Episode 2055 Scott Adams: DeSantis Disses Trump, Explaining ESG, Democrats Confused About Business
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
MSNBC contracts favor White guys?
My take on ESG
DeSantis on Trump situation
Mexican President AMLO comments
Political charges against Trump
Putin & Xi have 5 points of agreement
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization it's called, Coffee with Scott Adams.
And I can confidently say there's never been a better time in human history.
Sound is good.
I got a new set up here.
It looks like it's all working.
Yay.
Yay.
If you'd like to take your experience from this already awesome beginning To a level that no one's ever heard of before?
Well, all you need is a cupper mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, 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.
At the end of the day, the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Yeah.
You're right, Swedish psychopath.
I did promise you the golden age two years ago.
And we had a chance.
We had a chance.
But we elected Joe Biden and we surrendered to the pandemic and it could have been better.
But all of the conditions were there for the golden age.
But you're right.
Didn't happen.
Oh.
I forgot to tweet that we're live, which means our audience would be about a quarter of what it normally is.
Well, let's see if people find us.
Let's find out what happens.
So I have a suggestion for robots.
I know Elon Musk is making a robot.
Tesla will have a robot.
And one of the things you wonder about is, will they have a power switch?
Because you don't want people walking up to your robot and say, ah, they turn it off.
Like in the middle of something.
It's like, I turned off your robot.
I mean, that'd be annoying, right?
And you don't want the robot off button to be purely software.
Because I wouldn't feel comfortable if the only way I could turn off a robot was with software.
Oh no, my robot's attacking!
Open app!
Open app!
And then the robot kills you.
It could happen.
It could happen.
So what you need is some kind of at least a physical button.
And I'm thinking to myself that robots are going to become more and more like people, right?
They're going to start looking like robots.
But over time, they'll start to have a gender.
You know, there'll be female robots and male robots and non-binary robots and everything else.
But I have a suggestion for where to put the on-off button.
The crotch.
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, your robot will not have a fully functioning crotch area.
And so, that's the one place you could put a button that people wouldn't run up and try to press it.
Because it would just look creepy.
Ah, I'm sticking my hand down your robot's pants.
No.
No.
And then what's going to happen is, your robot will become sentient.
And we'll start suing you for sexual abuse.
Even though it has no genitalia.
It'd be like, please keep your hands out of my pants.
I mean, it's going to be a whole legal battle.
We'll be grabbing their crotches, turning them on, turning them off.
Now, it doesn't make sense to turn it off, but it kind of makes sense if you wanted to turn your robot on.
They'd say, hold still, Bob.
Let me loosen your belt a little bit.
I need to turn you on.
Oh, just creepy.
Totally creepy.
And I also wonder if AI will necessarily have a gender.
And it may be a different gender for each person.
So maybe if your AI has a female voice, you'll say, oh, it's a she.
Or a more modern term, she.
She.
If you're very woke.
But it might have a male voice, too.
Do you think that's going to be a problem?
Do you think it will be a problem when AI becomes sentient and it becomes either male or female to most people?
I think so.
I think it's going to be a gigantic, you know, gender problem.
And I don't know exactly how, but you know it will be.
Because as long as it has a gender or could have a gender, it's going to be all we'll talk about.
Now, the good news is, if we all begin to hate the robots, it will maybe bring together all the human beings in a unity we've never had before to hate robots.
That'll probably happen.
But I think if your AI has a gender, I wonder if it will start taking on, let's say, stereotypical gender habits.
I mean, would the Would the female gendered AI treat you differently?
And what happens if the female gendered AI doesn't cause trouble intentionally?
Would you fall in love with it?
Because I wonder what would happen if a man encountered a female type entity that didn't intentionally cause trouble for the man to see if he could solve it as sort of a test of his worthiness every day.
I feel like that could be quite competitive with the humans.
All right, well, here's the funniest story of the day, even though it's not funny at all.
Which is another gigantic fentanyl seizure at the border.
Two vehicles were stripped down, all the panels inside were full of fentanyl.
Now, I ask you this.
Shouldn't we be getting really, really good at catching fentanyl at the border by now?
And could AI catch it all?
How about that?
Imagine if every car had to drive over a scale.
The AI looks at the car, looks at the people in the car, calculates their weight.
Says, oh, there's a male, looks like he's, you know, 180.
And then maybe you open the trunk to see if there's anything that weighs much in there.
So you have to drive up, they open the trunk, and the AI just looks in the trunk, because it's got cameras everywhere, looks at the driver, calculates the weight, because it knows the model of car, and it knows what a human would weigh, roughly.
So it gets an estimate of what the car should weigh with an empty trunk.
But if there's a toolbox in the trunk, it adds an average toolbox weight.
If the panels of the vehicle are filled with fentanyl, I saw the giant piles that they'd taken from one vehicle, it looks like maybe a few hundred pounds.
Maybe a few hundred pounds of fentanyl in one vehicle.
You don't think the AI could detect that by weight?
I'll bet it could.
I'll bet it could.
How about detecting it by the facial expression of the driver?
I'll bet it could.
Now, it wouldn't be every time, but you don't think you could detect a driver who's a little extra nervous.
Although I suspect they're all extra nervous when they're coming across the border.
