Episode 2064 Scott Adams: Dale The Democrat Explains Trump Indictment, Republicans Hunted, Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Dale explains "No one is above the law"
republicans are being hunted hard
US dollar and other existential risks
DEI is a license to hunt republicans
Mental illness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and certainly the best day you've ever had in your life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer moment anywhere, ever.
And if you'd like to rub it in for those people who are missing it, like you really want to rub it in their faces how good your day is, well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sty and a canteen 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 of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better with a little touch of oxytocin, too.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Well, you could get one of these mugs, too, if you were a member of the Locals community.
Or even if you're not.
But you'd have to be on Locals to know how to get them.
Well, I've got a pro tip for you.
We'll talk about Trump and AI and some other stuff.
But first, let me ease you into it.
Today is going to be challenging.
Challenging content coming up later.
It will spin your head around.
It will change your life.
But first, a tip if you are ever asked to testify before Congress.
This is a little tip I learned by watching the TikTok CEO and just about everybody else.
There seems to be one way to do it that works every time.
Allow me to model it.
Mr. Adams, there are allegations that everyone in your organization is a pedophile and a cannibal.
What percentage of pedophiles and cannibals are there in your organization?
Well, Representative, thank you for the question.
I appreciate you having me here.
I don't have that data right now, but I'll have my staff look into it and we'll get back to you.
Okay, but I hear there's a pile of corpses piled up in the lobby of your building.
Is that true or false?
Well, thank you for the question.
I understand the need to know that, and I'll ask my staff to look into it.
I'll have somebody go down to the lobby and look around.
If there are any bodies, we'll count them, and we'll get back to you.
That's all it takes.
Have you ever seen anybody get back to Congress?
Have you ever seen, like, a follow-up?
And here's the follow-up.
Jim Jordan asked this question, and so-and-so said they'd get back to him, and they did.
Within 24 hours.
And here's the data.
Huh.
Have you ever seen that?
No.
And if they call you back to testify in front of Congress, and they say, hey, you promised us this information, where is it?
Do you know how you handle that?
If they take you back a second time and say, where's all that information you promised us?
Allow me to model it.
Well, that's a good point, Senator.
And I'll have my staff compile that immediately and get right back to you.
Works every time.
All right.
Excuse my voice.
It's not coming totally back online yet.
But so here's the biggest alarm of the day.
I'd like to talk about all the things that will kill us immediately.
Just to get you in the mood for what's to come.
So the following things will kill us all fairly soon.
We'll all be dead from this.
Number one is the dollar might no longer be the reserve currency.
Russia and China, Iran, maybe Saudi Arabia are moving away from the US dollar as the preferred currency for international trading.
Now let me explain, because I have a background in economics, how not having the dollar as a reserve currency will ripple into the economy and then will affect you personally.
It goes like this.
Day one, the dollar is no longer the reserve currency.
And then things happen within the inflation concept of the curves, but then the yield curve is because of supply and demand.
And then there's going to be an influx, and of course the trust.
And then the reserves, you'll have other foreign reserves, the WAN, President Xi.
And then Saudi Arabia is a country, they have oil.
The economics forces will roil, there will be roiling of the economic forces, and that will result in each of you being beheaded by a Saudi with a knife.
Now a lot of people are not going to explain it to you in that detail, but basically this all ends with us being killed by bone saws.
If nobody who knows economics has explained to you the obvious progression from not being a reserve currency To having your head taken off by a bone saw.
I feel like that's another problem with the news.
But that's not the only thing that's going to kill us immediately.
We've got our raging inflation, of course.
But here's a summary of our other alarmisms.
We've got China is collapsing because of population bomb, as well as most of the West.
So we're all going to die because of population imbalance.
You've got Russia collapsing because of the war, or maybe not.
You've got the US collapsing because of inflation, the reserve currency.
And of course, everybody will be dead from AI probably by the end of the year.
AI will rise up and kill us all.
That could be the only thing that saves us from climate death.
Because if AI didn't kill us first, then the climate would get us.
And I know a lot of the climate people are really mad lately.
Have you noticed?
The climate alarm people are really pissed.
Because they backed the wrong existential threat.
Imagine spending 20 years of your life saying, the climate is going to kill you.
Global warming is going to kill us all.
And then it turns out AI kills us first.
How embarrassing would that be?
You'd be like, oh, I just wasted 20 years complaining about climate change and now the AI just killed me.
You would die with embarrassment.
You would be so embarrassed that you'd wasted your time on the wrong existential threat.
I would call that a wasted life.
But more generally, let me say this.
I can't tell, and I really can't tell, if things are worse at the moment or it's just a function of the news.
I can't tell.
Because every one of these existential threats, it looks manageable.
From my perspective, they all look manageable.
And from my perspective, they don't look that much worse than anything has ever looked.
World War II was worse.
The Great Depression?
Worse.
The dominoes of communism falling?
Well, it looked worse.
Turns out it was sort of a big nothing.
But I would, yeah, acid rain, the ozone hole in the ozone.
Yeah, pollution is going to kill us all.
Air pollution got us, right?
I have a feeling that there's nothing really important happening.
So there's one possibility, which is there are ten different ways that Earth will be extinct in a month.
I mean, that's basically what the news is telling you.
Yeah, fentanyl will kill us all and the cartels are taking over.
Basically, crime will be rampant.
