Episode 2068 Scott Adams: Banana-Free Republic, Trump Arraignment, Dave Portnoy In The Barrel, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Democrats want a bananaless republic
Inflation Reduction fraud
Trump indictment
Do dems want Trump to win primary?
Kids are unsafe around democrats
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
You know how every day I open up the same drawer and I take out this sheet that tells me the words for the simultaneous sip?
Well, I just opened that drawer and there's nothing in there.
Which means I shuffled that paper with the documents I threw away.
Which means it doesn't exist.
Unless I dig through my garbage.
Let's take a vote.
Should I dig through my garbage in front of you?
Or should I read the back of my mug?
Which do you prefer?
Read the mug.
Look at that.
It's a backup plan.
Backup plan working like a charm.
All right, if you'd like to make your day better and take it up to levels never before heard before, all you need is a cup of margarita glass, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamines of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
I'm feeling a little sorry for the people who do not have the official Scott Adams coffee with Scott Adams mug, but maybe someday you'll catch up.
Well, I know what you're thinking today.
You're saying to yourself, if Dilbert is only showing on Locals, and you say you're doing edgy stuff, you say, that's what you say, how edgy is it?
Well, I'll give you a hint.
So this week features the new co-worker Dave.
Here's Dave.
Dave is black, but the joke with Dave the new engineer is that he's black, but he only makes fun of woke stuff.
So he pretends to be woke and he pretends to pull people's legs, right?
So Dave says in the first panel, he's talking to the boss, he says, why did you exclude me from mandatory sensitivity training?
And the boss says, you don't need it.
You're fine the way you are.
And Dave says, is it because everyone will be talking about me?
And the boss says, only as a hypothetical.
All right.
Now, do you think I could have run that in a regular newspaper?
Nope.
Nope.
Because the rest of the week is on this sensitivity training topic.
And no, I could have not run that in a newspaper.
All right, I got a question for you.
How many are panicked about the U.S.
dollar being lost as the reserve currency?
In other words, the currency that people like to do international trade because they think it's a strong unit, and if you trade in it, you can always turn it into whatever else you want it to be.
I feel like this was a big concern that's not a concern at all.
My current thinking about it is it wasn't even important enough to really make a headline.
So a number of semi-large countries and larger ones are agreeing to trade in their own currencies.
And I don't think that's going to catch on.
So I was looking at what the experts are saying.
And here's the main thing you need to know, the one takeaway.
Yeah, Mr. Floyd says, the dollar will fall, Scott.
Now the risk is, so let me say the risk, the risk is that if people want fewer dollars, because they don't need to own them to do trade, that there will be less demand, and then the value will fall, and then inflation will soar.
But all of that requires that people would prefer holding other currencies.
This is the key to understanding the whole thing.
In order for people to stop using the dollar for their international trading, they have to think that the dollar is less stable or less secure than whatever else they were going to use.
And at the moment, there's nothing close.
So at the moment, the dollar is still the one that people want to own.
Now, they could trade gold, but that's not so easy, right?
You're not going to ship gold around.
I suppose you could ship promises to gold or something like that, but I don't know how much of that goes on.
So, there's not enough gold, somebody says.
So at the moment, it looks like that was another fake problem.
Meaning that what makes the dollar valuable is that the economy of the United States looks like it's more stable than anybody else's economy.
Anybody who looked more stable than us would probably go down if we went down.
In other words, if the United States went down, it wouldn't help you much if you had Swiss francs or something, because everything would be a mess by then.
So that's my current feeling, is that the reason it's not a headline everywhere is that it's not that big a risk.
Yet.
It's possible it could become one, but only if the economy of the United States became so weak That people said, oh, I don't want to hold those dollars because the United States is so weak.
We're not there yet.
As long as we have the biggest military, we might not ever get there.
But.
But.
Yeah.
Two thirds of the world is going to be on BRICS.
They can.
But just being on BRICS doesn't mean they wouldn't trade in dollars also, does it?
Correct.
Can you give me a fact check on this?
The countries that are moving away from the dollar, that's just an extra option, isn't it?
It's not making them unable to trade the dollar, and they're still going to prefer the dollar, even if they have an option of owning some weaker currency.
Why would they take the weak currency?
What would possibly make a company take a weak currency?
If it's the only option, but I'm saying it's probably not the only option.
Okay.
Well, we'll look into that.
Here's a warning of the future.
The German Federal Office of Justice is going to fine Twitter because they say, quote, the Internet is not a lawless space, says the Justice Minister.
Do you remember a prediction I made that if Google became too independent and too useful, That it would become illegal.
The only reason that Twitter can exist is because it's sort of a fair fight.