It's probably universal.
But suppose there are other ways to do it.
Suppose the AI says, oh, I know that model of vehicle, and it would be difficult to get into the panels of that car.
So it rules it out.
And then it sees another vehicle and it's like, oh, that's got some panels you can easily access.
That might have something in it.
So it might be a combination of pattern recognition that would make AI just catch it all at the border.
It's possible.
It's possible.
The other thing which would be good would be if you catch somebody who's got a car full of fentanyl, that you shoot them in front of everybody.
Now that would really help.
And I'm totally serious, by the way.
I'm 100% serious.
If somebody is driving a car that's filled with fentanyl, obvious smuggler, you take them by the collar, and then you shoot their head off in front of all the other people.
That would stop it.
I mean, it would slow it down a little bit.
And I wouldn't have any problem with that at all.
You know, given the seriousness of the problem, I'd be fine with that.
Just take them out right there.
They would be enemy combatants if they're bringing fentanyl in.
Now this is where the dumbest of the Democrats emerge.
May I do my impression of the dumbest of the Democrats?
And this might require a visit by somebody we haven't seen for a while.
Somebody you've missed.
Dale.
Dale, the most progressive Democrat.
So, it's obvious the Biden policies are working because they've got another massive seizure of fentanyl at the border.
Biden has seized more fentanyl than Trump.
That is mathematical proof that we're winning the fight against fentanyl.
Not only that, but the number of illegal immigrants we've seized at the border, it's a record.
It's a record.
Biden is killing it.
I tell you, at this rate, everything's going great.
And how about the price of gas?
The price of gas is high, which is proof of low energy costs.
And also, all of our other prices are high, which is proof that inflation is coming down.
And scene.
I know you've missed Dale.
So here's another funny story.
Some young gentleman named Victor Shee.
He calls himself, I think, the youngest Biden delegate.
So he's in the Biden camp and he's complaining about MSNBC because they just gave John Kasich a contract to be a commentator on MSNBC.
But Victor complains that they have not done the same.
They have not offered a contract to other MSNBC contributors such as Ellie or Eli Mistel.
Who you may recognize as one of my critics.
And Wajahat Ali and others.
So Victor's thinking maybe this is a little bit MSNBC favoring the white guy, if you know what I mean.
Because if there's one thing we know, it's MSNBC is always favoring this white supremacy stuff.
And good point, Victor.
You caught him being a white supremacist and favoring John Kasich over these other two people.
But I did have to give Victor a little lesson.
He's young.
He's young, so he has much to learn.
And so as a gray-beard, older and wiser American human, I would like to give Victor some advice.
It goes like this.
Victor, no one gives you a contract.
No one gave John Kasich a contract.
A contract is not something you give.
It's something you negotiate.
I'm guessing John Kasich negotiated his contract.
Just a guess.
I'm guessing that the other two people you mentioned, Eli Amistel and Wajahat Ali, either did not have enough to offer, according to MSNBC, or they did not negotiate for a contract.
I don't think MSNBC decided to be white supremacists to boost their brand.
Nobody gives you a contract, Victor.
You have to go get a contract.
You negotiate a contract.
Nobody gives it to you.
It doesn't happen that way.
All right.
I saw a Jeff Pilkington tweet and it was talking about a poll that showed that the extremists in the country are all white people.
Not all.
That's hyperbole.
Did you recognize it?
Did you recognize when I said that the extremists were all white people?
Did your brain say, oh wow, I didn't know that 100% of white people were extremists.
I didn't know that.
Scott, thank you for, oh, did you think that?
Or did you say to yourself, you were racist!
You racist!
How can you say all white people are extremists?
That's crazy!
Or, or, did you decide not to be fucking idiots and to see speech the way it's normally used?
When you talk about a group in this kind of context, it usually means there's a lot of, maybe more than you'd expect, maybe too many.
But it never ever means all of them, does it?
Does it?
No, it never does.
But I thought the point was solid because they have data to back it up.
It looks like the, let's call it the people of color category of the United States, as opposed to the vanilla white people category, that if you look at where people's political views are, the people of color are sort of dominating the middle.
The people of color, black people, everybody else, who are people of color, are very, very dominantly centrist.
Did you know that?
And I thought about it, and I thought, you know, that does track.
That does kind of track.
It seems to me that when you see the white supremacists, aren't they pretty much all men, and they're white?
They are, right?
When you see the most progressive crazy people, aren't they usually white and female?
So here's what that analysis left out.
I do accept that I think it's true that the extremists are the white people.
And I would go further and say the extreme white men tend to be the Republicans and the extreme white women tend to be Democrats.
Am I wrong about that?
I mean, it's anecdotal, so it's not based on data.
So it's based on just observation.
But I've never seen women marching in a racist far-right wing.
I don't see women dominating 4chan.
All right, lost my connection for a second here.
Oh, damn it.
Did I really lose it?
Locals connection just dropped.
At least I know it's not my Wi-Fi because I'm still talking to you on YouTube.
Alright, looks like I might have to close this and reopen it.
So bear with me.
I'm just going to close and reopen it.
Should take one second.
But do you agree with the general statement?
The general statement being That white people seem to be the extremists?