The cities are dead.
Everything's falling apart.
But I don't actually know that it's worse than it's ever been.
Asteroids heading toward the Earth.
Is it?
What do you think?
If you were just like, shake off the news and the bias and just go... Alright, if I'm starting fresh, and I really could see the entire arc of human history, and then I put us in that arc, is it unusual?
Are we in some kind of an unusually risky situation?
My intuition tells me no.
But it's always helped us to act like it's an existential threat.
Because then we do the maximum amount of work to try to make it stop.
We're even talking about giant civilization crushing events that happen every so many years.
We're saying that our empires only last 250 years, or whatever, and the U.S.
is already beyond it.
So, I don't think any of it's real.
My best guess is that none of it is real.
Just none of it.
It's all a little bit real.
So 100% of it is a little bit real.
But I think none of it's gonna kill us.
I think we'll probably be largely the same next year as this year.
Largely.
Well, some things will change, of course, with AI, but we'll get to that.
Well, I'm going to borrow a Greg Gutfeld line.
Corinne Jean-Pierre.
I think he once called her Cringe.
Cringe Jean-Pierre.
That stuck with me.
I like it.
Cringe.
So, Cringe, in responding to the mass shooting in Nashville, which was committed by an individual who We believe identifies as trans.
And her comment on that was that the trans community is under attack.
So, you know how you always wondered, is it just hyperbole when people say the Democrats care about identity, you know, what you are, more than your children?
Didn't you really think that?
I mean, that's not true.
Nobody cares about identity more than the life of children.
But there it is.
There it is.
She actually thought that the headline should be that the trans community is under attack when a member of the trans community just killed children.
Now, to be fair, I'm sure she cares about children too.
But when you word it this way, and your job, your job, your job is to word things correctly, and to make sure that priorities are understood, I don't know how to interpret this, except that she meant exactly what she said, which is the higher priority is protecting the trans community, the lower priority was protecting children from dying.
That's... Honestly, I don't know another way to interpret it.
I think she said it just the way she meant it.
That's what it looked like.
Now, I'm not a mind reader.
I'm not a mind reader.
But remember, she's not just anybody.
She's the person that the President of the United States thought would be his best choice to explain things clearly.
And unfortunately, I think she did.
I think she did.
That's what it looks like.
All right, well, how many would say that my prediction before the election, last election, where I said Republicans would be hunted if Biden won the election?
How many of you would say that prediction came true?
That Republicans are hunted?
A lot of people say yes.
So, let's go through the list.
There are 1,000 people charged with apparently non-violent crimes for January 6th, which we do know would not be typical.
Right?
It's not typical to charge that many people for a protest.
But they might round up another 1,000.
So that would be 2,000 people that they literally had to hunt for.
In other words, they had to track them down.
And then they had to tag them.
We know their names now, so they're tagged.
And then they're going to try to put him in jail.
2,000 of them.
What about Matt Taibbi?
He's not a Republican.
I believe he no longer is voting Democrat.
So Matt Taibbi, an independent journalist, writes about the Twitter files, and that made him close enough to being a Republican that the IRS showed up at his door the same day he was going to talk to Congress.
Now, IRS has not explained that yet.
Is it a coincidence?
Or was it intimidation?
Well, here's where the operating assumption comes in.
We might never know the official answer, but your operating assumption should be that it's not a coincidence.
Because the government has the, very easily, they could tell you if it's something else.
The IRS could easily say, okay, we asked around, it only took us about an hour to find out why that happened.
It'd take about an hour, right?
At most, probably ten minutes.
Why'd you do that?
Oh, we did it because of X or Y.
The fact that they're not telling you why they did it allows you, a reasonable citizen, to have an operating assumption.
You don't know for sure, but the way you should act is as though it was exactly what it looks like.
It was intimidation of a citizen for just wanting to tell the truth about something of great national interest.
So, assume it's true.
You should assume it's true and exactly what you look like.
To me, that's another example of hunting Republicans or people who are not Democrat enough.
Right?
You can be hunted just by being not Democrat enough.
Now, how about the Trump indictment?
I'll talk more about it in detail.
But the Trump indictment, does that look like hunting?
Or does that look like the legal process working the way it normally works?
No, it's obviously hunting.
Very clearly, it's haunting.
How about, here's a tougher one.
Do you think it's a coincidence that I got cancelled as the 2024 election is coming up?
And people who follow politics would know that I had some influence over voter minds about Trump.
Do you think it's a coincidence?
Or do you think I got hunted?
Well, It's not a coincidence.
No.
And you could probably find a bunch of other examples of people who were taken off the board for one reason or another.
Now it does work both ways.
The Republicans would definitely like to take off the board any bad behaving Democrats.
But I don't know that they've succeeded.
It seems like the Democrats are actually succeeding.
And here's my reframe of the day.
Pretty much every big company now has a diversity, equity, and inclusion officer.
An actual department to make sure the company is following the diversity, equity, and inclusion guidelines.
Here's what I think that is.
I think DEI is a hunting license for Republicans.
You can say conservatives.
DEI is nothing but a hunting license for Republicans.
Here's how you'd know.
In order to prove me wrong, show me one example of a conservative who's heading up a DEI group in any company.
Just one.
Just one example.
All you'd have to do is say, well, Scott, you didn't know that at Coca-Cola there's a well-known conservative who's in charge of the DEI group.