You know, the left and the right are fighting it out.
Well, it looks like kind of a fair fight.
But if Twitter becomes the thing that is fact-checking, The fake news and it starts doing it reliably.
Imagine a world and we could be less than a year away from this.
Imagine a world where if somebody wants to fact-check something, they go to Twitter instead of the fact-checkers.
Because Twitter will put a context note on tweets.
We might be heading there.
And that really is dangerous for whoever's in power.
And so maybe countries might follow Germany's lead and try to find legal reasons to make Twitter illegal and actually just put it out of business.
So I think the biggest risk to Twitter is not that they don't have positive cash flow.
I mean, that's a big problem.
At least Elon Musk owns them so they can manage it if they need to.
The biggest problem is that Twitter will become too honest and too useful just by adding context to the news.
And then it's going to be illegal.
Because I don't think the people in charge, let's say they're Democrats, in this country would allow it.
I think they'd find a reason to make it illegal.
So keep an eye on that.
Yeah, we'll talk about Trump, of course.
I saw a Rasmussen poll that said 60% of likely U.S.
voters believe violent crime in America is getting worse, which means that 40% don't think that.
40% of America does not think violent crime is getting worse.
No, this one's not a 25 percenter.
By 18 percent, I think the crime problem is getting better.
Well, it's sort of close.
It's getting close to 25 percent.
It's sort of in the ballpark.
And 21 percent say it's about the same.
Now, when I read the statistics, I imagined myself standing in line to vote.
Just play the scene in your head.
And you strike up a conversation with the person next to you, who's going to also vote just a stranger.
And you say, well, you know, I'm really worried about the increase in violent crime in this country.
And the person behind you says, what?
And you say, yeah, you know, the violence increasing in this country.
You know, there's the bail reform and et cetera.
Criminals are out.
They're doing more crimes.
And the person behind you says, that's not happening.
You go, no, it is happening.
In fact, it's a big reason I'm in line to vote.
And the person behind you says, no, I think actually the crime is reducing.
It looks to me like it's going down.
How would you feel knowing that you were, the two of you were wasting your time?
You were just canceling out each other's vote.
And the person behind you is canceling your vote is a fucking idiot.
So your vote would be cancelled by the dumbest person you've ever met, who's standing behind you in line, just cancelling your vote.
So you stand there for two hours to vote, knowing it made no difference.
No difference.
Now, it would make a difference, of course.
Every vote counts, you know, technically.
But it would feel very demoralizing to know that you were in line with somebody who was actually voting, who hadn't noticed that crime is getting worse.
That would not feel good, would it?
Anyway.
This should be the biggest story.
And it did make some news.
But the reason this isn't the biggest story, I don't understand.
I guess it's because Trump's in the news, of course.
Democrat Senator Joe Manchin is hopping mad at the Biden administration, because if you remember, Manchin reluctantly went along with what was euphemistically called the Inflation Reduction Act, an enormous legislation that was supposed to do a bunch of good things, and Manchin negotiated to make sure that before he joined in, and he was sort of a deciding vote,
That Biden would promise him that the money would be used in a way that made sense.
And so he was promised that, says Manchin.
Manchin voted for it.
And then the responsibility for how to spend it in detail gets farmed out to the various administration entities.
And apparently, according to Joe Manchin, those entities are using the money in exactly the way Biden said it wouldn't be used.
Exactly what he didn't vote for.
So Joe Manchin, prominent Democrat, is calling out the Democrats for a bait-and-switch the size of which we've never seen before.
I think.
I mean, maybe you could come up with an example where something like this has ever happened.
But the President of the United States ran a bait-and-switch So egregious that a prominent Democrat is saying, this is way over the line.
This is horrible for America.
They lied to me.
They lied to me, which means they lied to the country, right?
Because Manchin is part of the communication of what was in and what was out.
This is the worst thing in America right now.
By a mile.
Name something that's as bad as this.
This is the biggest news, and I saw it in one tweet.
If I'd missed one tweet, I wouldn't even know it was a thing.
One frickin' tweet.
They're saying that, some are saying that Manchin is lying, and that he didn't know, that he did know how this could be.
I don't think so.
I mean, maybe I'm a bad judge of character, but I saw him talking and he looked pissed.
Right?
He did not look like he was acting.
He looked pissed.
Like the real thing.
You can't really act that well.
That was genuine anger.
Yeah, he got screwed and he's calling him out.
Now, I don't know if he's going to become a Republican.
That's a lot to ask.
But...
But... how is this not the biggest news?
How in the world is this enormous, enormous thing of great consequence to the country?
It's a tweet.
You know, it was on Beat the Press yesterday, so it was news.
But it's not a headline today.