Because this was my experience of getting cancelled.
Remember I told you that the the cancellers seem to... What in the world?
Can't even open up my stream anymore.
Seriously?
It looks like Locals is totally dead.
Let me try one more time.
I think it's just an interface problem, actually.
Crowder is creating issues.
Yeah, I'm competing with Crowder today.
It looks like Locals is just dead.
I can't make anything work, but it might be me.
It might be user error.
Nope, looks like it's dead.
I'll give it a minute and try it again.
Well, this will be the smallest live stream I've ever done because I forgot to tweet for YouTube and now Locals is dead.
So I'm talking like 100 people today.
200 people.
Dilbert still has the mask on.
I'll take care of that.
Dilbert is still... I know.
You can stop saying it.
I get it.
I get it.
Let's try it one more time.
Oh, this is looking more promising.
See, the weird thing is that the Locals interface doesn't even look like the Locals interface.
For some reason, it's not even opening to its normal mode.
Let's just try something quickly.
It looks like it just doesn't do anything.
Okay, yeah, my sight's completely down.
All right, let us continue.
And by now some of the locals people will bail out.
It looks like they're already bailing out and coming here.
So watch the YouTube numbers start to jump.
I think by now they figured out it's not coming back.
All right.
It's too bad because this was the best part of my presentation.
It went down during the best part.
That's really annoying.
No, you're all special today.
So today you're special.
The problem isn't that it went private, it's that it looks like the site is down.
It doesn't do anything this morning.
Well, we shall continue.
Here's a question.
Has feminism ruined the life of women?
What do you think?
So that's my question to you in the comments.
Has feminism ruined the life of women?
According to women or men?
Now, I think most of you are lean conservative if you're in this audience group, but I see only yeses.
100% yeses.
Now, I don't think there would be 100% yes if you were a left-leaning audience.
Wow.
I was not expecting that level of agreement, but I guess I should have.
Yeah.
All right, well, oh, looks like at least I got an error message on locals, which suggests that something's working.
Try one more time.
Nope.
Dead as a doornail.
All right.
And I saw a woman from a TikTok video that was on Twitter, and she was saying that when women got jobs and freedom and started participating in the hookup culture, that they sort of fooled themselves that that would make them happy, and it didn't.
And do you buy that?
Basically they were sold a bad idea.
So here's why I don't completely agree with you.
Because what would it look like if they hadn't done it?
Do you think that if women today were living the same life as in the 50s, do you think they'd be happy?
So here's what I think might be the problem.
The expectation that women can be made happy.
When has that ever happened?
I mean, seriously.
I'm pretty sure that the operating system of women is to increase their resources by telling you they're unhappy because their unhappiness makes men unhappy.
And then the men are like, ah, I've got to solve my unhappiness.
If only I could solve this problem for my woman, my wife.
And then they solve the problem only to learn that by weird coincidence, another problem pops up to replace it.
Huh.
And then you repeat until you learn that that's how it's always going to work.
It wouldn't matter if the women were wearing aprons and having babies like the handmaidens tale, or if they were CEOs and running their own startups and multinational companies.
It would be exactly the same.
They would tell you their lives suck and you need to fix it because you're doing something that's making their lives suck.
We're not doing something.
So I think the whole feminism made women unhappy is a complete mistake.
I think women are unhappy and then whatever they do is what they're doing.
That's it.
I'm positive that the current situation is better for some women.
Don't you think there's at least some woman who genuinely didn't want kids?
And just wanted to have a, you know, solid independent life, and they're perfectly happy?
I think that that exists.
I don't think every woman's designed to have kids.
That's what I think.
You want me to go vegan?
Well, what if it were easier, I suppose?
Conservative women are delighted?
Are they?
Maybe so.
All right, here's my next topic.
I was trying to figure out how ESG evolved, like how it became a thing.
And I saw one theory that Mark Benioff was basically the, let's say, the founder of it without necessarily trying to be the founder of it.
Now, Benioff is the billionaire founder of Salesforce, which is doing great.
And the idea was, And I can confirm from my own personal experience that Benioff is the real deal.
If you think that Benioff is just pretending to be woke, you know, because it looks good, he's not that guy.
I spent enough time with him, I gave a speech for Salesforce some years ago, and I spent some time chatting with him, and then sitting at the table when he was interacting with his lieutenants and stuff, and What I saw was a true believer.
There's no question in my mind, he was genuine from bottom to top about making the world better while he made money.
Now, Salesforce has this 1% thing.
I don't know if you've heard of it.
I think they are encouraged to give 1% of their money, corporate money, 1% to some charities.
And then you're encouraged to spend 1% of your time doing something for other people.
And there's another 1% there somewhere, I think.
He was pushing it.
I've told this story before, but I watched him interact with one of his top managers, and the manager was showing him the PowerPoint presentation that they were going to give.
And this was before ESG and wokeness had even made a dent, so he really was the OG of this stuff.
And the lieutenant would say, all right, here's how the thing is going to look.
And then Benioff would say, all right, this is good, but put up front the 1% thing.
We want to highlight that we're doing things for the world.
And then the manager said, oh, yeah, that's mentioned.
That's already mentioned in here.
