Episode 2056 Scott Adams: Bad Week For DeSantis, Alvin Bragg, TikTok, AI. Great Week For Trump
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
DeSantis fades
Idiot thinks TikTok is a "got no swag" issue
Oliver Stone's pro-nuclear energy film
Bragg fails big
Using AI at work
Adderall emergency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the finest thing that's ever happened to you in your whole darn life.
Probably.
Probably.
You know, things might pick up later, but at the moment, this is the best thing that's ever happened to you, and it's getting better.
Watch this.
All you need is a simultaneous sip to take it up a level.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard chalicestine, a kenteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
The best thing that ever happened.
Well, there's going to be a theme for today's live stream.
The theme is, it seems like everything's going my way.
That's the theme.
Let's see if I can connect it all together and make that theme work.
Okay?
I'll start with a tweet I just saw before I went live from David Boxenhorn.
A good follow on Twitter.
David Boxenhorn has good stuff.
And he tweets, it's been in the news lately that the age gap between men and women in relationships is increasing.
I've seen a lot of speculation about why this is, but not the one that comes to my mind.
Women want children at an earlier age than men do.
So, get serious at an earlier age.
Do you think that's why older men and younger women are getting together?
Do you think that's the reason?
I don't think so.
Now, this happens to be one of the few categories I can speak about with some authority.
There are a lot of things I talk about that's maybe not my sweet spot.
Maybe I'm just sort of speculating about other people.
But now and then, there's a topic that I can talk to with great authority.
It's not about having kids.
It's definitely not that.
It's money, of course.
You know, financial security would be right up there.
But almost equal to it is a mindset difference.
There's just a clear mindset difference.
And it's not everybody's thing, right?
But let me put it this way.
As a general statement that does not apply to every person, but as a sort of a general statement, I think women look for People who are like their dad.
And men look for people who maybe remind them of their mom, in some ways.
Not necessarily looks, but in terms of personality and stuff.
Now, the problem is that younger men remind women of their mother.
Am I right?
If you're a younger woman, you say, oh, I just met this guy my age.
He reminds me of my mother.
He's very woke.
He's very empathetic, very caring, seems to care about other people a great deal, uses all the right pronouns.
Yeah.
So if somebody reminds you of your mother and you're female, that might not be the most attractive thing.
But there would be a lot of young women who think that the men their age just are not exactly manly enough, basically.
And so they're looking for older guys who are still a little less woke.
So, one way I could put it is, there's a split preference.
Plenty of young women like extra wokeness with their men, before they cheat on them.
I mean, it's a temporary thing.
Obviously the woke men will all be cheated on.
I think that's obvious to everybody.
Maybe some portion of women just prefer guys that remind them of their dad.
You know, sort of a self-determination mindset.
Less complaining.
That sort of thing.
So I think that's what it is.
It's a mindset thing.
Alright, in the news, coffee has been tested and apparently is not as risky for your cardiac health as once thought.
So, once again, things are going my way.
That's right.
Coffee, as you say, is associated with a longer life and taking more steps when you're alive and getting more done and being more focused and all that.
So, coffee.
Not so bad for you after all.
At least for your heart, very specifically.
My conversation with Larry Elder.
He graciously interviewed me for his Epoch Times site, but you can see it.
You can look, either Google it, I think it's now on YouTube.
So just Google Larry Elder and Scott Adams and it'll pop right up.
Or you can see the link in my Twitter feed today toward the top.
So that's going my way.
So coffee's going my way.
Younger women are like older guys.
That's going my way.
Larry Elder interview.
Worked out nicely, I thought.
I'll go on my way.
Here's something that doesn't have anything directly to do with me, but I'm going to weigh in.
Apparently there's a national Adderall shortage.
Did you know that?
There's an Adderall shortage?
And apparently it's an intentional shortage.
So I guess the government has put some kind of a cap on how much can be made.
Presumably because of abuse.
Now, I've watched the arguments online and they're very predictable.
It's the everyone, no, the fewer are the complete.
So this argument is in the form of, let's pretend that if there's a large group of people, that whenever we talk about them, That the few people in that group are considered the same as all of them.
And it's the reverse on the opposite side.
So here's what you see.
You see the people who genuinely need Adderall.
Because there is a type of person, a type of brain, where it's all positive.
It's all positive.
They really, really need it.
So they say, hey, this is a valuable thing I need and it's being prevented and it's all bad.
It is all bad.
If you're on Adderall and you need it...
And then you have to go without it?
That's no joke.
I don't think people understand the implications of that.
That can turn a person into a completely dysfunctional person.
And there may be some health risks of not tapering off as well.
I don't know about that, but I think the withdrawal is kind of nasty.
So you've got one group who's saying this is a national emergency, and it's created by the government, And people like me are going to be really, really in trouble.
This is no joke.
There's a group of human beings in this country who our government, for reasons that may have been well-intentioned, but of course everything goes wrong, they are absolutely screwed.
And I feel like there's zero empathy.