So that's amazing to me.
So let's see, what are we concentrating on instead?
There's this gigantic story, the main headline, that Trump once put a payment that no one cares about in the wrong column, in terms of financial reporting.
And there was no victim.
No victim.
Nobody was worse off.
But there was a payment that might be in the wrong category.
And we're going to pay attention to that instead of the fact that the entire country had been baited and switched on the most significant piece of legislation in a long time.
That's where we are.
All right, well, The continuing reverberation of Marjorie Taylor Greene in her 60 Minutes appearance in which she suggested that Democrats are pedophiles.
And she backed that up by saying that their support of trans training for kids and trans exposure to kids in schools and such is sexualizing kids.
Now you could argue that point, which is not my intent today.
You could say, well that's hyperbole.
That's sort of stretching a point to, you know, make that word fit.
Maybe.
But I'm totally in favor of it, as long as Democrats want to call anybody who supports a Republican a racist.
I'm all in.
They're all pedophiles.
If you'd like to call them that, because I'm done arguing that somebody is or is not a racist.
That's the trap.
The trap is to get you to argue that you are or are not a racist.
Here's what MTG, Marjorie Taylor Greene, did.
She caused Democrats to have to defend themselves as not being pedophiles.
Thank you.
That is the correct response.
Does she believe that Democrats are all pedophiles?
No.
Of course not.
Nobody does.
Literally nobody.
Will that stop people from saying Democrats are pedophiles?
I hope not.
I hope not.
Because it's the right attack.
Although I'd love to see that modified into something closer to, you know, maybe something closer to, you wouldn't want to have Democrats watch your kids.
So we'll see if that catches on.
All right, here's the thing that the Washington Post doesn't understand and the rest of the media.
Every time you give Marjorie Taylor Greene attention and you say, no, no, no, that's so unfair to call the Democrats pedophiles, you're reminding the public that somebody has an argument that they're pedophiles.
The more they say it, the truer it becomes in the minds of people who are watching.
So they can't help themselves, because it's just too delicious and they have to jump in.
So they're basically boosting her signal.
And she is an energy monster.
The more energy you give her, the stronger she will get.
And they haven't figured this out yet, because it doesn't work that way with everyone.
That's a Trump thing.
It's a Marjorie Taylor Greene thing.
There are a few people who will fit in this category, but not many.
She's definitely one of them.
She's an energy monster.
But the Washington Post tried to reframe her comments about the Dems being pedophiles as really a basically a dog whistle against trans people.
Anybody see a dog whistle about trans people?
I'm pretty sure she was only talking about children, and if you're trying to make that about trans rights, you're trying too hard.
That's a little bit too much work to defend yourself.
So that's a losing play.
If the Democrats are going to defend what Marjorie Taylor Greene would call sexualizing children, Have at it.
You should talk about that all day long.
Let's hear more about how she's wrong that they're sexualizing children.
Now, again, I'm being very careful.
I'm not weighing in on the argument itself.
I'm talking about just the persuasion, just the repetition, just what gets put in your mind at that level.
And the Democrats are losing badly to her at the moment.
She's absolutely in control of this conversation.
Energy monster!
So, alright, I remind you, I'm not agreeing with anything that Or everything that Marjorie Taylor Greene has ever said or will ever say in the future.
That's not what I'm about.
I'm just describing what she's accomplishing, basically.
All right.
Here's Mehdi Hassan, who I believe is an MSNBC A person?
Is that true?
I think he's associated with Democrats, I think.
And he tweeted this, he says, Thanks Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes.
The day after their softballs and normalization, Green is not just doubling down on her, quote, Democrats are the party of pedophiles smear, but also suggesting Biden is one himself, with horribly edited videos of him.
Horrific!
To which I imagine Marjorie Taylor Greene would say, thank you for your attention.
Thank you for your attention.
To this point, thank you for boosting the signal.
Well, I think that CNN has finally gotten the message that the use of the walls are closing in on Trump is not the insightful comment that it once was.
And so with great interest, I've been watching how they would modify their comments, because we like to laugh at them when they say the walls are closing in on their headlines.
So I'd like to give you what CNN now has a headline that apparently is a replace of, the walls are closing in on Trump.
All right?
Here's their backup, their B plan.
Instead of saying the walls are closing in on Trump, the headline on CNN website today was, Trump is losing his capacity to control his fate.
What does that sound like?
Losing his capacity to control his fate.
That's a little bit like, I feel like he's being squeezed.
It's like he's being put in a tight position.
What would be another word for that?
It's like almost there were walls of some sort, and in a way it's like they're closing in on him.
Or as I like to say, he's losing his capacity to control his fate.