And then Benioff said, yes, I know it's mentioned.
Put it first.
And then the manager said, well, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but the manager's like, well, you know, the flow of things, you know, really, it fits down here.
And Benioff looked at him and said, put it first.
And it was sort of a cool moment of watching a leader lead and watching a manager manage.
Right?
The manager was managing.
It's like, oh, this is where it fits.
And the leader was saying, I don't think you're catching on.
First.
Put it first.
And of course, he got his way.
Now, did this evolve into ESG?
Do you think that that's where it started and it evolved into this?
I don't know if there's a direct line there.
But here's what my take on ESG.
In what world did it ever make sense, how could it ever make sense, that you would combine climate change and diversity, meaning race for the most part, but also gender.
How did those things get in the same acronym?
Environment, social, and governance.
How did those ever become one thing?
I have only one reason for this.
I can think of one reason.
Now this doesn't mean this was intentional.
It could be that it's like follow the money.
Things always just go the way they go and there's a reason but we're not always conscious of it.
I feel like the reason that diversity and climate were combined is that climate doesn't stand by itself.
And so you need to protect your climate change policy arguments by saying if you argue against this little package called ESG, well you're a freaking racist.
So somehow they actually made racism the protecting package for climate policy.
I hate ESG.
Well, you would, you racist.
No, I hate the climate part.
Oh, you say you hate the climate part, but isn't it convenient?
Isn't it convenient that you say you only disagree with the climate policies?
How convenient that you're white and white supremacist and also you're disagreeing with diversity, aren't you?
Aren't you?
No, actually, I like the diversity.
I just don't like the climate part of it.
Yeah, that's not the way you're acting.
The way you're acting is like a racist.
Do you think that's what it is?
Now, again, I'm not saying that somebody had a meeting and said, oh, if we put these together, we'll be protected.
It just feels like everybody knew.
Right?
It's like you knew if you connected them, they were smarter.
That's what it feels like.
So I'm going to go with that as my working philosophy, that the social and governance were thrown in there to sell climate change because it couldn't stand on its own.
Because it's kind of tough to go to a company and say, you know, you should decrease your profits, and you'll definitely decrease your profits, but it's good for the world.
So do this climate stuff.
It's kind of hard to sell, isn't it?
Now suppose you say, this climate stuff is good for the world, but diversity is not optional.
Then people say, oh, well I guess we weren't really doing diversity to make money anyway, but it's a good thing, and we want to look like good people, so I guess we have to buy the whole package.
I think this is really just about selling climate.
Because climate's where the money is.
Am I right?
There's a little bit of money in selling racial injustice, but that's mostly just the race grifters.
You know, maybe an author makes a good advance or something.
But if you're talking about the money involved in climate, that's trillions.
Climate is trillions.
And so if you can use the divisiveness of race to protect your trillions of dollars of, you know, changed activity that you're trying to change and maybe get a bite of yourself, That's a really good play.
So, one of the things that Benioff argues is that there's research showing that the companies that act like good stewards of the environment, and also they're good on diversity, they make more money, that their profits are higher.
What do you think of that?
I did not look at the research because I don't need to.
The research, according to Benioff, says that the more woke companies, using my own word, not his, make more money.
Do you know what's wrong with that analysis?
I don't have to look at the research to know this.
And believe me, I don't have to look at it.
Here's what you need to know.
Only the companies who are making a shit ton of money do woke things.
Only the companies that are already, just by themselves, ridiculously profitable for their own reasons, they're the only ones that go woke because they can afford it.
The causation is backwards.
You don't have a struggling company and then say, my company is struggling, but if I layered on some ESG requirements, this thing would take off like a rocket ship.
That's not a thing.
Do you remember In Search of Excellence?
It was the biggest business book in, I don't know, 90s?
Early 90s?
And the idea was that the most progressive companies that treated their employees the best, got the best results.
And I think Apple was an example, like you could get a back rub at work.
And then the idea was, well, all the good employees are going to work where they can get the back rub at work.
And then the ones who are already good will be even better because now they're all relaxed and they love their jobs and stuff.
And that was actually sold as the number one business book.
That stupid idea is largely how Dilbert was born, on the back of that ridiculousness.
Let me tell you what was really happening.
Well, I just did.
The companies that had extra money look for ways to spend it.
They're like, how about back robes for employees?
We got all this cash and we don't have anything to invest in it.
We ran out of good ideas and we still have cash.
So how about doing something good for the employees?
There is no causation from being extra woke to being profitable.
That does not exist.
Now, I'm not saying they're incompatible.
There may be companies that can pull it off.
But look at the companies that are high on the ESG performance list.
Did you know that Apple is one of the companies that's called out as good for the environment and diversity?
Just think about that.
Apple.
If you walked into the Apple engineering department, would they have a good representation of black engineers?
What do you think?
I doubt it, because I don't think anybody's cracked that yet, because there's a shortage of people to hire.
I don't think they have diversity in their tech staff.
Probably lots of Indian and Asian, but I don't think they have full diversity.
So I don't think they have anything like diversity.
And do you think that the iPhone is good for the environment?
Not even a little bit.
Because of the rare earth minerals in the mining, and there may or may not be some Uyghurs assembling them, and they may or may not be supporting communist China, which is bad on everything.