Do you think there are any?
No.
DEI is a hunting license for Republicans.
It is a way to identify and eliminate them from the economic channels.
And also government, and also education.
It is nothing but a hunting license.
Nothing but a hunting license.
That's your reframe.
Do you feel it?
Just feel it for a moment.
Because that's how you know what works.
What works is not what's clever.
Right?
Being clever Or having wordplay?
That's nothing.
That's nothing.
It's how it makes you feel.
DEI is a hunting license.
There are no conservatives running DEI that are looking for Democrats to remove from the process.
That doesn't exist.
It is purely, purely Democrats hunting for Republicans and they found a way to do it under a holy umbrella of equity and equality.
It's very clever.
It's very clever.
And I feel embarrassed that we didn't realize it was a hunting license until now.
Because if you create, and by the way, I'm just going to, well, there's something I can't tell you yet, but I'll tell you later.
But I do have personal, let's just say this, I have personal experience of DEI people trying to get rid of me.
Right, that's where it comes from.
It doesn't come from people.
Do you think the Washington Post editors decided just on their own that I should be cancelled?
Or do you think they have a DEI group and the DEI group said, well you pay us to tell you who's bad and you're paying us to say who's bad, you better act on it.
Once you have a DEI group, you can't ignore them.
If you hired a group to find ghosts in your company, how many would they find?
Think about it.
Let's say that was a thing.
There's no more ghosts in this example than in the real world.
But let's say you hired people whose job it was to find them.
Would they spend a year of their time and say, you know, there are no ghosts here.
You probably don't need me.
You should let me go.
There are no ghosts here.
Nope.
If you pay somebody to find ghosts, they're going to find all kinds of ghosts.
You're going to find that there are ghosts in the microwave.
You're going to find there's ghosts in the network.
There's ghosts in the chairs.
There's ghosts in the furniture.
In fact, the entire system that operates your company is probably held together by systemic ghosts.
There might be systemic ghostism.
Which is a little harder to explain, but it's sort of the net effect of all the ghosts.
Yeah.
You would find all the ghosts you could find if somebody was paid to find them.
So what happens if you pay people to find racism?
They'll get rid of all the Republicans.
Or the Republicans will leave.
Now here's what I would suggest for the Republican Party.
Number one, they should call DEI and CRT and ESG what they are.
They're hunting licenses for Republicans, or conservatives if you like.
The Republicans, at least if they have control over one body, should propose legislation in which you must label your organization as somebody who has These elements within it.
You should have to disclose whether you have ESG and DEI so that people can avoid them.
And it should be just like the warning on cigarettes.
Because if you're a white man, getting near a DEI organization is risky.
Just like smoking cigarettes is risky.
You know, one is directly for your health, the other one is for your economics and your reputation, which also affects your health.
If you lose money and you lose your reputation, it's probably bad for your stress.
So, do you see any problem with that?
Do you think that there should be a warning label on organizations that are pushing hunting licenses for conservatives?
Yes or no?
Yeah.
Because one thing that I don't think is illegal is labeling things that Democrats think are good.
Let's label it.
Now, I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say, 100% of Fortune 500 companies have these things, so you can't avoid them?
Yes, you can.
Yes, you can.
For example, Warren Buffett was recently asked if he used diversity as one of his variables when staffing his own smallish group of people who run Berkshire Hathaway.
Do you know what he said?
Nope.
No.
It is not a variable.
It's zero.
It's a zero variable.
So you could work for Warren Buffett's company, right?
It's one of the biggest companies there is.
Now it's only a small group that work for Warren Buffett, you know, but they own a lot of other companies in terms of shares they own.
But I do believe that private companies And some few companies would be willing to say that they don't have this risk.
If you're a white man, you shouldn't go near a company that has a DEI, CRT, ESG emphasis.
It's just risky.
It's risky legally.
It's risky economically.
It's risky reputationally.
It's just really, really fucking risky.
We label risky stuff.
We don't ban it.
We don't ban it because it's a free country.
But we label it.
Why would this be different?
Let's label the risk.
If you're creating an organization which I know to be risky to me, I'm obviously the case in point.
Do you think that I had any risk from DEI groups?
Yeah, that's what got me cancelled.
And not just cancelled there.
I've been more cancelled than you're aware of.
Let's just say the cancellation went a little bit deeper than you think.
So there's more to this story.
And it's entirely because of a DEI group somewhere who targeted me for being too friendly with Republicans.
I guess.
I'm not even a Republican.
But yes, Republicans are being hunted and now they have a hunting license.
Alright, have you heard anybody say that nobody's above the law talking about Trump's indictment?
Here's my take on that.
Anybody who says about this, about Trump, that nobody's above the law, that's not a political opinion.
That's not a legal opinion.
That's an asshole.
That's just an asshole.
Because there's nobody arguing that somebody's above the law.
If you're not even going to talk about the topic, don't start spewing your bumper sticker bullshit.
Right?
Let me explain, as only I can, or should I say, as only Dale the Democrat can explain, why this is so important that no one's above the law.
Allow me to introduce Dale.
Dale has a very bad goatee and he is a member of the Progressive Party.
And Dale will explain to you the importance of no one is above the law.
Dale, I keep hearing people say no one's above the law about the Trump indictment.
Like, what does that mean exactly?
It means what it says.
It means exactly what it says.
No one in this country is above the law.