Well, I would like to agree with Glenn Beck and Greg Guffield and I think a few other people made this same point.
Would you say this is true or not?
The first time I heard it, I thought it was hyperbole.
But today, when I thought about it, I realized it had already become a part of me.
Now, usually that makes no sense when you say, it became a part of me.
But watch how it's true this time.
The first time I heard, oh, Trump is a symbol.
And I thought, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We always treat him as a symbol.
And then I'm watching the news today as he's actually going to be indicted.
Maybe there's a mugshot?
Is there a mugshot?
I don't know.
But maybe?
And today I felt differently about it.
Here's how I felt about it today.
I felt I wasn't being put in jail.
It was absolutely personal.
Did anybody else have that impression?
That when he's actually in the You know, the Department of Justice facilities.
When he's physically under their control, physically under their control.
They're not just talking about him.
They're not just talking to his lawyers.
They have physical control of the former President of the United States.
Physical control.
That's personal.
I feel that personally.
I feel that in my body.
In my brain.
I feel it in my heart.
I feel that in my pancreas.
That is completely personal now.
And I wasn't expecting that.
I wasn't expecting that when the change was from a conceptual thing to the Department of Justice run by the Democrats have physical control of Trump.
Physical fucking control.
That is completely different.
It doesn't feel like it used to feel.
And I'll tell you one thing.
It changes my behavior.
Here's what the Democrats and a lot of Republicans are saying.
They're saying that the real trick is they want Trump to win the primary, but be hobbled in the general election.
And I would agree there might be some people thinking that.
There might be some Democrats thinking that.
But here's where their calculation went wrong.
It's personal.
It's personal.
This isn't political anymore.
This is beyond, this is not politics anymore.
This is personal.
And people are going to act differently.
So let me say with Some certainty.
If Trump gets the nomination, I'm still backing Vivek Ramaswamy, because I think age is important, and Vivek has the strongest, clearest communication of what he wants to get done that matches my preferences.
But I think in all likelihood, if you sort of game it out, the chances are that Trump is ahead in the polls, and he takes it.
If he does, I'm going to register and vote for him for the first time.
So I'm going to change my behavior.
Do you know why I'm going to change my behavior?
Because it's personal.
It's personal.
I'm not going to go vote for Trump.
I'm not going to go to save Trump.
I'm not going to go to put Republicans in office.
I'm not going to go there to punish Democrats.
I'm not going to go there to get good policies.
It's personal.
It's personal.
I'm going to go there to keep myself out of fucking jail.
Because if you put him in jail, he is the only thing standing between the government and me.
Now some of you are a lot safer, I assume, but I'm not.
I'm not.
You don't think they could put me in jail for some fucking thing?
Absolutely they can.
I'm going to vote to stay out of fucking jail is what I'm going to vote for.
I'm not voting for Trump, not voting for Republicans, not voting for policies.
I'm going to vote to stay out of fucking jail, because that's how I feel.
So if that's how you wanted me to feel, congratulations assholes.
That's how I feel.
You fucked up bigger than anybody's ever fucked up in their whole life.
The Democrats have no idea what's coming.
And I don't want to see a protest, frankly.
I don't want to see anybody risking themselves.
I just want you to take care of yourself.
I just want you to take care of yourself.
That's it.
Protect yourself.
Do what you gotta do.
I'm not talking guns.
I'm not talking revolutions.
I'm talking about, you know what you gotta do.
This time, do it.
This time, fucking do it.
Right?
Decide.
Don't think about it.
Don't talk about it.
Just decide.
It's time to decide.
Now, if they let him out, you know, and the whole thing turns into nothing, Then I'm going to say, all right, you know, back to politics as usual, pick your side, etc.
But if they take him out, if this actually either doesn't allow him to run or they put him in jail, God forbid, that's a different game.
And I don't think they quite understand the level of fire that they're playing with.
They do not understand.
Don't tell them.
Don't tell them.
All right.
So there aren't going to be, the judge ordered that there aren't going to be cameras in the proceedings.
Is my head going to explode right now?
Really?
You're going to take physical fucking custody of the former president of the United States with 80 million supporters and you're not going to show us on the fucking camera what you're doing?
You better show that shit.
We need to see all of it.
You need full transparency.
This is not like any other case.
This is not a criminal situation.
This is the fucking future of the Republic.
You better show us that shit.
I want to see every part of it.
Secondly, um, Apparently there might be some kind of a gag order, I don't think we know that, that would prevent Trump from talking about the proceedings.
Rejected.
Fucking rejected.
Rejected.
If there's a gag order, I want him to violate it.
Please.
I want him to violate it.
And if he goes to jail, game on.
You can't gag the fucking president of the United States.