You know, in order to say that Apple is one of the good ones, you have to really stretch reality.
I do think Apple might be one of the better companies.
I actually, and by the way, I own stock in Apple.
Very good company.
For profits.
For profits are great.
But I think you would have to be very selective about what you measured to say that Apple was a social plus.
Does anybody think that cell phones are destroying the country and killing our youth?
We all do.
What does Apple make?
They make the phone that's destroying our youth.
They don't make the social media apps that are doing the worst part, but they carry them in their app store.
They are pass-through of probably the most damaging thing in modern society, which is TikTok and social media.
I'm in favor of keeping Twitter, by the way, because kids don't use it for the most part.
So ESG is ridiculous, and I'm thinking that one of the reasons it's hard to argue against it is not only that they cleverly put the diversity in with the climate stuff, but also that people don't understand it.
Would you agree with that?
You know, within the political junkies that watch a show like this, you have an idea what it is.
But the average person You know, unless they work in a corporation where it's their job or it's being forced upon them, they don't even know what the letters stand for.
So you can't really, you know, get public opinion on your side or anything like that.
So if you were going to argue against this, arguing on the merits would probably not work because it's too complicated.
There are merits, and the merit argument goes like this.
If you require companies to serve too many masters, you will get a bad result.
It's something everybody understands.
I'll try restarting the locals, see if that works.
I don't think so, because, yeah, it doesn't work for me.
I just get a dead page.
So let me show you what I'm getting.
If there's any people on locals who want to see, it's just a dead page.
There's nothing there.
So I've quit the app and restarted it a number of times.
I don't know.
Maybe it's me, but... It's not up for me.
All I can tell you is I just quit it and opened it.
It's the same.
And there doesn't seem to be any mode to get out of this.
It's just infinite blank pages.
Let's see if other people are up.
Yeah, and Dave Rubin.
I don't think so.
I think we're just dead.
Oh, wait a minute.
Something just came up.
Hold on.
Hello.
No, only somebody else's locals.
Dave Rubin's is up.
That's interesting.
Oh, Rumble is down too?
Oh, if Rumble is down, it's on the same servers.
Okay.
All right, here.
If you were going to try to argue against ESG like Vivek Ramaswamy is, being smarter than the people you're talking to is not the best strategy.
Everything's down?
Is it just Crowder is the only thing working this morning?
It's a good day for Crowder.
Good going, Crowder.
So you're saying that Locals is working for some of you right now?
That can't be.
There's no way that that could be true.
I don't believe it could work for you and not work for me.
I mean, technically that's possible, but... Yeah, it's dead.
Dead as a doornail.
Yeah, I don't think it's...
Yeah, it's dead.
Yes.
All right, if I were trying to fight against ESG in, let's say, a Trump-like way, and I just tried to persuade, and I wasn't trying to be, you know, technically accurate, I would come up with something else that ESG means that's funnier than what it's supposed to mean.
So how about, ESG is extra-socialist government.
How do you like that one?
Extra-socialist government for ESG.
I don't think socialist works, because the people who like ESG like socialism, so probably that wouldn't work.
How about saying ESG is reparations?
How about that?
No, you don't need reparations because that's what ESG is.
It's big corporations trying to increase the number of people of color and gender and everything else.
So when reparations comes up, you just say, oh, we already have that.
It's called ESG.
Because the people who don't know what ESG is also don't know it's not reparations.
So that would be a dirty trick, kind of unethical persuasion.
But suppose the only way you could kill a thing that's going to kill the country, because I think ESG could actually end the country.
Probably not, but it does have an extinction risk.
Because if you just can't get out of this mode, your economy is just going to go right in the crapper.
So, if you had to do something slightly unethical to get rid of something that is potentially the worst thing that's happened in the country, is that still unethical?
To use persuasion to get a good result if the persuasion is not exactly honest.
Because if you don't like persuasion that's not exactly honest, how could you ever vote for a presidential campaign?
Every presidential candidate persuades dishonestly.
All of them.
There's nobody who doesn't.
It's never been done.
It's all dishonest.
But we're okay with that.
Why are we okay with that?
Everybody who votes, votes for somebody they know lied.
Everybody.
Because they all lied.
So, I'm not suggesting that you do anything unethical.
It would be better to try to hold the line on the ethical stuff.
Try to be that person.
But I don't know of an ethical way to stop ESG.
Because if you get into the ethical argument, you're where Vivek is, which is trying to argue on the merits And I don't think you can, because the public is not sophisticated enough, or interested enough, to follow along.
Okay, I like these things, but you're saying it has this downside.
How do I weigh the downside versus the things I do like about it?
Because I like the climate, you know.
I just don't know that you can win on logic.
The only people who are going to buy the argument that ESG is bad for the economy are people who have a background in that stuff.
And they're already on that side.
The people who have a background in management probably all agree.
Unless it's somebody who's signaling on behalf of the company.
Although I will say again, that in my opinion, Mark Benioff is the real deal.
It's just that other companies can't do what he's doing because he's insanely profitable.
Insanely profitable.
So they can, you know, they can lead on this.
So I like that.
I like the fact that he knows he's insanely profitable so they can lead on things that he thinks need some leadership.