Because a lot of people are in the other camp that says, oh, this is just because you found a legal way to get a meth.
That's what the critics say.
Oh, it's, you know, uh-huh.
You won't be able to concentrate extra good.
So big deal.
You'll just be like me after that.
All right.
Now, here's the problem.
Both sides are right.
Completely right for some percentage of the population.
But both of them are completely wrong about what's going on with the other half.
I don't know if it's half, but something like that.
And once again, it's another example of complete inability to have a useful conversation.
The honest conversation is that a lack of Adderall will absolutely screw maybe tens of millions of people.
I mean, it's a lot.
At least millions.
I say millions at a minimum.
And at the same time, it's 100% true that the drug is really overused and over-prescribed, and that people who don't need it need it are certainly getting it.
So, is nobody able to say both things can be true?
That we have a national emergency for a group of Americans Who it looks like the other group of Americans just don't give a shit about.
Don't give a shit about them.
Absolutely wrong.
I'm going to take the same view on this that I take with, I know this will seem weird, Confederate statues.
That my opinion of Confederate statues isn't really part of the issue.
The issue is some large percentage, doesn't mean it's a majority, but some large percentage of Americans are offended by it.
That's good enough.
That's all I need to hear.
Oh, it's offensive to a large group of people.
They have reasons that sound reasonable to me.
I mean, I could argue against it, but it's just a fact that people are offended.
So I'll treat the fact that people feel that way as important.
Now, obviously, the analogy doesn't work for a medical thing.
But the point is, if there's a huge bunch of Americans who legitimately are going to get screwed by this, I do care.
Like I do care.
And you should care too.
You should care because these are innocent people with a real medical problem and your government is going to leave them out there to just fucking twist.
It is evil.
It's just pure evil.
Now, I don't have an easy solution because I also know that it's overprescribed.
That's a real thing.
And it's like a really big important thing.
So you just have competing interests.
But my My personal ethical bias is toward the actual people who have medical use for it.
So, if you don't have empathy for them... Yeah, if you don't have empathy for that group, maybe it's because you don't know how bad it will be.
Which I think is mostly the case.
But maybe just talk to some people who have an actual medical need for it.
And you're going to see some real panic.
And that panic is justified.
There's a real medical crisis coming that's big.
It's going to affect productivity, relationships, everything.
I mean, we've got a big problem coming if we don't fix that.
Alright.
Here's something going my way.
Oliver Stone, who you might imagine is a left-leaning kind of a guy, just produced a pro-nuclear energy movie that's just completely pro-nuclear energy.
Now, I'm sure he talks about the good and the bad of it, but it's unambiguously designed to say the only thing that can save us from climate change is nuclear energy.
Can we all take a bow?
I would say that this audience, by and large, has been on this page for a long time.
The people who are better informed about nuclear energy have been pro-nuclear energy for years.
It's only the people who are lesser informed about the risks.
They're using an old model of the risk that doesn't apply with the new technology.
Generation 3 nuclear plants never had a problem.
The current ones that you would build today never had a problem.
And the odds of it are not that high.
And if they did have a problem, it probably wouldn't be that big.
So, Oliver Stone, thank you.
I would consider this, I would consider what Oliver Stone is doing a patriotic donation to the country.
I mean, I hope he makes money on it and all that.
But to me, this just looks like pure patriotism.
From somebody whose views might not always line up with mine.
I appreciate it.
All right, so I've been saying for a long time that the Democrats don't argue in favor of keeping TikTok, because if they did, it would sound either stupid, or uninformed, or nakedly political.
So they just can't say it.
They just can't But today they did, because I guess the CEO of TikTok is going to be testifying to Congress, and at least the news is saying that the Biden administration has demanded that TikTok's Chinese owners sell their stakes.
Now, I didn't know that the Biden administration had a clear statement like that.
That's the first time I've read that.
So it's reporting about the statement, but I haven't seen the statement.
So I wonder, to me, this news is not clean.
There's something missing on why suddenly the news says that the Biden administration wants to change TikTok's ownership.
I guess that's the softer thing than banning it.
So maybe they're looking for some way to keep the political benefit of it while getting rid of some of the Chinese risk of ownership.
But here's the counter argument made by Representative Jamal Bowman.
And believe me when I say this is the best argument for keeping TikTok that I've seen.
So, his counter-argument to Chinese government having control over the data of Americans and being able to persuade political events in America and program our youth, his response to that is, Republicans ain't got no swag.
That's why they want to ban TikTok.
Ain't got no swag.
Now, he is the stupidest person that I've seen in politics since the last time Jerry Nadler said something.
But how in the world, how in the world can you support a team that's this stupid?
I'd love to say this is just political.
I mean, it comes off as just political.
But does he think that his own base is so stupid that the real issue he's identifying is they got no swag?
They got no swag!
Now, the context, just to be fair, the context here is that he wants to use TikTok to, quote, engage young people in politics.
He wants to keep young people engaged.
And he believes, this is my interpretation, that Democrats, because they have swag, they can use this cool new tool, this TikTok tool.