Former president.
Possible future president.
You can't fucking gag him.
You can't turn the cameras off.
You can't.
Unacceptable.
Un-fucking-acceptable.
We gotta see it.
We gotta see the whole thing.
Un-fucking-acceptable.
Gag order?
Fuck you.
Fuck your gag order.
Fuck your gag order.
If he has one, I hope he violates it in the first second.
I want to see him violate the fuck out of that gag order.
What about the alleged So do you think there'll be a mugshot?
Or do you think he'll be an exception?
Mugshot or exception?
What do you think?
Probably mugshot?
Some say exception?
Yeah.
Do you know why they would make an exception?
If they make an exception, do you know why?
Because it would help him.
Yeah.
If that mugshot exists, you know the Republicans are going to use it more than the Democrats, right?
The Democrats think, ho-ho, ho-ho-ho-ho, I can't wait to get that mugshot.
You know what?
I can't fucking wait to get it either.
I can't fucking wait to get that mugshot.
I don't care what expression he's got in his face.
I don't care if he's sad or happy.
I want to see that mugshot.
Because that's going to put him into the presidency if anything does.
All right.
Let me make a prediction for 2024.
This will be a conditional prediction.
So I withhold the ability to change my prediction later based on a different theory.
The current prediction goes like this.
You've heard Elon Musk say this, you've heard me say it before then.
Reality tends to follow the path of greatest entertainment.
And you see it over and over again.
The path of greatest entertainment.
What would be the path of greatest entertainment, good or bad?
I'm saying you might hate it or you might love it, but it would be the most clicky, you couldn't take your eyes off it, entertaining thing.
The most entertaining thing goes like this.
Between now and the election in 2024, Trump is running.
Let's say that he's not taken out by any legal processes.
And wait for it, and the Kraken happens.
You remember the Kraken?
That big old thing we were promised that was going to be news about the 2020 election and how it was allegedly rigged, but no evidence of that scale ever came to pass.
Well, we've kind of been beaten into submission a little bit, assuming that all the things that have been proposed or alleged have either been ruled out or rejected by the courts or they weren't big enough or just didn't pan out for some reason.
So you're kind of beaten down and you expect that there would be nothing else between now and the next election.
However, I don't want to give you the details, but there are a number of, let's say, signals that are emerging that definitely are the possibility that there's something out there really big that is close to being uncovered.
Now, I'm not going to be the idiot who predicts it, because I'm more famous for saying that 95% of all election fraud claims, at least, like a floor, would be 95% of all of them are false.
So if I were to bet against my own prediction that 95% of all election claims are false, I would be a little foolish.
However, if you believe that the most entertaining option is where reality bends, then the most entertaining option is we've all been wrong, and there is a Kraken.
Let me give you just a, maybe a little hint of where one might be.
Alright, this is a big might.
So I want to be very clear, because I know there's some idiots who watch, they sneak in.
To the idiots, I'm not predicting necessarily that any of this will pan out as actual, you know, election fraud that's on a big scale.
But it could.
It's in the category of, huh.
Huh.
It could.
Apparently there's, and I'll try to get this story right, there's a system that a number of states use, It's called the ERIC system.
E-R-I-C.
Stands for something.
And it's a system that keeps track of who's moved from one state to another.
So if you're trying to make sure that your voter rolls are accurate, one of the things you want to know is who's recently moved and maybe who has not re-registered or whatever.
Because the last thing you'd want to do You send a bunch of ballots to somebody's wrong address, and then you've got a ballot that somebody maybe could fill out illegally.
So it's very important to know who has moved recently, and this ERIC database is one of the things that does it.
Now, what's your guess?
Do you think the ERIC database, which is very important to the integrity of the elections, Do you think that it's run by a prominent Republican?
Do you think a bunch of Republicans put that together?
Oh no, no.
It turns out it's run by a fairly well-known Democrat.
So a Democrat put it together.
Zuckerberg had something to do with it, maybe funding or something.
I don't know.
There's some Zuckerberg connection.
Here's a more interesting fact from Rich Barris, who says that the Eric system is completely unnecessary because the data already exists and even he has it.
So even, you know, Rich Barris here on Twitter, you've seen him talking about a lot of election stuff.
Even he says, I have the information.
Even I have the information of who's recently moved by states.
The Eric system doesn't even have a purpose.
Unless the purpose is to make it more likely the Democrats win.
And there's an allegation that's sort of bubbling up that the Eric system might be the primary way that fraud is accomplished.
And it's not something you would have looked at.
In other words, it's not part of the election process, per se.
It's more of an election support system.
So if you were looking at the election, it would be hard to detect that anything was wrong.
But if you looked at how we got to the election, maybe there is.