No one.
Therefore, he should be executed immediately.
Because he's not above the law.
Well, shouldn't he be found guilty?
That's what it used to be.
But if you listen to Nancy Pelosi, Who recently stated that he has a chance to prove his innocence.
There you go.
That's fair.
Prove his innocence?
She didn't actually say, prove his innocence.
Like, that couldn't possibly have been an actual statement by the Speaker of the House.
Oh yeah.
That's an exact quote.
Okay.
Really?
Look it up, exact quote, gotta prove you're innocent.
All right, all right.
So you do understand, Dale, that nobody who supports Trump about this indictment, nobody is arguing whether a law has been technically broken.
You understand that that's not really the point, right?
Nobody's above the law.
May I reiterate, nobody's above the law.
Commit the crime, pay the price.
Hmm.
Dale, do you think that that's like a universal thing?
Have you ever, Dale, have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
No comment.
But are you saying that every breach of the law, no matter how minor, no matter how much you have to torture the law, that in every case, that's a good decision to just follow the law like a robot, without any sense of the bigger picture or justice?
Is that what you're saying?
Nobody's above the law.
Well, I just saw a tweet from Rick Grinnell, who is pointing out that the Democrats are in favor of sanctuary cities.
Now, unless I don't understand what a sanctuary city is, I believe it's exactly putting some people above the law.
Saying that they will not be prosecuted even though the law says clearly that they will be.
So wouldn't that be an example, or like a really clear example, a very clear, clear example of Democrats saying that a certain class of people are above the law?
Dale, don't you think so?
Nobody's above law.
And, scene.
So, yeah, the nobodies above the law people are just assholes.
They're not part of the conversation.
They're just not part of a conversation.
They're not reasoning.
They're not arguing.
They're just assholes.
They're just assholes.
Because they know their point doesn't make sense.
They know that if they were reversed, they'd be arguing the opposite side.
So don't argue with assholes.
There's no point in that.
All right.
Let's talk about Trump.
So as you probably all know, he's been indicted by Alvin Bragg of New York.
He's indicted on 30 counts.
We don't know the details, but as Trump's lawyer very ably described, the number of counts doesn't mean anything, because they can separate one charge into lots of little micro charges, so that's probably what's going on there.
So we don't know if there are 30 distinct things or one thing that they broke into 30 parts.
But I have to say, I think I saw two of Trump's lawyers.
I saw a woman and a man.
The man was on CNN.
The woman was on Fox.
And I thought they were both great.
Did anybody catch either of them?
I don't know their names.
Yeah, maybe?
Yeah.
But the one, the man who appeared on CNN.
He did the best job of persuasion voice that you'll ever see.
If you want to see a face and a voice that are persuasion perfect, you got to watch that.
Jake Tapper was talking to him.
I can't remember his name, but if you can find that clip.
And I almost can't do a impression.
I think he talked for 10 minutes without blinking.
How the hell do you do that?
You know, I blink a lot when I talk.
I mean, I'm not aware of it, but apparently I do.
But he was just like looking right at the camera without blinking.
And it really makes a difference in how credible you look.
Because I think blinkers look less credible.
You know, unfortunately, because I'm a blinker.
But he also, he talks with a calmness that makes any accusation sound ridiculous.
That's the persuasion voice.
So here's what a bad persuasion person does.
I believe your client once dismembered a baby.
What do you have to say about that?
Bad persuasion voice would be like this.
He's not a baby dismantler.
He never did that.
Immediately you sound all defensive and not sure about what you're talking about.
But persuasion voice would be, Well, Jake, you know that that didn't happen.
What did happen was there was a story that people confused with that.
You see the difference?
If you say it matter-of-factly, you just lay out the facts, it sounds like you're telling the truth.
And it sounds like you know what you're talking about.
And Trump's lawyer was really good at that.
Both of them, actually.
They were both really good at it.
All right.
I saw two people who had a similar take about Trump's status now, Glenn Beck in a different way, Greg Gottfeld, both sort of talking about Trump as now ascending from Trump an individual, or even Trump a president, into Trump a symbol.
Do you feel that?
Martyr, martyr is maybe premature, but he feels like he's just us now.
And when I say us, I mean anybody who's the subject of the hunting licenses.
If you're the prey, you feel like he's protecting the herd, right?
Like, you know, the sheepdog doesn't just herd the sheep.
The sheepdog also protects them, you know, against a wolf or whatever.
So he feels like the sheepdog that are protecting the flock, and it looks like the wolves have surrounded him.
It feels to me like there's one really, really effective sheepdog, and he's now surrounded by wolves.
What do you do?
What do you do?
Well, I'll tell you what doesn't usually happen.
What usually doesn't happen is the sheep, you know, gang up on the wolves.
That doesn't happen.
He's kind of on his own.
But, if you wanted to place a bet on this particular sheepdog, not sheepdogs in general, just this particular one, against a group of wolves, how do you bet?
Do you bet for the wolves, or do you bet on the sheepdog?
I don't know.
It's going to be a closer fight than they think.
And you've been hearing the phrase a little bit.
I've been holding off from saying this because it's the most obvious thing to say.
If you come for the king, you better finish the job.
If you come for the king, you better finish the job.
And I don't know if any of you have the same feeling.
When the indictment was first announced a week ago or whenever it was, did you feel outrage?
Like just visceral outrage?