Whereas the sleepy old Republicans, they don't know how to use this cool new tool called TikTok.
They can't make viral memes.
So Republicans are trying to stop it because they don't know how to make memes.
And they don't know how to make viral videos.
Okay, that's your best argument?
That's stupid.
That's just stupid.
So there's some things that you can say, well, that's a different point of view.
This is not one of those.
This is not a different point of view problem.
This is just stupid and lying.
And there's this old man with a sign standing next to him.
They somehow got a group of ridiculous losers to hold signs to keep TikTok.
Now, I get that people like TikTok, but that's not the argument for keeping it.
It's really useful.
That's not the argument for keeping it.
Businesses use it to advertise.
Yes.
Not the argument for keeping it.
None of these are even on point.
They're completely ignoring the argument.
So anyway, it looks like the TikTok situation is going my way because the counter argument has now been surfaced and the counter argument is stupid.
It's just stupid.
Well, here's a puzzling update.
China is developing its own mRNA vaccination.
Do they know that they shouldn't call it a vaccination?
I wonder if anybody's mentioned that to them.
So doesn't this raise questions?
So let's say you're an American citizen, you've been watching the whole situation, and have not many American citizens concluded, and a number of medical professionals, but clearly not all of them, concluded that the mRNA thing Was a little bit dangerous in its own way.
Now, still the official word is that it kept people alive.
That's still the official medical, you know, consensus in America.
But mostly the older people and probably was just more bad than good for younger people.
But given that situation, why would China go ahead and do their own version of it?
Is it a version that somehow avoids, I don't know, the spike protein problem or something?
I mean, I don't know enough about the science to speak of it.
But do you think in China it's just that the pharmaceutical company, which is fully owned by China, do you think China's own pharmaceutical company is just operating on lying and money and has convinced the government of China to do something that's bad for the government of China?
Because of money?
See, I see how that could work in the American system and the European system, but I don't know, it seems weird that that would be the dynamic in the Chinese system.
So, here's what I wonder.
Did the Chinese scientist not study what happened in America with mRNA and therefore have an updated idea of what the risks and rewards are?
Did they look at all the data that's available and conclude that it was safe?
Did that happen?
You know, it's easy for me to imagine there's some weird distorted thing happening in China that might mirror our own distorted situation.
In the US, you could easily argue that it was all about money and somebody hid some data.
But now that we've got a couple of years of mRNA experience, and China would have access to pretty much all of the things that our scientists have, how did they look at it all and say, let's do this?
Does that raise any questions with you?
I don't quite understand what's going on here.
Because if, well, let me ask you this question.
Knowing everything we know about the mRNA as of today, you know, today's knowledge, if we could rewind and the government had to do it all over again, do you think they would have done it the same way?
Because I think they would have.
I think they would have.
Based on current data, I think they would have.
They would have maybe given fewer vaccinations to young people.
But I think they would have still given it over 60 and people who had comorbidities.
That's what I think.
I think that's what they would say based on the current information.
Now, the thing we don't know is what happens in the long run.
You know, does your body get degraded in some long run way?
But, you know, the Chinese have all the same information we do, I'll bet.
So I don't, I guess it's a confusing situation.
I don't know why they would.
Now the benefit of the mRNA platform is they can more quickly come up with a vaccine, let's call it, vaccine.
You can do it more quickly than the old way of, well the old way.
So apparently they think that catching up or keeping up with the variants is more important than whatever risk the platform brings.
I know, it's just curious that they would make that decision.
So here's a story that's super alarming.
According to the New York Post and Miranda Devine.
Now you remember Miranda was I think the first reporter on the Hunter Biden laptop story.
So we know her to be credible and accurate.
So that's your context.
Somebody who's credible on this very domain and accurate.
But this story, I think, is short of being confirmed.
So I'm not going to say I believe the story on the first telling.
But what we know about the story, according to Miranda, who is credible, is very disturbing.
And it goes like this.
There's some gentleman, Robert Hinnock, Oh no, I'm sorry, Mr. Luft is the person.
He said that he had some kind of deep contacts with Intel people and he's just one of these guys who has a lot of deep contacts with the intelligence world.
He says he tried four years ago to inform the Department of Justice in the US, he's not an American, that the Chinese state-controlled energy company CEFC Had paid $100,000 a month to President Biden's son, Hunter, and $65,000 to Joe's brother, Jim, in exchange for their FBI connections, which is rumored to be some connection guy, One-Eye.
That's some FBI guy who was telling him insider stuff from the FBI.
And they were using their FBI insider, presumably illegal sources, because I can't imagine this would be legal.
And using Biden's name to promote China's Belt and Road Initiative.
So there's this guy, not from the U.S.
He might be Israeli.
I think he's an Israeli citizen.
He gets picked up in Cyprus on behalf of the United States.
So here's a guy who's been warning that he has direct personal knowledge because he learned of the scheme, the Hunter Biden scheme.
He learned it through his own relationship with Hunter's Chinese business partners.