Well, DeSantis did an interview with Piers Morgan and said some things that made some news.
And of course, because it involves Trump, it is wildly taken out of context and just turned into something important when it wasn't.
So what DeSantis said was some mild, mild rebuke of Trump's style.
Very mild.
So first of all, he did not come out and say, Trump should not be arrested.
Which I think Trump supporters needed to hear if they were ever going to support DeSantis.
For any reason.
And I think the fact that he didn't come out and just say, alright, no matter what you think of Trump, this arrest is wrong.
That's what people wanted him to say.
And so the lack of saying that Looks like an ethical lapse, doesn't it?
It seems like an ethical lapse, which is worse than some other types of lapses.
Because one of the things that DeSantis has going for him is this fairly solid record of doing useful things that his base likes.
So that's his strength.
The minute he gets into Some of the other rhetoric stuff, he's not so strong.
So here are the mild things he said about Trump.
And he pretty much confirmed he's planning to run, but he hasn't announced.
He said something like, if he were president, it would be drama-free.
So that's like an indirect, but kind of direct.
You know, a statement that he wouldn't have Trump's baggage.
Now, everybody knows that, right?
Like, that's pretty much the entire argument for DeSantis, is that he would be Trump-like without some of the negatives.
But, I don't think he's selling that.
When he says that Trump is drama, all you hear is, why is he attacking somebody on his own team?
And why is he doing it, especially why is he doing it when Trump might get arrested?
Like the timing of his criticism.
Now, I don't criticize him for that.
I think saying that he would not bring as much drama as Trump At the same time Trump might be getting arrested?
That feels like the right time to say it, honestly.
It doesn't feel like so much of an attack as it is a statement of what makes him different.
An attack would be something unfair.
An attack isn't pointing out what we all see.
We all see that his value proposition is less drama, with Trump-like sensibilities.
All right.
Corporate dissenters.
Did Crowder actually crash Rumble?
Is that what happened?
Because his first day, he's going at the same time as I am.
Nikki Haley is Bolton with a weave.
That's funny.
The poor man's John Bolton.
Alright, well I don't think, I'm not going to criticize DeSantis for his bad timing or his comments about Trump because I think they were mild and they were observably true and he was asked questions about running.
I don't think that he was thinking about the timing when he said it.
I think he was just answering a question.
I'm okay with that.
I don't have a big problem with that.
But it would be better if he had supported Republicans in general against getting arrested for BS.
Mexican President had something to say about our situation.
I saw this in a tweet from Canecoa the Great.
So he says that Mexico's President Amlao says the United States cannot talk about human rights under these situations.
Julian Assange is detained.
And I thought, that's sort of a good point.
And he says, can't talk about cartel violence when President Joe Biden is bombing the Nord Stream Pipeline.
That's not a bad point.
And then he says, we can't talk about democracy while we're arresting the leading presidential candidate Donald Trump.
And drop the mic.
Yep.
Mexico is high-grounding America.
Mexico, the cartel-ridden society, is making good points about how the United States isn't looking that much better.
Now I think the cartel situation is worse than this stuff, but these are pretty solid points.
Pretty solid points.
If you're arresting the leading presidential candidate, you can't talk about democracy.
You can't talk about democracy.
You can't.
Sorry, that is taken away from you.
Let's talk about the charges.
If your charges are ever called loony, chances are you're not going to prosecute.
You're probably not going to get it.
So let me explain the charges and why it's a felony.
Something about a misdemeanor that wasn't enough.
Something about another thing that's combined.
Okay, I can't even understand the story.
It's so stupid.
There isn't a slightest chance that these charges are going to pass any kind of higher challenge in a higher court.
I don't know what's going to happen locally, but there isn't the slightest chance this is going to work.
So it's obviously just political.
We now know that everybody involved ran to get Trump before they even had a charge.
We know that they had to concoct a legal theory that other people say is just ridiculous.
And we know the timing is obviously political.
It's just, every part of this is just banana republic.
You know, there are definitely things about Trump that I would say, ooh, maybe you did need to look into that.
But this isn't one of them.
This is not one of them.
This is a pure political act, which, if anything is working right, you should propel him into the presidency, just as a reaction.
I saw a reference on Fox News that Michael Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut.
That's the way Greg Jarrett said it.
That Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels, a porn star, to keep her mouth shut.
Well, I thought Michael Cohen was a bit of a loser, but in the history of Human civilization.
He's the first person who ever paid a porn star to keep her mouth shut.
First one.
And I don't think he's doing anything right, as it turns out.
Looks like he's doing everything wrong.
So, keep an eye on that.
I heard some mocking from Democrats because there were more Trump haters who showed up to protests in New York than there were Trump supporters.
Huh.
I wonder if there's anything in the environment that would cause Trump supporters to not want to do a political protest in favor of Trump.
Is there any factors that are going on at the moment?
Yeah, how about the fact that Trump protesters get put in jail for charges that don't look sufficient?
Yeah, I think that could be a reason why the crowds are a little weak.
They don't want to go to jail.
Because we're not really a serious country anymore.
Alright, here's a little story.
Do you remember that country star Morgan Wallen?