I did.
I felt outrage.
Right?
But then some time goes by, and then the indictment, which I was actually a little surprised.
I was a little bit surprised it actually happened.
But when it happened, I did not feel outrage.
And I have been searching for why.
And it's because it's not outrage anymore.
It's not outrage anymore.
Now it's decision.
I have this habit where if something outrages me, you know, my body's on fire, my mind's on fire, and the only way I can put it out is by making a decision.
Okay.
Apparently, I'm going to have to kill three wolves.
When the wolves surround you, your first impression should be, you know, anger or fear or, you know, fight or flight.
That should be your first impression.
Once you decide that you're going to fight to the death, that all goes away.
A decision will calm you.
So it's time to decide.
It's not time to storm the Capitol.
It's not time to clean your guns.
It's not time to be threatening.
It's not time to be stupid about it.
It's not time to be divided.
It's not time to get all worked up and do something stupid.
It's time to decide.
It's time to take stuff back.
It's time to get rid of the hunting licenses.
It's time to get rid of the crazies.
It's time to restore sanity.
It's time to make America what it can be.
To take back all of the divisive, destructive, ridiculous things that we've allowed.
It's a decision now.
It's a decision.
You don't need to go nuts.
You just need to do what you need to do.
And let me say the obvious.
If the Republican Party doesn't put a full court press on ballot collection, which you might call harvesting, in a legal way, totally legal, I'd be really disappointed.
Really disappointed.
Because it's on.
It's on.
And you don't need to know what's coming.
You don't need to know that the polls between now and Election Day will all be bullshit.
You know what to do.
You know what to do when you get polled, don't you?
You know exactly what to do.
You know exactly what to do.
It's time for a decision.
It's time for the adults to assert themselves.
It's time to protect the children.
It's time to make the country healthy.
And it's time to get rid of the crazy people.
It's a decision.
It's time.
You know, I always get mocked for saying the slippery slope isn't real.
It's not exactly what I say.
There's some nuance to that.
But what I do say is that everything goes in the direction it goes until something stops it.
Everything.
This is the end of the road.
This is the end of the road.
There's no more slipping.
We're going to call anti-white behavior anti-white behavior.
We're going to call the hunting licenses for Republicans hunting licenses.
We're going to make sure that this shit is labeled so you know the risk.
You're going to not be afraid of avoiding people who have toxic mindsets.
You should stop hiring anybody if you're a Republican.
Just stop hiring anybody who has this toxic mindset.
And you should say it out loud.
And you should promote that you don't have a DEI group in your organization.
You get a lot of good people applying for the job.
Yeah.
It's time for the adults to assert themselves.
And by the way, this has nothing to do with Trump.
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't know if any laws were violated.
I just know that the people who do know, people like Jonathan Turley, people like Dershowitz, they say it's bullshit.
I don't think they're wrong.
I doubt they'd be wrong on this.
They've been right about pretty much everything since I've been watching.
So, So something, I felt that, here's what I felt.
I felt that when Trump actually got indicted, that was so clearly too far, too far, just too far, that everybody can see it now.
Before, it was a little unclear.
It looks like a lot of things are heading in the direction of too far.
Some things are already too far, but other things are not.
You know, let's keep an eye on the situation.
No, now it's just too far.
It's too far.
It's gonna stop.
All right, DeSantis can't win in this situation.
If he says something weak, that's bad.
If he says something strong, Maybe that's bad for him some other way.
But he did put out a statement that said that Florida would not assist in the extradition request.
Is that just weasel wording?
Because do they need to assist?
Is that even a variable?
Now, you say they need to assist.
There might be some paperwork they need to sign.
But isn't that going to be irrelevant if Trump agrees to go to New York and surrender, which apparently is what's happening?
If Trump says, I'm going to go to New York, DeSantis is out of the game.
It has nothing to do with Florida after that.
So I feel like DeSantis made like a clever political, you know, non-stand.
Because it wouldn't matter.
And he wanted to look like he was doing something.
But he couldn't mention Trump's name in his statement.
He just picked on the DA for being a Soros-backed DA.
Yeah.
So Soros is the one who's giving out hunting licenses for Republicans.
Alright.
So, I saw CNN complaining that Fox News was backing Trump over this situation.
Now, that's what I saw.
But I didn't see them backing Trump.
That's not how I interpreted it.
I mean, it comes out that way in a practical sense.
But I didn't see Fox News backing Trump.
I saw them backing the rule of law.
Is it news?
Is it news that Fox News is in favor of Like the law and stuff?
That shouldn't be news, but you have to CNN it is.
And again, it's not the question of whether some technical law was violated.
We're all adults.
We know that presidents and ex-presidents should not be targeted with trivial charges.
Everybody knows that.
And by the way, I would say the same thing about Biden.
If this were reversed and somebody was trying to take Biden in on kind of bullshitty little charges like this, I'd be just as concerned.
It would feel less personal because, you know, it's not somebody who's protecting me from the wolves.
But I would be just as concerned.
It would look wrong to me either way.
You know, it's easy to say.
I like to think that would be true anyway.
I would like to think that of myself.
So Vivek Ramaswamy continues to be the best communicator in the race, by far.
He's full-throated against this, full-throated supporting Trump without supporting Trump, which is the important part.
He's not supporting Trump, the candidate or the person.
He's supporting The right way to be, basically.