He didn't hear it from a third-hand party.
He heard it from the people who were paying Hunter, directly, because he knows them personally.
That's a really good source.
So this really good source, who has information about Biden family and FBI corruption, was picked up in Cyprus for being an arms dealer.
For being an arms dealer.
Do you know what he says about that?
The guy who was picked up, he says, I've been arrested in Cyprus on a politically motivated extradition request by the U.S.
The U.S.
claiming I'm an arms dealer, it would be funny if it weren't tragic.
I've never been an arms dealer.
Don't you think that that would be easy to prove or disprove that he was or was not an arms dealer?
I've got a feeling that he's not an arms dealer, and that it might be exactly what it looks like, which is he was arrested because he's a critic of the Bidens and has actually information that would put them all in jail.
That's what it looks like.
Now, it's way too early.
Fog of war, you know, first versions of stories tend to change.
So I wouldn't go all the way to believe in that, but if later you find out That this gentleman does indeed have no connection whatsoever to arms dealing, then I think you know what you need to know.
And I'm pretty sure that you don't say something like this.
This is just my liar filter, my BS filter.
My BS filter says you don't say this sentence Unless it's true.
Here's the sentence.
The U.S.
claiming I'm an arms dealer.
It would be funny if it weren't tragic.
I've never been an arms dealer.
I've never been an arms dealer and that's funny?
That's somebody who's telling the truth.
Now if that's a lie, I would be very surprised.
Because liars don't talk like that.
This is the cleanest, most direct denial of something that presumably would be easy to prove.
It would be easy to prove one way or another.
So you don't say something so declaratively, absolutely, I've never been an arms dealer, unless you can back that up.
What would he say if he were guilty?
Here's how guilty people talk.
They have no evidence of these charges.
It's a trumped-up charge.
They don't mention the details.
It's very unusual for somebody to say directly, I've never had anything to do with this.
I'm not even involved in any way.
That's an unusual denial for somebody who would be guilty.
So he's signaling innocence, pretty clearly.
And he's signaling that he does have the goods on the Bidens.
And it looks like the Biden crime family is exactly what it looks like.
It's literally an organized crime situation.
It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion than it's literally organized crime.
It's hard to imagine any other explanation.
But like I say, it's early.
Anything could happen to change the story.
Some people are saying that the prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, who's trying to put Trump in jail, should be in jail himself, and I agree with that.
I would say based on what we've seen so far, if it turns out that what we know so far, or think we do, turns out to be true, I don't know if he's committed technically a crime, but he is someone who should be in jail if you had a functional system that was working well.
He should be.
Based on what we know.
And what we know is that he signaled in advance that he was going after Trump before he had a crime.
That's good enough.
That's good enough.
If the only thing you know is he ran for office promising to get Trump before he knew what possibly he would charge him with, that's good enough.
That's everything you need to know.
That's a criminal who may not have broken a specific law.
But in all the ways that the word criminal is important, except for maybe the penalty, that's criminal.
To tell me that I should only call that unethical?
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to call that just political.
I'm not going to call it unethical.
That's a fucking crime.
If you tell me there's nothing on the books that makes that criminal, okay.
I'll listen to that.
I might even say that's true.
Still criminal.
It's a crime.
I don't care if it's legal or not.
Apparently there's a new document uncovered which we had not been aware of and makes me wonder if the grand jury was aware of it either.
That it's a 2018 document from Michael Cohen's own attorney.
So he's no longer the attorney, I believe.
And a letter to the Federal Election Commission says that the payments, these payments to Stormy Daniel, the payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution.
And according to this letter at the time, 2018, it was Michael Cohen's own money.
It was his own money.
Now, I don't think that's a complete defense, but what is a complete defense is that we didn't see that letter until now.
If it's true that this just arose, but it's been around since 2018, it's very, let's say, positive for Trump's side.
If Alvin Bragg intentionally kept this bit of evidence from the public, again, I don't think it's a confirmation of anything, but it's an important piece of evidence.
If the grand jury didn't see this, then Alvin Bragg, if he intentionally kept it from him, I would think that's criminal.
Again, I don't know if it's illegal, but it's a crime by any basic standard of human behavior.
So, yeah, I guess it was Senator Rand Paul who said that the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, should be in jail.
That's different from saying he violated a specific crime.
I would say that the world would be better if he were in jail.
I agree with that.
He seems like somebody who is only bad for the world, does not have good intentions, is signaling his bad intentions as loudly as anybody possibly could, and then he's playing out his bad intentions and malign point of view right in front of us.
Yeah, that's somebody that you want in jail.
You want them in jail.
The world would be better if he were in jail.
That's just a fact.
One of my favorite commentators, Van Jones, said on CNN that he would not be surprised if Alvin Bragg held back an indictment of former Trump, or former President Trump, arguing that the prosecutor should wait for the former president to be slapped with more serious charges.
And I guess I guess Van Jones said on CNN, quote, I think that the heat is on this DA.