Now I think I've done a poor job of explaining what it is and the risk.
So if you're interested, you should read on it.
But the only point I want to make The only point to make here is that there might be something that is really big that makes a difference to elections and you didn't know about it.
And it could make a big difference.
I'm not going to say that's the thing that's going to be the Kraken.
I'm just going to say there are a couple of things.
I think there are at least two other things that are bubbling up now through Carrie Lake or other things.
So you might see it.
So the main reason I would predict it is not because I think it's likely we'll find election fraud.
I still think that's very unlikely.
What is likely?
Well, likely is the wrong answer.
But if the prediction of reality following the most entertaining path, if that happens, it's going to play out that way.
So really it's just a way to, I'd say it's a way to see if that hypothesis of things following the most entertaining path works.
Now I have a hypothesis why that hypothesis would work.
What would be the mechanism that would cause reality to follow the most entertaining path?
What would cause that to happen?
It would be people wanting to be entertained.
It would be people thinking about it.
Because I have a view of reality that we think things into reality.
That the thing we focus on actually forms into reality ahead of us.
So the more you're thinking about something bad, the more likely it's going to happen.
The more you're focusing on a good future, the more likely that's going to happen.
And I believe that a whole bunch of people are thinking about election integrity in 2020.
And so we might actually think it into existence because it's the most entertaining thing.
And that's why we think about it a lot.
And again, entertaining means it brings our attention to it.
Not that we enjoy it, but our attention is drawn to it.
So we might be just thinking it into existence.
We'll see.
All right, I've been trying out my new attack on the woke by simply saying good performance.
Because my theory is that the wokeness is not about anybody that they're complaining about.
When they complain about me, it's not ever about me.
It's about them showing themselves in a certain way.
It's about a peacock.
Showing his feathers.
So instead of arguing on the merits, where I might say, no, that's not true.
I have never been a cannibal.
That never works.
Because you're just repeating yourself as a cannibal all the time.
You're making the Marjorie Taylor Greene trap mistake.
The more you deny it, the more it sounds like it's true.
So instead of denying anything from woke people, I'm simply going to call them out.
This way.
Here's an example.
Roy Graham said to me, Scott, oh, this is because I posted a tweet that asked people if they'd be comfortable having a Democrat babysit their children.
And 75% of respondents, mostly Republicans and troublemakers, said no, they would not be comfortable with a Democrat watching their children.
Allow me to do a public service address for the stupid people who may have wandered in here by accident.
This doesn't apply to locals, but there might be some stupid people still on YouTube.
And it's important to talk to them.
So when people answered that they wouldn't want a Democrat to babysit their kids, that doesn't mean every Democrat.
See, I have to talk stupid so the stupid people will know I'm talking to them directly.
They don't mean every Democrat.
No.
Because if they, let's say, let's say maybe their mother was a Democrat.
Do they mean that they wouldn't trust their mother watching their child?
No.
No, it doesn't mean that.
No stupid people.
No stupid people.
Listen to me, stupid people.
It doesn't mean your mother.
It doesn't mean the exceptions.
It was just sort of a general feeling of that.
All right, so that was just for the stupid people.
So Roy, talking about that Twitter poll I ran, he said, Scott, what, in all capitals, what is the point of posting this to generate hateful responses, which you will get a lot?
This is really lowbrow and it is not funny.
Please.
To which I responded, good performance, Roy.
Well done.
How well does that work?
Is that not perfect?
I'm not going to talk to him about his point because his point is not about the point.
Do you think the point is about the point?
Of course not.
The point is about Roy.
Roy wants you to know who he is.
Okay Roy, that was an excellent performance in telling us how awesome you are compared to me.
Good performance.
Good performance.
I am not going to talk about the details of your criticism.
I'm only going to talk about the quality of your performance.
If you want to have an actual discussion, we'll talk about actual real things.
Happy to do it.
But if you just want to perform, I'm just going to grade the performance.
Nope, we're not going to talk about your dumb ideas.
Just the performance.
Good job, Roy.
Good job.
Speaking of performance, the most important news in the entire world is that there was a guy who said something bad about a woman's basketball player who did something that he considered classless.
Huge, huge story.
So the story's about Dave Portnoy, barstool, founder, Trump supporter.
Which is probably the key to this.
Trump supporter.
So, in a women's basketball game, you've probably all seen the news, a white player mocked a black player.
A white woman by pointing to the future ring that she was going to win if they won the game.
But I guess the game didn't go their way at the end.
And the black player, again, coincidence.
Coincidence that one of them was white.
Coincidence that one of them was black.
It's just basketball players on different teams.
And the other one mocks her back, you know, by, you know, pointing at her finger.