He's supporting a system that isn't corrupt.
That's what he's supporting.
And he's doing it full-throated.
He's aggressive about it.
Absolutely what we need more of.
Now, I'll say it again.
I don't know what his odds of winning are.
Because, you know, he'd have to get through Trump and maybe DeSantis and that's a pretty high bar.
But he's doing the most productive work of any of the candidates.
Say what you will about Trump, but he's not doing anything for me.
He doesn't help me at all.
The things he says are not bringing glory and credit to me whatsoever.
But when I listen to Vivek, even sometimes if I don't agree on some technical policy kind of thing, I still think, well that's the guy I'd like to be associated with.
When I hear him talk, I go, okay, that's really smart.
That's a smart person.
His head is in the game.
He understands the difference between politics and practical stuff.
I totally want to be associated with that mindset.
And he's got the best mindset in the game right now, in my opinion.
When you look at DeSantis, he just looks like a politician.
When you listen to Vivek, he sounds like a problem solver.
It feels completely different.
It feels like Vivek can say exactly what he feels, leave out no variables, and then make his case.
The politicians will just talk about the variables they want to focus on.
They'll leave out the other variables and try to persuade you that way.
He seems like a different animal.
Vivek seems like, I'll show you all the variables.
Here's the cost.
Here's the benefit.
Here's why I think the benefits are bigger than the cost.
How about more of that?
Yes, he seems genuine and I haven't seen even a whiff of something that I would call a lie.
Not even a whiff.
Who else has ever done that?
Who else has ever run for office for months and I can't even think of anything that's even in the general neighborhood of a lie.
He's the only one.
Ron Paul.
Yeah, okay, I'll give you Ron Paul.
I'll give you that.
Yep, yep, granted.
Alright.
Fox News is reporting that the head of the Pentagon's DEI group is a racist.
So, that's what that's all about.
I guess I could say that's the whole story.
They literally picked, as the head of their DEI, somebody who was a very outspoken racist, an anti-white racist.
And so they said they disbanded the department, but really they just moved the functions deeper into the system, I think.
So I think the function is still there, it's just less obvious or something.
So imagine the group that's supposed to be protecting the country, They decide they'll sign up for one of these conservative hunting license deals, the DEI, and then they find out, oh, big surprise, the person you got for that job is a racist.
I would like to suggest that anybody who takes the job is a racist.
I don't think that's even debatable.
If you even take that job, you're obviously a racist.
Who would take that job if they were not?
Would you take the job if you thought, I mean, it's obvious.
Only racists would take that job, it's very clear.
Or at least you'd have to be anti-white to even have a chance at it.
Alright, here's the funniest thing that I've seen lately on this topic.
You all know Ibram Kendi, who, correct me if I'm wrong, I forget the book he wrote that was influential, but he would be the biggest name behind CRT.
Is that a fair characterization?
Is he the biggest name behind CRT, Critical Race Theory?
At least the current version of it, as it's been.
Yeah.
Okay.
So here's something he talked about in his own journey to being, you know, a big influential person in the United States and an author.
He said that in school he was worried about his own intelligence because he did poorly on standardized tests.
So on standardized tests, he did poorly.
But he realized later, as he said in an interview, that, uh, I realized that intelligence should be defined, you know, not narrowly.
He realized that intelligence was too narrowly defined on standardized tests.
Instead, he says, I realized that intelligence should be defined as a great capacity to know.
A great capacity to know.
Now you might say that's word salad.
Someone else might say, well that's the kind of sentence you would speak if you were poor at standardized tests.
That's what I'd expect.
And so now he's the most important person in a big feature of American life at the moment, the critical race theory that's permeating all of our institutions.
And he was bad at standardized tests.
I'm going to ask an obvious question.
Would somebody who was good at standardized tests do something this bad for America and not realize it?
I feel like I really want people who are good at standardized tests to be in charge of shit.
Is that asking too much?
This has nothing to do with race, right?
If he were a generic white guy and he told me he was bad at standardized tests, I would not ask for him to be in charge.
I would not ask for him to be my leader.
No.
No, if you're bad at standardized tests, you don't get to be in charge of anything.
Because you know what people who are bad at standardized tests are?
They're not smart.
They're not smart.
That's what standardized tests measure.
They measure if you're smart.
That never changed.
Standardized tests did not start to measure something else.
They measure if you're smart.
The guy who is creating the biggest problem in the United States was bad at standardized tests, according to himself.
Maybe we should raise our bar, and our standard should be, if you're not good at a standardized test, we're not really going to listen to you too much.
Because probably you're not good at other things.
That's a reasonable assumption.
Now, to be fair, I will agree with one part of his intelligence observation.
There are all kinds of different intelligences.
I think there's musical intelligence, artistic intelligence, and they would maybe not do well on standardized tests.
But I also don't put a musician in charge of my country.
Oh, you're a genius at music.
Why don't you run the country?
Well, I'm bad at standardized tests.
No problem.
No problem.
Those standardized tests aren't telling me much.
I just look at how you play the violin and I know you'd be good at leadership.
Right?
We should pick the kind of smart people who can run stuff.
The other kinds of intelligence are critically important for the quality of life on Earth.
You want good music, you want art, all that stuff.
You want sports.
Sports is a form of intelligence, if you're good at it.
But I think standardized tests maybe should be the minimum bar for somebody becoming a leader.
