican.
Well, judge it for yourself.
All right.
It's really tough to keep a narrative going if you're CNN.
So their coverage of what is going to be brutal blizzards, including LA.
So I think this week or today, Los Angeles is supposed to have a snowstorm.
So the articles on the homepage of CNN are, you know, L.A.
to get blizzard.
Freezing, freezing everywhere.
It's freezing.
There's snow everywhere.
And then they had to add, like, the fourth one down was, it's never been this warm in February.
Here's why that's not a good thing.
That's the actual title.
After all the blizzards and hurricanes and record cold, It's never been this warm in February.
Here's why that's not a good thing.
Now, I'm not going to say that weather is climate.
I get it, I get it.
It could be really cold one day and really warm another day and that's not really telling you anything.
You'd have to look at the average everywhere over time to know anything.
So I'm not saying weather is climate.
But it's hilarious how CNN has to maintain their narrative.
They didn't say anything that was wrong as far as I know.
I mean, February might be the warmest.
It's been very warm where I am.
I think this is my warmest February.
So I agree with them, at least anecdotally.
But it's just so hard, because they can't just say it's really cold.
You tried to cover the news, and you're like, well, it's really cold.
I'm going to write it's really cold.
Before you write it's really cold, we'd better frame this in the narrative.
And then you say, it's the weather report.
It's just cold today.
I know, I know, I know it's just the weather, but we better make sure this isn't a narrative.
And so they did.
All right, CNN continues to claim that Fox executives privately knew that the election was fair, but they were allowing their on-air people To act as though it was not, or at least act as though there were some great questions.
And then I think to myself, wow, if that's true, that's pretty damning.
And then I say to myself, I can't wait to see the quote or the text that demonstrates this claim.
Still waiting.
As far as I can tell, this is just made up.
Am I wrong?
It looks totally made up.
I don't believe there's any evidence that the Fox executives knew what the election was, because it was unknowable, knew it was fair, and then decided, oh, we know it was good, but we're still going to run programming that says it isn't.
That's what CNN is indicating, but there's no evidence of that.
There's simply evidence that people disagreed.
Is that a crime?
Is it a crime that some of the people at Fox thought the election was good enough, you know, fair enough, and some thought it wasn't?
Why is that a crime?
All they showed is that they don't, they're not operating in lockstep.
They showed that there was, and here's the part I like best, they're criticizing Tucker Carlson for having said that their viewers are good people And they should respect their preferences for what they'd like to see covered in the news.
And CNN's mocking that.
Like, you know, we caught you.
Caught them what?
Respecting their audience behind closed doors?
Behind closed doors, Tucker said he respects his audience and wants to give them what they quite reasonably want to see.
Because Tucker does not think it's unreasonable that people have questions about this election.
Neither do I. I believe that nothing's been demonstrated to show it was illegal.
I believe that I was surprised, and I certainly wanted to see more transparency and all that.
But I'm completely on board with people who had enough questions that they think it's still a news story.
I agree with that completely.
Even if there's no evidence of anything that went wrong with the voting, the fact that a huge portion of the public believes it, that does make it news.
That is news.
And respecting your audience and giving them the news coverage that they most want, because it's most important.
If the election had been thrown in, let's say, an illegal way, I think it was rigged In a legal way, rigged in the sense that the rule changes because the pandemic were favorable to the Democrats.
But it was legal, right?
I just have to give a, you know, a hand to the Democrats and say, good work.
You know, if the Republicans could have done something that clever and that effective and also completely legal, I think I would applaud them too.
Because, you know, those are the rules.
If you follow the rules and you win, you won.
It looks rigged, but legally, if it's legally, that's something else.
Alright, so keep watching the critics of Fox News and demand that they give you an example to represent their opinion.
Because there aren't any.
They don't have any examples to represent their opinion that Fox News was lying to their customers.
None.
At least that I've seen.
That I've seen.
CNN, talking about Ukraine, is now seemingly, I don't know how to call it, confirmed, but they're reporting that even the head of the Wagner Group says they don't have enough ammunition and it doesn't look like it's going to get fixed.
Now, do I need to give you my universal disclaimer?
Universal disclaimer, any information that you hear about Ukraine is unreliable.
Even if the news guarantees you that they have no ammunition left, they might have more ammunition than anybody's ever had in the history of war.
It's possible.
It's possible.
Yeah, you can't believe any report on Ukraine.