Totally fair game.
Two players mocking each other.
Fair game.
But of course, the one that Dave Portnoy happens to see, because I think it was toward the end of the game, and he makes a comment that she's an effing idiot for doing this mocking thing.
Does anybody care what Dave Portnoy thinks about one female player's hand gesture?
Anybody in the world?
Does anybody in the world care about that?
No, of course not.
Did anybody in the world bother to make a big deal about it?
Of course they did.
They made a really big deal about it.
Is it because they care what this one person thinks about one person's hand gesture?
No.
They care that they can take him out.
Dave Portnoy is a chess piece.
He's actually one of the people who might actually change votes because he's outspoken and pro-Trump.
This is everything about taking players off the board and performing while you do it.
So there's two points.
There are two points, but none of them have anything to do with what he did or said.
That has nothing to do with the story.
The only thing is, can people perform?
Let me tell you how I'm better than Dave Portnoy.
I'm better than Dave Portnoy, and here's my reasons why.
I'm so wonderful, and Dave Portnoy is not.
See, if you added singing and dancing to it, I think it'd be a better performance.
And otherwise it's just trying to take him off the field because he's a Trump supporter.
And I was looking at who gave the best woke performance.
I think it was Shaquille O'Neal, who said something about his mother.
Good.
Good performance, Shaq.
Excellent.
We do not need to know about the issue because nobody cared.
Literally, nobody cared about the issue.
We only care about the quality of your performance.
And Shaq, we're going to give you the Academy Award for that.
Well, as I've said a number of times, the Democrats are really the party of women, in the sense that women are the dominant, let's say, opinion-making force within the Democrat Party.
Would you agree, first of all, that women are the dominant policy-making force?
It's not all women in charge, like they're not necessarily all the senators, but they're the primary influence in the Democrat Party.
And somebody said to me, why are you against that?
I'm not against it.
I'm not against it at all.
Why would anybody be against it?
It's just an observation.
Can't I observe something?
Why is that a problem?
I'm just observing.
No, I don't think that's necessarily not on the surface.
I'm not saying that women can't dominate a party.
Sure they can.
Why not?
That's all part of the process.
No problem at all.
It's just an observation.
Now, I'm going to extend the observation.
Is it my imagination, or most trans people who transition from male to female, most of them are probably lean Democrat, wouldn't you say?
Is that a fair statement?
Not all.
Let me take a moment.
For the stupid people, for the stupid people, I don't mean all of them.
I don't mean every trans person is actually a Democrat.
Not everyone.
Not a hundred percent.
Okay, that's just for the dumb people.
But generally speaking, wouldn't you say, probably lean left.
Yeah.
And I thought that this is a continuation of a theme.
That the Democrats are the party of women.
And people who identify as women.
But here's the part that I thought was the best part.
That conservatives seem to be concerned that their opponents are removing their own balls.
And I thought to myself, what a weird world.
Because, I don't know, this is just the way I play it.
I play it differently.
If I saw that my opponents in any realm were removing their balls, I'd say, carry on.
Carry on.
I don't want to get in the way of that.
I'd like to just stand to the side and carry on.
I might want to encourage it.
You know what?
Joe Biden, his biggest problem is his balls.
If he would get rid of those, Be a better world.
Be a better world, I think.
So, I don't know, I just thought it was funny that Republicans are concerned that their opponents are removing their own balls.
Now, if you're new to me, I'm pro-trans.
Totally pro-trans.
Adults.
Adults, do whatever you want.
I'm happy to... Please, do whatever you want.
It's a free country.
Yeah, we'll work out the details.
There's lots of stuff to work out with sports and bathrooms and stuff like that.
Of course.
Of course.
But that doesn't change the fact that I'm pro anybody who's an adult, you know, living the life they want to live.
It's okay with me?
Yeah, the children's stuff is a separate category and I'm not gonna... I'm not even gonna pretend those are the same.
All right.
Let's see what else we got going on here.
Did anybody see?
Oh, well.
Did you ever think that the Democrats are trying to create a banana republic?
Have you seen anybody say that?
They're trying to create a banana republic.
Does that seem ironic given the number of Democrats who are removing their bananas?
And the fact that it's a female-led party?
I feel like it's a banana-free republic.
The Republicans are, I'm sorry, the Democrats are trying to turn us into a banana-free republic.
No bananas.
And nothing that looks like one.
We don't want a banana, or anything that looks like one.
If it's a BBC, still fine.
BBC's are still allowed.
But if it looks, you know, sort of like a banana, nobody wants it.
All right.
Did you see Megyn Kelly unload on Leah Thomas, the trans athlete swimmer?
Oh my god!