I think he's going to make a very sober decision.
And I would not be surprised if he doesn't step back from the brink.
So you see why I say Van Jones is one of your most useful voices in politics.
And what I mean by that is he's willing to look at the whole field and then talk as though he's seen the whole field.
Now, if you read between the lines, I think he's clearly indicating, in the softest way you can to the CNN audience, that this is in fact a political operation and not about the law.
Now, he didn't say this is political, but That's the indication that you would get if you said you would wait for a more serious charge and he's going to step back from the brink because of political pressure.
If political pressure makes you pull back, we don't know that that's happened, but it might be.
If political pressure makes you move back, then it was a political process.
Because I don't believe, if they had a real crime, that political pressure would make any difference.
Political pressure doesn't make you stop prosecuting an actual criminal, does it?
Political pressure could only help you against somebody who's clearly not a real criminal.
I mean, I think.
Have you ever heard of a story where political pressure got somebody off from the public?
OJ.
Well, that's in the jury.
I'm not going to get the jury.
But the question, to prosecute or not, I don't know.
If there's a real crime, I think they always prosecute.
If there's a sketchy, gray area, novel legal theory, then maybe they don't, because of political pressure.
I think that's where we are.
All right.
So, I guess the grand jury meets again today, so we don't know if anything's delayed.
It could be just normal process, because everything in the world is later than you think.
Well, President Biden's spokesperson, Jean-Pierre BlaBla, I've decided that I'm not going to learn more than two names for any one person.
It's just sort of a rule.
So, you know, I remember my own name, Scott Adams.
I don't make you remember my middle name because I feel three is too much.
Three is too much.
I can barely remember somebody's first name, but If somebody comes at me with a three-name situation, I'm just going to take the first two.
So she's just Jean-Pierre to me.
I can't be bothered with third names of people.
No disrespect to Jean-Pierre, just generally speaking.
I like two names maximum.
That's all I can handle.
So she was asked about the story of the documented evidence that the Biden family received money from a foreign entity.
And here is the perfectly sensible and coherent answer from Jean-Pierre BlaBla.
Last name.
And she said, look, I'm just not going to respond to that from here.
Look, we have heard from House Republicans for years and years how the inaccuracies and lies when it comes to this issue.
And I don't even know where to begin to even answer that question because, again, it's been lies and lies and inaccuracy for the past couple of years.
And I'm just not going to get into it from here.
Alright, so that's what the actual paid human being, who is living proof that if you try to satisfy too many requirements, you get this.
So, I think it's perfectly good for the country to have a spokesperson of the President who is a woman, for example.
I think that's good.
It's good that it's not all a bunch of white men or something.
So I like that she's a woman.
I like that the spokesperson for the president can be black.
Of course.
Everybody should be equal opportunity.
So I like that she's black.
I like that she's a woman.
She's also, I believe, LGBTQ.
I like that too.
I like that we've got a spokesperson who's LGBTQ.
But the question I ask is if you work so hard to get all three of those, Well, black, check.
That's good.
Woman, check.
That's a plus.
LBGTQ, great.
Glad everybody gets an opportunity.
But are we really going to pretend that if you don't try to get all three of those things, you don't end up with the worst candidates?
On average.
I'm still allowing that the best person in the world could be a black lesbian.
Could be the best president we've ever had.
Could be amazing.
In fact, You know, probably plenty of examples of that.
My only point is, if you're focusing on those things as your main requirement, you might leave a little money on the table.
And you might get somebody who can only answer a question like this.
Look, I'm just not going to respond to that from here.
Look, we have heard...
All right, now let's compare her performance to AI.
I saw a tweet from Kenneth Raposa, who says, I asked my new friend, Chet GPT, to pretend it was a White House press secretary, and I was a journalist asking for a question.
And I said, now, I'm not going to read you the AI answer to this.
I will simply say that the AI's answer was really professional.
It was complete.
Hit every note you'd want to hit and was a real good representation of the office of the president.
Or you could hire the three checkbox person who says, look, I'm just not going to respond to that from here.
From here, was there some other place she was going to respond to it?
I'll respond to it over there, but I'm not going to respond to it from here.
I mean, it's just babble.
It's just babble.
So, think back to not too long ago, and do you remember not too long ago I told you that the reason that AI will not be indistinguishable from humans is that nobody's going to make AI act stupid.
Unless you make your AI act as stupid as Jean-Pierre-blah-blah-last-name, you're never going to think it's a human.
You're going to say, oh, those answers were all good.
It must be AI.
That's always been the problem.
It's always been the problem that you'd have to make AI dumber to make it believable.
It's hard to wrap your head around that.
Rasmussen has a poll.
Asking likely U.S.
voters, do they believe that Biden is told the complete truth about his family's foreign business deals?
How many American voters do you think, and you're allowed to use your ESP for this?
In fact, you can answer the question before I ask it.
Oh, you're good.
So the question is, how many think that it's very likely Very likely that Biden has told the complete truth about his family's foreign business deals.
Oh wow, your guesses are really close.