But I've been following an account for a while that A knowledgeable military veteran who knows a lot about a lot of stuff, who's going through all the circumstantial evidence that suggests that they're running out of barrels for the artillery because they wear out pretty quickly.
You just shoot them, I don't know, for a few days and you've got to take the barrel off.
You can't repair it.
You can't repair it in the field.
It would have to be replaced by a factory precision barrel.
And the suggestion is That even though Russia is trying to get ammo from all kinds of different places, if you look at the whole picture of everything they're doing, and then you listen to the head of the Wagner Group say it directly, it looks like they're out of ammunition.
Like actually they're out of ammunition.
Like actually the war could end because they're out of ammunition.
But all of the signs are pointing in the right direction.
They're all pointing in that direction.
And we'll know, I think we'll know pretty soon.
We'll probably know by June, I think.
Now, Joe says, wrong in capital letters.
Now, Joe, did you need to tell me That one word, WRONG, in capital letters?
Is it because you believe that I believe the news coming out of Ukraine?
Is there anything I can say that would convince you I don't believe everything coming out of Ukraine?
Is there any way I could convince you that's true?
So that you would stop making comments like that?
You don't need to disagree about the quality of the information.
You really don't.
We all get it.
We all get it.
However, for fun, I'm going to make a prediction.
I believe they're out of ammo.
I could be wrong, and I wouldn't even be surprised.
Wouldn't even be surprised.
But remember that Russia is worse at everything than you think.
Is that fair?
So far, Russia is way worse at everything you think they should be able to do.
Am I wrong?
Everything.
Literally everything.
Do you think that their manufacturing capacity is better than you think?
If it's like every other thing, it's way worse than you imagine.
So I don't think that they can make enough ammo.
And I don't think the ammo that they're getting is high enough quality not to blow up in the gun.
And I don't think that they can get... I don't think that they have a good pipeline of new barrels coming into the front line to replace the barrels that are wearing out.
I think it's over.
I think it's over.
I think at this point, there's no way Russia can win on the battlefield.
Let me acknowledge all the people who are disagreeing in the comments.
I respect your disagreement.
Now, when I was talking about stuff like the hoaxes, honestly, I wouldn't respect your disagreement about the hoaxes.
I think I explained that.
But in this case, because none of us know, and it's very complicated, I totally respect your disagreement that Russia will do fine.
They'll find the MO somehow.
I respect that.
I disagree with it, but it's a perfectly reasonable opinion.
Perfectly reasonable.
Yeah, I'm going to go with the heuristic that Russia is worse, way worse, at everything.
And that's all you need to know to know that we're going to run out of ammo.
China has stated their support.
Let's say you're China.
And the only thing you care about is your own interests, because I think that's fair for most countries.
What is in China's best interest?
To become a major player in the Ukraine war, or to let Russia and NATO punch themselves out until both are weaker.
What is in China's best interest?
Now, I suppose maybe they could give them ammo so that the fight goes on longer.
But China's best interest, I think, would be to continue buying energy and trade with Russia, which seems fine.
And not to be too directly involved in a war, because that would make the rest of their customers unhappy.
So I think China will flirt with giving ammo to Russia.
And here's like a totally speculative thing, because I couldn't possibly know this.
I think China is yanking Putin's chain.
I think China is doing to Putin what that secret American lab, or whatever it is, was doing to Sam Harrison and Bretton Weinstein.
I feel like she is like, so you need ammo?
Yeah, lots of ammo.
And if we gave you that ammo, you'd be in much better shape, wouldn't you?
Okay, so we'll have conversations internally about giving you some ammo.
And then Putin gets back next week.
All right, how'd that go?
How'd that conversation go?
Can we have some ammo?
We're putting that to The, let's see, the Committee of Ammo Decisions in the CCP, and we'll get back to you in a week.
And Putin calls back in a week.
We have it now?
Well, you know, the Committee on Ammo decided that they also needed an opinion from our, you know, our economic interest group, and so they're reviewing it.
And Putin calls back next week and repeats.
My best guess is that Xi is yanking Putin along and he hopes that Putin will end the war before they give him one bullet.
Because it would be a serious mistake by China to give Putin one bullet.
We're never going to forget that.
Right?
Explain why?
Because we'll never forget it.
That's a permanent play.
There are lots of things that countries do.
You know, this makes me angry.
You shouldn't have tested that missile when our president was visiting.
But those are all, like, temporary stuff, right?