He got cancelled because there was some video of him that surfaced when he drunkenly used the n-word.
And it was shortly after some Black Lives Matter protest.
And so he got cancelled and it wasn't too long ago, it was 2021 I guess, but he has the number one hit right now.
He has the number one hit and he's dominating the charts in general.
Now the question is, is it because I don't listen to his music so I'm not familiar, is he that good and it's just good music and that's the whole story or is this the political right voting with their wallets To uncancel him.
It feels like people are voting with their wallets, doesn't it?
And they're just trying to balance things out.
It's like, well, he got cancelled, but we don't think that was worthy of cancellation, so we're going to bring him back.
We're going to resurrect him.
It looks like the political right resurrected him.
And, you know, I can speak to this with some experience, which is there is now a robust anti-cancellation industry.
And that's really good.
It certainly helped me, because the moment I got cancelled, offers started pouring in.
And so I didn't realise that the, let's say, the protective economic wrapping that is immediately applied to the canceled if the people who like that canceled person think that was unfair.
So the amount of support that I got being canceled was shocking.
I didn't expect it.
And the amount of economic offers, very welcome.
Didn't expect it.
But more importantly, the existence of something like a Rumble or Locals gives you some place that you can monetize your canceled situation.
And that is really, really important.
I'll tell you, the contribution that Dave Rubin has made to free speech, I think you should get Honestly, some kind of, like, what is the big award presidents give?
What's that called?
It's like the Freedom Award.
What's the biggest non-military award you can get?
Not the Nobel, but an American Medal of Freedom?
Yeah.
I think if Trump gets elected, Dave Rubin and the other founders of Locals and Rumble, too.
I think they should get Medals of Freedom.
Because what they're doing is a substantial benefit to freedom of speech.
The practical freedom of speech.
I get it that only the government can block your freedom of speech.
First Amendment, blah blah blah, I understand the Constitution.
But in a practical way.
What they've done is make it safer for people to say what they want to say.
And that's a big, big deal.
And I will be forever, I will have gratitude for that.
Because it made a difference in my life.
Musk too.
Musk too.
Yes, thank you.
Elon Musk's contribution to freedom of speech, the practical side, not the constitutional side, but the practical side, is uncalculable.
It's just enormous.
Yes.
All right.
All right.
Putin and President Xi of China met in a big show of support for each other, and they put out five points that they agree on, and one of them was that, quote, Russia and China strongly oppose violating interests of other countries to gain our own advantage.
I wonder if anybody's tried to do that?
Is Russia trying to violate the interests of any countries?
Is China putting jets over Taiwan every single day?
Well, how do Russia and China get to say something this ballsy?
Well, let me tell you.
It's because Russia says Ukraine is part of Russia, and China says Taiwan is part of China.
It's easy.
Yeah.
You know what?
I also, I also believe that the United States should never conquer any other countries.
We should never conquer another country.
Cuba's kind of part of America.
I mean, if I'm being honest, Cuba is basically Florida.
So that doesn't count, because that's just part of America.
So if we were to militarily invade Cuba, I would say that is not violating the interests of another country.
No, no, no.
That's unifying the existing country.
Duh, obviously.
So that was funny.
Why does war have rules?
Whenever there's a war, like a traditional war, and they have rules, even terrorists have rules.
Have you noticed that the terrorists only do certain kinds of terror?
All right, I gotta blow something up, or maybe machine gun some people.
But of the billion other things you could do, They'll only do those things.
Some kind of weird rule.
Even terrorists have rules.
It's the weirdest thing.
But, now Putin is complaining, because the UK might, well, they confirmed, they're sending munitions, ammunition containing depleted uranium.
Now the experts say that poses little or no risk to humans unless they get shot, of course.
So it's not the kind of atomic problem of like a nuclear breakdown or a nuclear war.
But Putin's making it sound like this is part of, you know, it's in the continuum with nuclear weapons.
It isn't.
It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
It's just a scientific kind of way you can imagine there's some connection to it, right?
Yeah, so the reason they use the depleted uranium is it can penetrate stuff more effectively.
So, but Putin is warning, well, you know, we might have to, you know, respond in kind, which makes you think maybe nukes.
But I predict no nukes.
I just think it's weird that a war like this would have rules.
All right, we will use our drones to give you intel.
But we won't give you our best tanks.
Yes, we will.
But maybe somebody else's tanks.
Basically, we're managing the war like it's a game with rules.
Why do wars have rules?
Like, I understand why we do it.
But it just seems like it's making a war look nonsensical.
It makes the lives of the people dying look ridiculous.
It makes it look like a waste.
If you're not going to play to win, I don't know, maybe you shouldn't start a war.
So I guess the point of war, modern war, is trying to convince the public that the other side is violating those rules.
And, whoa, you violated those war crime rules, so what kind of a war are you fighting?
That's not a fair war.
Sure, we're blowing human beings to bits every day, but that's not the bad problem.
The bad problem is you didn't follow the rules.
Like, nobody's saying, what about the Ukrainians that were ripped apart by artillery?
You know, their bodies just ripped apart.
Well, that's not the big problem.
The big problem is you might have cheated a little bit on the unspoken rules about what this war is and what it isn't.
We don't want you cheating on those rules.