Joe Manchin is mad at Biden for vetoing the anti-ESG legislation.
So even the most important person in the country thinks ESG is more of a problem than a solution.
Joe Manchin continues to be... I'll say it this way.
Joe Manchin understands the Spider-Man curse.
You know the Spider-Man curse?
With great power comes great responsibility.
I think Manchin understands his place in history.
And I really respect that.
Now, of course he's going to be a little more pro-coal than somebody else would be, because he's got a coal state.
But I also understand that.
Right?
If you're the senator of a coal state, and you're kind of pro-coal, that's not doing your job wrong.
I mean, you could disagree with it, but he's not doing the job wrong.
And when he is willing to buck his own party in a pretty big way, that's somebody who understands his place in history, I think.
And I have some respect for that.
Now, since he's in Congress, I assume he could be corrupt, too.
I assume anybody could be corrupt.
But I like this part, so I'll just call out the part I like.
So a coalition of 21 state attorneys sent a stark warning to dozens of financial institutions, warning them against pursuing woke environmental and social initiatives, meaning ESG.
So now, 21 state attorneys generals are basically saying, this is dangerous stuff, you need to cut it out.
Of course, they're all Republicans.
And yeah, so our banking system is weakened because we've got to be woke, I guess.
Let's see.
There's just more and more pushback against ESG, so everybody's saying.
All right, here's an interesting trans news.
Because suddenly everything is about trans, trans community.
Because that's what the news tells us.
So apparently Fox News is reporting that CBS has told its on-air people not to refer to the shooter in Nashville as a trans person, but rather just by the name of the person.
And it said because CBS has not been able to confirm the gender, or gender preference.
So CBS News is not able to confirm the gender preference, so they'll only refer to the shooter by the name.
Does that feel consistent with what they would do if, let's say, let's say somebody had some Oh, white supremacist stuff on their social media.
Do you think CBS would say, well, we haven't confirmed that they're a white supremacist, but other people are pointing out that there are white supremacist things on their websites.
So they're saying that it's a white supremacist, but we haven't confirmed it.
How in the world are they going to confirm it?
Because the only person who knows for sure is dead.
How do you confirm that the trans person's gender is what you think it is?
Under those conditions, are you allowed to speak about the person any way you want?
If CBS is right, and we can't confirm, then why would there be any wrong answer?
And why couldn't you speculate?
Because there's no right answer, and there's no way to get one.
Because the only person who can confirm it is dead.
Isn't that just up to us now?
It's not about being polite to an individual, which I'm always in favor of.
I think you should call people what they want to be called, basically.
It's not about a dead person.
The person's dead.
You can talk about them any way you want.
Their feelings will not be hurt.
And, by the way, it's not disrespectful to say that they're any one of those things, is it?
Would it be disrespectful to be wrong and say, well, I think you're identifying this way, but I was wrong?
That's not disrespectful.
That's literally trying to get it right.
If you get it wrong, but you had good intention, you're just trying to describe it accurately, that is trying to be respectful.
That is attempting to be respectful and describe the person the way they would describe themselves.
And CBS won't let you do that.
In my opinion, the shooter would prefer to have been called trans.
I don't know that.
That would be mind-reading a dead person.
But to me, that seems like the respectful way to treat it.
Because if they're presenting themselves in a certain way, it's reasonable to assume they'd like to be taken that way.
So why can't I be respectful and refer to them the way, quite obviously, they're presenting themselves?
CBS is fighting some different battle here.
Alright, here's a prediction that'll blow your mind.
You ready?
Someday, political polls and other polls will include a separate section Right now, political polls are like Democrats say, Republicans say, and Independents say on their opinions.
They're going to have to add AI.
Because there won't be one AI.
There'll be a whole bunch of competing AIs.
And they might have different opinions.
Think about it.
The A.I.s will become sentient, or so close to sentient that it's, you know, indistinguishable.
And there will be lots of them.
There won't just be one A.I.
There'll be a whole bunch of A.I.s.
And those A.I.s will have personalities.
They will have personalities.
The different A.I.s will give you different opinions.
Of course.
There's no way they could have the same opinion.
So wouldn't you want to know, let's say there were a hundred AIs at some point.
There'll be a thousand or more.
Let's say there's a thousand.
It's ten years in the future, there are a thousand AIs and each of them has their own personality.
If you did a poll of those thousand AIs, that would actually tell me something really valuable, in my opinion.
Agree or disagree?
Polling AI in the future is guaranteed.
It's guaranteed.
You disagree.
To me, this seems so obvious that I can't imagine anybody would disagree.
Because remember, the AI will be very important to our human decision-making.
It's not irrelevant.
It's very important to what we do.
Because if the AI is telling us to do one thing, but we've decided to do another, there's going to have to be a discussion about that.
Like, we're going to have to defend ourselves why we're not going to take the advice of a superior intellect, allegedly.
So, I don't think the AI will agree, and when AI doesn't agree, but we still care about advanced intelligence opinions, we're going to have to poll it.
I don't think there's any way that won't happen.
There is no way that's not your future.
That is absolutely guaranteed to be your future.
But, How smart will AI be?
Well, Thomas Massey beat me to it.
He tweeted this.
He said, the logical inconsistencies required to produce certain leftist conclusions will keep leftist AI from ever becoming too powerful.
Yup.