You get past that pretty easily.
Oh, you shouldn't have said that.
You know, blah, blah, blah.
But if you give our enemy one bullet, that changes everything.
That changes everything.
Steve says, your laugh at the end betrays your sincerity.
Steve, you're a terrible mind reader.
Betrays my sincerity.
No, I laugh at all terrible things.
The more worse it is and tragic, the more likely I will laugh.
It doesn't have anything to do with my sincerity.
Yeah.
And by the way, I don't apologize for that at all.
Russia is not our enemy.
I agree with you in concept.
But if you give them weapons that shoot NATO people, you can see it both ways, let's say.
All right.
What else is going on?
Yeah, and I guess this Petrosian, the guy who's head of the Wagner Group, he's directly naming names in the Russian military who are at fault for him not having enough weapons.
Now, if you believe that Russia has enough, not weapons, ammo, if you believe Russia has enough ammo, you have to explain why the guy who needs it the most says he doesn't have it.
The guy who needs it the most.
The Wagner Group head.
He says they don't have it.
He showed a bunch of Russian soldiers of his own men.
He showed a gigantic pile.
It's a disturbing image.
A huge pile that just goes on for a long time of dead Russian soldiers.
His own team.
He showed that.
He said it's because we don't have enough ammo.
Think about that.
The head of the Wagner Group publicly showed a picture of his own gigantic pile of dead soldiers and said, this is because we were not given enough ammo.
So you still think they have enough ammo?
Do you?
You think they have enough ammo if this guy did that play?
No, you don't do that play if you have enough ammo, or you expect to.
You do that play when you know you're not getting any ammo.
Now the other possibility is Putin doesn't want the Wagner group to win.
Have you ever thought of that?
Putin might need this Petrosian guy to lose.
You know why?
Because Petrosian is, I would assume, his biggest competitor to take over.
Petrosian could probably kill Putin.
Maybe even faster than Putin can kill Petrosian.
So I've got a feeling that the last thing Putin wants to do is make Petrosian a huge war hero by having enough assets to win whatever that looks like winning in Ukraine.
It's entirely possible Putin is playing to lose.
It might be his best play.
Because if Wagner and Petrosian win the war for Putin, I think Petrosian's your new leader of Russia.
Or at least he's got a path to it.
Putin can't live with that.
Putin, I think, would rather lose the war than win it and make Pujojin the hero of the war.
Because he'd have to kill him immediately, and maybe that's hard.
Why play it all then?
Well, I don't think that Putin expected to be in this position.
I think he expected to knock out Ukraine fairly quickly.
Nobody's a big hero because it was easy.
Only took us a week.
Yeah, we'll give you a medal, but that's not a big deal, right?
Anybody could have done it.
It only took us a week.
But once it became nearly impossible, once it became nearly impossible, all the calculation changes.
And then Putin's just trying to stay in power.
Staying in power means you don't have somebody who's competitive with you for public opinion.
So, this is an interesting development.
To me, it looks like Russia couldn't possibly win from their current set point.
So, I'll say that again so it's clear.
Any time prior to today, if you had said, yeah, I could go either way, I would have agreed with you?
Any time prior to today?
I'd say it was a coin flip.
I don't know.
Could go either way.
As of today, Putin has only a losing position.
I don't think he has any possibility of anything that looks like a win.
Now it could be that we start negotiating before, you know, the Wagner group is completely gone.
We might.
But I feel like Ukraine is just going to push Russia out of all that territory now.
And I didn't think that even yesterday.
Even yesterday I didn't believe that.
But as of today, I think they're going to take it all back.
Because they can.
Here's a comment on locals who's still trying to figure out why Scott so consistently carries the deep state's water on this topic.
Thank you.
You know, if you were not a Locals subscriber, I would call you a fucking idiot.
But I guess I am anyway.
My God.
I mean, seriously.
I look like I'm carrying the deep state's water.
Like, that's your best opinion on what's happening here.
You should be embarrassed by that.
That's fucking stupid.
Just fucking stupid.
And I have to swear when I have these situations.
Joe says, I'm lying for my World Economic Forum masters.
That's such a low level of analysis.
Oh, you're working for Soros now?
No, you're an idiot.
Oh, you work for the World Economic Forum?
No.
Nope, you're an idiot.
Oh, you're working for the Deep State now?
Nope, and I hate to repeat myself, but you're a fucking idiot.
Right?
None of that's happening.
It's the lowest level of understanding right there.