It's 24%.
Yeah, you guessed 25.
Wow.
Wow, good job.
Good job.
Smartest audience in the world.
But let's see, 65% think... Let's see, there was another number here that was interesting.
65% of voters believe that Biden-family Chinese connection is a serious scandal.
So two-thirds of the country thinks that it may not be illegal, but it's a serious scandal.
Has there ever been a better week for Trump?
I think Trump's having his very best week.
Two-thirds of the country thinks that Biden is in a scandal with our biggest adversary, China.
At the same time, I think the majority of the country thinks that this Alan Bragg thing is purely political.
So everything that you imagined in your conspiratorial mind is actually looking to be true.
I mean, you never know.
But it looks like there is a huge scandal with money coming from China and maybe Ukraine.
It looks like the prosecution or potential prosecution of Trump on this trumped up charges are completely political bullshit.
It's everything you thought it was.
Here's another story about a professor in Florida.
UCF professor.
Fired for rejecting, this is a Fox News story, for rejecting the notion of systemic racism.
And he said that the diversity movement is pretty much an anti-white movement.
So he got shunned and banned, but he got his job back.
Then you read this whole thing where he's saying that the whole DEI stuff is just an anti-white movement in disguise.
That's basically all it is.
He got sort of semi-cancelled, but he got back to work, but all of his co-workers won't talk to him.
He's like shunned at work.
But he's saying that's fine, because we're all idiots, basically.
I said that part about all idiots, but he said, yeah, that's fine.
He doesn't mind if people like that shun him.
But are you waiting for the... Here's the punchline.
Just hear the headline, and then listen, wait for the punchline that's way at the back of the story.
Headline, professor rejects systemic racism, says it's anti-white.
Professor himself is half white, half Hispanic, and fully gay.
Fully gay.
And apparently being gay and half Hispanic was just enough to get your job back, but not enough to be happily employed.
You can still get your job back, but we're not completely comfortable with you.
Oh yeah, you can say you're gay, but that's not enough lately.
Lately that's not enough.
So just if you want to know where the edge is.
So here's another case, this story is another case of things going my way.
Because I think this is the sort of story you're seeing more of, because I've expanded the conversation.
And they expanded it to people who are not going to get cancelled, saying, it looks to me like this stuff is anti-white.
You can now say that.
You're welcome.
I'm pretty sure that that was me.
I'm pretty sure that was me.
That a regular person who doesn't want to get cancelled can say, you know, the impact of this is looking anti-white.
It's just a statement you can say now.
You're welcome.
DeSantis is going down a little bit in support, which is no big surprise, is it?
So we're expecting him to announce, but Trump is gaining on him 54% GOP support compared to 28.
So that, or actually, it's just 26 now.
Does that surprise you?
Doesn't surprise me, because a lot of people who are not even pro-Trump I think that maybe DeSantis should have supported the rule of law.
He doesn't have to support Trump.
He just has to support the rule of law.
The trolls on YouTube are so weak today.
Could you go, the weak trolls, could you go find somebody to help you?
Maybe help you with your trolling?
Because it's a little bit pathetic today.
I'm seeing like a quality of troll at 1 or 2.
I've seen trolling that's like an 8 or a 9.
Like I know it can be done.
And I demand a higher quality of trolling.
See, Ruby is just yelling Kla Adams in all capitals because Ruby was fooled by the 4chan hoax that reversed all of my opinions.
So Ruby, I'm sorry they did this to you.
And in this case, I think probably right-leaning people did it to you, and I'm sorry about that.
I'm sorry you were victimized by 4chan and Reddit, maybe.
Ben Garrison, the worst cartoonist in the world.
Yeah, yeah, please see if you could raise your trolling performance just a little bit.
All right, good.
Had to be said.
Yeah, how many of you would agree with the statement that DeSantis blew an easy call this week?
That it was sort of an easy call to support the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of political prosecutions.
You know, if you're going to represent Republicans, you've got to speak out against political prosecutions.
That's not optional.
That is not optional.
Because you know what it feels like when he's not supporting Trump?
Feels like he's not supporting his supporters either.
And you can't win that way.
Yeah.
That feels a little personal.
Let me put it a different way.
DeSantis not supporting Trump in this easy, easy call.
All you have to do is say, I don't agree with the political prosecutions.
I don't think this should go forward.
Easiest thing anybody could say.
That feels personal.
I feel that personally.
Does anybody else feel it personally?
It doesn't feel as political, it just feels personal.
Because I feel that he wouldn't support me in that situation either.
Do you think I could ever be prosecuted on a political prosecution?
Of course.
Oh, somebody says he did.
Has he improved on his messaging on that?
If he has, I'll give him credit for it, but it would still be a little bit too late.
I don't know.
I think he didn't read the room right there at all.
Here's an interesting update on AI which is, I think, is playing into my prediction that AI will become illegal.
Except in limited cases.
So here's my prediction.
AI will not take over the world because we'll make it illegal in so many places that it will be hard to use it in any effective way.