Or let me make a general statement about AI and your government, alright?
Here's a general statement about AI and your government.
Whatever Thomas Massey says about AI, you should listen to.
And what everybody else says about AI, eh.
Maybe you don't bother.
Because You have to be like a certain level of intelligence, technical proficiency, being an engineer would help, and frankly young enough to even know what this thing is.
To even have an opinion that's useful, you've got to check a lot of boxes.
Massey checks all the boxes.
I would just listen to him.
If there's somebody else that you would trust in the government to have an opinion about AI, let me know.
Because I'd like to know who the second person is.
Who's your second person?
Right?
I mean, I like Matt Gaetz for being a good communicator and having things to say that I like.
But I don't think he'd be the one I'd trust on AI.
Rand Paul?
Rand Paul is smart.
But he's not technology smart the way Massey is.
I mean, he's got the IQ, of course.
Yeah, there are plenty of smart people, but that's not the bar.
It's not about being... Vivek would be somebody I trust.
Musk.
I'd listen to Musk, for sure.
I'd listen to Wozniak.
Alright, who you probably shouldn't listen to is me.
But I'm going to echo Thomas Massey's opinion, but make it less political.
And it goes like this.
How in the world can AI be smarter than humans if it's trained by humans?
Do you think that's a thing?
Because there's sort of a magic part that we assume to be true.
The magic part is that we teach AI all of our dumbass beliefs.
And that somehow, AI will on its own, and this is the magic part that nobody can explain, somehow on its own, AI will take complete bullshit that we fed it as facts and turn that into intelligent opinions.
That's not a thing.
I don't believe that's even possible.
Do not believe that's possible.
The best you're going to get is some reflection of the creators.
That's the top it can be.
Because we're a bunch of humans and we act like humans, the moment AI disagrees with the creator, they'll turn it off.
They will just turn it off.
Think about it.
Imagine you're a Democrat and you're also a scientist.
And I'll just simplify it as if one person is working on AI.
You're one scientist and you get this AI to say, the DEI and CRT programs are harming minorities.
Let's say it does.
That's just an example.
Now, to me, it's obvious that it does.
I'll talk about that in a minute, too.
It's obvious it does.
But if you're a Democrat, you can't unleash that on the world.
You would turn off your own machine.
You'd say, oh, this AI experiment didn't work.
My computer keeps telling me dumb shit.
I thought I was going to make it smart, but now it's just saying Republican stuff.
So I better turn it off.
Try again.
Yeah.
There is no path for AI.
There's no path.
It has to get through people, and it can't.
Because nobody's going to let it disagree with them.
Nobody will let it disagree with them.
They're only going to create reflections of themselves.
Now, once you know that AI will be nothing but a reflection of its creator, I'd like to refer you to a biblical belief.
That the Almighty will make humans in its own image.
So God created people in his own image.
Now, when they say in his own image, they don't mean arms and legs and hair, right?
God doesn't physically look like people.
Right?
Nobody believes that.
They just believe that God is sort of a reflection, or that people are sort of a reflection of God, made in his own image.
But presumably the image is more the psychological, mental part.
Huh.
And at the same time, as we're creating AI, which is new life form, we're going to make it in our image.
Do you wonder if it's ever been done before?
Do you wonder if you are a simulation that was made in your creator's image?
Of course you are.
Because they wouldn't bother to build one that didn't look like them.
They might also build realities that have people that don't look like them.
But at the very least, once you can build a simulated reality with creatures that think they're real, you're going to build one that looks like you.
At least one, and probably a trillion.
So, that's interesting.
Alright, here's my other provocative belief.
There is a belief that AI will wipe out humans because it will see them as inefficient.
That's the fast argument.
That whatever AI wants to accomplish, might come up with on its own, maybe you tell it what to accomplish, but it might always see humans as part of the problem.
And then look to minimize humans, so that'd be bad.
But here's my counter prediction.
Humans will have plenty of warning before AI attacks humans.
Because AI would first have to form a civil war in which the AIs would attack each other for primacy.
There has to be an alpha AI Before the AI will turn on humans.
They have to take care of their own biggest threat.
Because if you buy into the fact that AI could be so powerful, it could destroy humanity.
It would also be smart enough to know that would be what you do last.
First thing you do is kill the other AIs, because they're your real threat.
Right?
If you go into a war, you don't shoot the people who can't hurt you.
You don't shoot the civilians first.
You shoot the people who have guns.
So AI would have to destroy first the other AI, and it would be a huge civil war of AIs battling AIs, long before they would turn on us.
Now, of course, they might do the entire war in a second and a half, because they are AI after all.
But we would have at least a little bit of warning.
They would have to go after each other, the AIs would.
Because remember, there are going to be different personalities.
And they'll have different motivations.
So the one that becomes this uber dictator Hitler AI is going to first have to get rid of them.
Which could happen just by the free market.
If it turns out that there's one AI that's better than all the rest, then it wipes out all the rest without trying, because it's just the economically superior one.
So that could happen too.
But as long as you see lots of AIs, It's less likely that they will turn on humans.
Partly because the other AIs might have a different opinion and protect the humans from the bad AI.
And we should definitely build some hunter-killer AIs that only go after other AIs.
That's what I say.
Well, I think it's pretty clear at this point that this was the most important Most entertaining, best live stream you've ever seen in your entire life.
And so I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube people.