The lowest level.
You should quit this platform.
You're not qualified to be on the local subscription platform.
That's just too fucking dumb.
Honestly.
You should be embarrassed about that.
Alright, I think I made my point.
I was quite blunt.
Thanks, Maddy.
No, I'm not attacking the audience.
I'm attacking the trolls.
The audience I love.
I will parrot Tucker Carlson.
I actually respect my audience.
You can tell, right?
Can you tell?
I don't respect the ridiculous trolls, but I respect the audience a lot.
I think the audience is amazing.
And I do believe it's the smartest political audience.
If somebody can tell me who they think is a smarter political audience, I'm interested.
Because I'd probably watch that content myself.
But I'm not aware of any.
I'm not aware of anybody who understands things better than this group.
Thoughts on Dr. Shiva running for Senate?
So, So, you know, early in, was it early in the pandemic or something else, I had Dr. Shiva on my live stream.
So, Dr. Shiva is very smart, you know, multi-discipline education, et cetera.
But I don't trust him.
That's it.
That's my whole opinion.
Don't trust it.
Alright.
It happened... I don't remember which opinion it was, but... Tweeted.
Yeah.
Now, he does claim to have invented email and he has some backup for that claim.
But, you know, it's sort of a subjective opinion whether he was an inventor or one of the people who was sort of involved in that area at the same time.
Now, my take is that his interest in publicity is a little too high There's something about the way he presents himself that's raising flags with me.
That's all.
I don't have any specific accusations.
By the way, you know he criticized me on Twitter recently.
Did you know that?
So Dr. Shiva came after me on Twitter for something.
I believe it was probably I think he probably fell for the 4chan hoax or something, I forget.
The Viva interview with Shiva was hard to watch, yeah.
I'm a Venus flytrap on Twitter.
Scott is petty, and that's a shame.
I don't know.
I'm not going to defend myself from that.
Because I like to focus on small things and big things.
So sometimes the small things interest me and I focus on them.
I'm not going to apologize for that.
Will Ramaswami do better than Yang?
Oh yeah, much better.
The trouble with Yang is he didn't fit into any party.
What Vivek Ramaswamy is doing well is he's reading the room correctly for the Republican side of the world.
So I think his reading of the room is really good.
So yeah, he should do way better.
Here's the problem.
If Vivek Ramaswamy Ends up saying things that are sort of indistinguishable from Trump, at least policy-wise, not in style, but policy-wise.
What are you going to do?
What if you add two people that look like they have very similar, you know, strong Republican approaches, both capable, both smart.
One is Ramaswamy and one is Trump.
What do you do?
Pick him as a VP?
That would be a bold move.
Might be wasted as a VP.
Well, here's, I'll just throw this into the mix.
Republicans need to run a Brown candidate.
Do you agree?
Republicans need to run a Brown candidate, and I don't mean for equity, I don't mean for diversity, I don't mean for signaling.
I mean just to get it over with.
Just to get it over with.
It'd just be a branding thing.
I like that we had one black president already.
It sort of gets that reputation off you that you can't do that.
Now, there are also some things that you can do if you're brown and Republican that others can't do.
So Tim Scott would have the same benefit.
If Vivek Ramaswamy decided to press a war in Mexico, would anybody call him a racist?
No.
What if Trump does it?
If Trump starts a war in Mexico against the cartels, day one, oh, he always attacks the brown people, doesn't he?
Right?
So they could have identical policies, but one can do it without political blowback of that type.
And one can do it with all that blowbuck of exactly that type.
So if Trump is your president and you're a Republican, he will give you one more reason to be called a racist, even though you didn't do anything.
And it's not his fault.
Because in this scenario, Trump would be doing what Republicans want, which is getting tough on the cartels.
But the Democrats would still say, well, that's racist.
But you could take that away from them.
By having a brown president who just does what makes sense, and then people go, oh, well, let's just talk about whether it makes sense.
Because it takes away their go-to.
Yeah, they call Candace Owens a white supremacist.
But it sounds ridiculous and looks ridiculous.
Yeah.
So Vivek has some real advantages.
He's got youth.
He's got business experience.
I like that he's an outsider.
He's smart enough.
Seems to have the right passion, the right energy.
There's a lot right about him.
There's a lot right about him.
I could easily imagine supporting him.
I'm not there yet, but I could easily imagine it.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the best live stream you've ever seen.
Ever.
And I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube people.