Alright, here's the first hint of this.
Apparently employees are already massively using it to do their own work, to do their work.
And employers don't like it.
So here's what employees are doing.
They're using it to respond to emails.
They're using the free public AI.
So I'm sure they check it, but they're making sure that their email has perfect wording and says what they want.
So they're using it to write their emails based on their instructions.
They're using it to write code.
Or even to suggest a way to write code.
It doesn't necessarily write it for them, but in some cases it can just say what the approach would be.
It saves a whole bunch of time.
It's just like a super Google, basically.
But employers are saying, you know, we don't like this, we're uncomfortable with it.
But here's a statistic that I don't believe.
This couldn't possibly be true, could it?
Almost 70% of employees surveyed are using AI without telling their boss?
Do you believe that 70%?
This must be office workers, of course.
But people who work inside, you think 70% of them are using AI already?
That's ridiculous.
That's not even slightly, that's not even slightly possible.
Yeah, and that's a ridiculous number.
Because if you ask the average employee about AI, they would say, I don't even know where I would look for it.
There's no way it's 70%.
Right?
I mean, I'm right, right?
Well, 70% of, you know, indoor office worker types.
There's no way.
Nothing's 70%.
Well, that's an exaggeration.
However, this is, and then lawyers are saying don't use it to give a legal opinion to a client.
Yeah, don't ever let AI write the opinion that you're going to give directly to a client.
Yeah, that feels like really uncomfortable if you're in the legal business.
Because there are two problems.
Number one, it might be wrong if you don't check it.
Number two, it might make your law firm look unnecessary.
Because the client could have googled that or, you know, asked GPT the same thing.
I think that might be the bigger problem.
That it would make lawyers look unnecessary for easy stuff.
Still be necessary for the hard stuff.
But it might make them look unnecessary for their bread and butter easy stuff.
You know, paperwork pushing.
How do you start a... You know, imagine this.
Hey AI, should I start a C corp, an S corp, or a limited liability company?
That's sort of a typical lawyer, or sometimes accountant, question.
And I'm pretty sure ChatGPT could give you a total good reason, a good, well-constructed argument for which one you could use.
So I got a feeling that there's a whole bunch of the legal profession that's in jeopardy here.
Might be one of the first things to take a hit from AI.
All right.
So I think that AI will be illegal in an increasing number of contexts.
It's already illegal to create memes that look real.
So social media has already said, OK, you can't make this meme of a real person unless it's clearly labeled parody or something.
So that's already illegal.
And lawyers are saying you can't use it for a client, and bosses are saying you can't use it for work.
I think little by little, we will realize that the operating system of civilization is lying and stupidity.
And that if you took the lying and stupidity out of our system, it would crumble.
It's all based on optimism and bullshit.
And the AI doesn't know how to do optimism and bullshit.
So I think the humans will make a whole constellation of individual small decisions that collectively will make AI so neutered that you either don't believe it, or you feel bad about using it, or it's just illegal, or against the guidelines of where you work.
So little by little, I think humans will make it only useful as maybe an advanced Google search.
And we might be comfortable with that.
But we're not going to let it do stuff.
We're not going to give it authority.
We're not going to let it even help us with our arguments.
And the last thing you'll let it do is let it decide on a policy decision.
It will probably be illegal.
Here's a prediction.
Specific prediction.
You ready?
Specific prediction.
It will be illegal to publish an AI opinion on a major policy decision in the future.
Or possibly just banned by the news industry.
So the news industry just might say, we'll never give you an AI opinion.
Because the AI opinion wouldn't have the spin that the news wants to put on it.
So if they can't put the spin on it, they're going to ban it.
Because it will make their own news look spun.
If you ever had any non-spun news from an AI, Everybody's over-spun biased news would look ridiculous, and you would just stop looking at it immediately.
You'd just say, well, I can just ask the AI for the news, and it will just tell me the news without a spin.
Now at the moment, there's the bigger problem.
It looks like AI is programmed to give you only spin.
It only gives you a Democrat view of the world.
So that might be the reason to ban it.
It could get banned because it's just a Democrat opinion.
And then people will say, well, I can get that without AI.
So there are a whole bunch of reasons I think AI will be banned in a whole bunch of different contexts until there's not much left.
I think we'll pick at it until it's just bones.
There's your contrarian opinion for the day.
Well, we're seeing some news that the Wagner Group, which is doing the heavy fighting over there in Ukraine, so the news report says, and I couch all of this with, Nobody believes the news coming out of Ukraine, because it's always spun pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian, but it's never objective.
So, I'll just tell you what the news is, and then in your mind say, well, maybe, might be true.
Well, it might not be, right?
Just keep, might not be going into your brain when I read this.
So Ukraine's most senior ground forces, basically they're saying that the Wagner forces are being so degraded in the current fighting that the Ukrainians will be able to mount a counter-offensive and their odds of success are pretty high because there won't be much left of the Russian Wagner forces by the time they do it.
Now do you believe that?