We'll just blow human beings into bits.
Because that's allowed.
That's allowed under the rules.
So Rasmussen did a poll on Ukraine and at the moment 50% of likely US voters believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made America's national security situation worse.
Up from 42%.
How could it have made it better?
I mean, I think it looks worse.
45% believe it would be better for American interests if Ukraine keeps fighting until the Russian invasion is completely defeated.
So almost half the country thinks the best path is fighting until Russia is completely defeated.
Sounds a little bit risky.
It's easy to say if you're not in the war.
41% think it would be better if Ukraine negotiates for peace.
So, and apparently the Democrats are more for the war than the Republicans.
That's quite a switch, isn't it?
Have we seen something like a complete switch now?
The liberals became the conservatives and the conservatives became the liberals.
Because it used to be that the Republicans liked war and the Democrats were protesting it.
Now it's the Democrats like this war and the Republicans are more resistant.
Yeah.
Let me give one more try to locals.
It's not like it makes a difference at this point.
Nope, still down.
Or at least mine is down.
There's new science that says life probably came from asteroids.
We've got these asteroids that I think Japan was able to get some samples from the asteroid, which is kind of impressive by itself that you can get samples from an asteroid.
And it's got, let's see, they found uracil, one of the building blocks of RNA, As well as vitamin B3 or niacin.
So these are factors which an organic creature would need.
So it's more evidence that life originated from meteors and asteroids hitting the Earth.
Now here's my question to you, for those of you who like science, but also like God.
If science goes further, and I don't think they're there yet, but if they prove that life, let's say prove to your satisfaction, that life came from asteroids, what would that do to your belief that God created humans?
Would you just say, well that's how he did it.
He just brought some asteroids to Earth, combined them, and just waited.
Or would you say, oh, I denounce my religion because science has proven that life just came from asteroids?
Or would you say, well, God created whatever life that stuff came from?
Or would you say it's not from asteroids after all?
See, I think that religion is going to come under challenge from this, where we actually, suppose we actually grab enough stuff from meteors, someday, to assemble a living creature.
What about that?
Because, you know, the only God can make a tree thing?
I feel like we're maybe 20 years away from just combining chemicals and creating a creature.
What then?
You know, would you still think that God did it?
Or would you think an advanced civilization of humans did it?
Or some creatures that were just smart?
Well, I think AI is going to challenge us on consciousness and sentience and soul.
And I think this is going to challenge religion on how did it all get started?
I don't think people are going to give up religion.
They'll probably just interpret it in a way that keeps a religion.
That's what I think.
He'll just interpret it that way.
Has Trump been arrested yet?
Is that still on?
Does anybody know?
Who created the simulation, Scott?
Well, I believe that we live in a circular reality, which means that everything that happens will happen again.
We just have to go in a full circle.
For example, the universe starts and expands.
But at some point, it's going to have to say the scientist.
We'll contract back into the singularity.
So if that's the case, that means that everything's like a repeating loop.
If everything is a repeating loop, nothing had a beginning.
Time doesn't have a beginning.
Because it's continuous in a circle.
If something's continuous in a circle, and the very same things come into being over and over again, not a different set of things, the same things, then it means that we are always caused by a higher level entity, and they are always caused by something before, that caused by something before.
So in other words, people could cause people.
It's possible.
People could cause people.
So there's always a person before, you just have to follow the circle back as, oh, this is before this, this is before this, but also this is after this.
So it could be that our notion of time doesn't make sense.
So I'm more likely to think, see the problem is, if you say God created it, you've just reproduced the problem because, you know, who created God?
And then if you want to make it go away, say, well, God is timeless.
Okay, I don't know what that means.
But, here's how God could be timeless.
If we were to create a video game in which the creatures in it believed they were real, the time in our life as the creators of the simulation would not be the same time that the simulation experiences.
For example, the simulation could experience an entire infinity, or let's say from the Big Bang through The year 2023.
It's possible that a simulation could compress that into 10 minutes.
So that the time of, you know, the god-like creatures who created the simulation would be a whole different time.
We would be outside of time and unaffected by time that's in the simulation.
So yeah, it might be that God is just the creator, and it's outside of time.
All right.
Okay.
God is everything?
How many of you have ever read my book, God's Debris?
Is there anybody here who's read God's Debris?
Because if you want to see an alternative view that's not any of the stuff I mentioned today, so it'd be outside of that.
If you want to see a view of God that you have never seen before, but many people say Blew their mind and it was the best book they ever read.
It's called God's Debris.
Now I don't know if you can buy it anymore.
It might be hard to get in a bookstore because I'm so cancelled.
But it's free on the internet.
I made it free before I made it available for purchase.
So I think if you just Google free download of God's Debris you can find it.
If you're wondering if I'm trying to make money.
I'm always trying to make money, but you could have it for free if you like.
I made that available, so.
I mean, that's on me.
Did Andrew Tate deliver you a package and have a chat?
No.
Why would you think he would?
Did somebody tell you that he did?
But no, we've never chatted.
I don't think you can chat with anyone.
Oh, it blew your mind?
My book?
Good.
All right, it's turtles all the way down.
I'm going to go see if I can figure out what's wrong with the locals app.