Or does that sound exactly like Ukrainian propaganda?
It sounds exactly like Ukrainian propaganda.
But could also be true.
It's just there's no reason to believe it.
Because whether we're true or not true... Anthony, do better.
I asked for the trolls to up their game and I got a paragraph in all caps accusing me of doubting the Holocaust.
That's not better.
That's actually, I think you took a step backwards, Anthony.
Try a little better than that.
Could you go talk to the other trolls?
Are they on vacation today?
Did the good trolls all take the day off?
Come on, up your game, Anthony.
You can do it.
I trust you.
I trust you.
I believe in you, Anthony.
I believe in you.
Well, Jack Dorsey is getting some heat today because his other company that he is a co-founder in, Block, and has the Cash App.
So the Cash App lets you to send cash from one person to another without a bank.
So you don't need a bank in the process.
It's just app to app.
And then I guess you can turn it into cash.
But the shares have plunged 18%.
I don't know, this was as of a few hours ago.
And because there's a short seller called the Hindenburg Research, which is a great name for a short seller.
Now, if you don't follow finance, a short seller is somebody who's making a bet that a stock will go down.
And usually a bet that it will go down a lot and fairly soon.
So they only make their money with stocks that go down.
So can you believe a short seller when they say there's a problem with a company?
Is that credible?
Well, it's true that they put their money on it.
So if you said, well, they put their money where their mouth is, you'd say yes.
But the problem is, the news is what makes the stock go down.
So somebody who makes money if stock goes down, creates news that says the stock should go down, and then people read the news and they go, well, I don't know if it's true or not, but it sounds scary, so I better get out of this stock just in case.
And then the company that said bad things about it makes money.
This story is based on the lowest level of credibility.
You can't get a lower level of credibility than, if you believe my story, I'll make money.
If you don't believe my story, I'll lose money.
You can't be less credible than that.
It's impossible.
The next less credible is, a secret source told me it was true in the meeting and nobody else has another source.
That's pretty bad.
But the secret source at least isn't directly getting money right now.
It's as terrible as a single anonymous source is.
Completely non-believable.
The person who's making money, if you believe their story, that's by far the lowest credibility.
But it doesn't mean it's false.
It doesn't mean it's not true.
Doesn't mean that.
Because if they've been in business for a while and they have a track record of not just making things go down, but finding in advance which ones go down.
Now here's their claim.
Which is pretty outrageous.
They said they did a two-year investigation and concluded that Block, the parent company, has systematically taken advantage of the demographics it claims to be helping.
So it would claim to be helping people who don't have a banking relationship, so it would be lower income people.
And then the short seller said, It thrives on serving the unbanked.
Okay, that's what I said.
And it alleged that the unbanked are massively using it for fraud.
The allegation is because they can.
So in other words, there's a huge percentage, according to the Sure Seller, of people who use the app who are criminals and fraudsters.
So that the total number of users is inflated, not by a little bit, but by a lot, because there are fraudsters who might sign up with two different names and a number of things you can do.
So, I would say two things are probably true.
There's probably too much fraud on the app, But the claim of a short seller is not credible.
Like, every app has too much fraud.
Every app.
Every app has too much fraud.
So, probably they do too.
I mean, that would be the least surprising thing in the world, is if a money-related app had, you know, no bad people involved.
Of course there are.
But, I would say be cautious of this story.
Just be a little cautious.
Because the source is the worst source you could possibly have.
Just know that.
All right.
But it doesn't mean it's not true.
It just means that I wouldn't believe it based on the source.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the closing portion for the YouTube people.
So I'd like the trolls on YouTube, if you could make one final push.
I want to see if you're up to it.
Some good, good criticisms.
Come on, bring me the good stuff.
In all caps?
I prefer all caps.
Because when you use all caps, it's easier to know who to... There we go.
Okay, now they're just shouting out things that are out of context.
That's a good start.
That's like a warm-up.
You can't see this over on Locals, but it's like they're stretching.
They're just, now they're just yelling certain words in caps.
The Clankers are here.
Somebody's yelling Anthony, Super Troll.
Okay.
Anything?
No.
It looks like, it looks like the Trolls have tapped out.
Aw.
Oh, here we go.
One in all caps.
This is their best work from C. Glenn.
I'll read it in all caps, like shouting, I think your subscriber base is dropping!
That was their best one.
I have bad news for you.
My subscriber base is surging.
That would be the opposite of declining.
It's surging.
Oh, here's one.
Your ex-wife.
Now I can't tell the difference between people who are clowning and pretending to be bad trolls and people who are actually trolls.
Somebody just yelled in all caps, your ex-wife.
And that Larry Elder interview in all caps.
All right.
Well, thank you for trying.
I appreciate the tiny amount of effort that the trolls put into it.
But hey, at least you did some work today.
You love me from Uganda?
Well, I love you too.
Or Uganda.
Let's call it Uganda.
Alright, YouTube, I'm gonna say bye for now.
And I'll talk to the locals people a little bit, because they get extra.