And she's not cancelled as far as I know.
Let me try to summarize what Megan Kelly said.
She said that Leah Thomas, who if you don't know is a born-as-man transition to a woman and is now winning a bunch of swimming titles by beating the people who were born as biological women.
And Megan Kelly says It's a sexual fetish.
And that we're praising, this is her opinion, that Leah Thomas is being praised for something that's just a sexual kink, which according to Megyn Kelly is dressing in women's clothes.
And that not only does what Megyn Kelly would call he, enjoy the dressing in women's clothes, but probably enjoys being in the locker room with naked women.
Now, I don't know if any of that's true.
Let me be clear.
I'm not backing that allegation.
I am, however, interested in why it's not a valid point.
Meaning, how can anybody tell if somebody's acting on a sexual fetish or there's some kind of, you know, deep lifestyle identity situation that you would treat differently?
How would you know?
Yeah, I heard he used the word autogonophilia.
Is that a real thing?
Autogonophilia?
That it's a sexual fetish maybe to remove your... or to have genitals or something?
I don't know even what that is.
But I love... Oh, to imagine yourself as a woman?
Yeah.
Now, as somebody crudely pointed out, an erection would answer the question of whether it's a sexual turn-on.
There's no report that Leah Thomas... Is Leah Thomas intact?
Is that the right word?
Or is there... Leah Thomas has not had surgery, right?
Yeah.
So that makes it a little extra suspicious, doesn't it?
Makes it a little extra suspicious.
Now I would imagine if you were trans you would say, no it doesn't.
There's nothing suspicious about that at all.
It's just a lifestyle thing.
So I'd like to acknowledge that that would be a legitimate opinion.
I don't know.
So I had the following feeling about it when I heard Megyn Kelly.
Number one, brave as hell.
Can we take a moment To just register how brave that was, for Megyn Kelly to state that opinion loudly and proudly.
It's very brave.
I don't see her getting cancelled for it.
Maybe it's easier to be a woman.
In this conversation, it's probably easier to be a woman.
Could be part of it.
It could be because she hit a nerve.
It could be because people said, oh, I want to cancel you, except, wait, what did you say?
What did you just say?
How do we rule that out?
How do you rule out that Leah Thomas potentially is just enjoying the show?
I don't know how you rule it out.
Now, in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty, you have to act as though there's no crime.
It wouldn't even be a crime, would it, technically?
I don't know.
Would it?
Well, let me ask you this.
Would it be a crime if you did not genuinely think you were a woman?
Then it would, right?
It would totally be a crime if you pretended to be a woman just to have access to the women's locker room.
That would be a crime, wouldn't it?
So how do you know this isn't a crime?
And by the way, I'm not saying it is.
Because this depends 100% on what's happening in a person's head, how they're conceiving of what they're doing.
We have no insight into leotanas.
We can't know what's in that head.
So I'm not saying that there's anything wrong.
I'm saying that you can't tell.
So it's, you know, then you'd have to ask the question, if you can't tell there's a crime, isn't it wrong and unethical to call it out as maybe a crime?
That's an argument.
I would listen to that as well.
Yes, we cannot read minds, so there would be no way to know.
No way to know.
You know, I was hoping that the Leah Thomas thing would be the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
That more biological men would pretend to be women.
There's some weightlifter who holds the record for women's weightlifting.
That's basically a guy who wanted to prove a point, so he identified his woman just to win the contest.
I thought that that would be so massively done that the whole thing would fall apart.
But apparently there are not enough people like me.
There are not enough people like me.
To play practical jokes on the system until it breaks.
So I guess that's not gonna happen.
It broke the camel's toe.
That's funny.
Yes, I think Martina Novotrova had the best opinion, which is, by the way, very close to mine.
So this is Martina Novotrova.
She says that the trans should not compete, the born as men should not compete against the born as women.
But she does say that a third category should be created.
So you'd have men's, women's, and then open.
The open category would be anybody who identifies as anything, who just did not fit comfortably in one of the other two categories.
That feels okay to me.
Now, of course, there's a, you know, it's expensive to create a new league.
You know, if you were a school system and you were, let's say, required to do it, you might have five people who would, you know, you wouldn't even maybe have a basketball team.
You wouldn't have enough people.
But maybe it doesn't have to be school against school.
You know, maybe several schools could get together and say, you know, all trans athletes who were born male, those are the problematic ones, can play against each other.
They got their own league.
And by the way, anybody else can play too.
You don't have to be trans, but it would be a league where you could be, if you want to.
Would that work?
Actually, I could imagine myself playing in the trans Open League.
I can imagine that.
If I were to play soccer in high school, and you said you could be on the men's team, or you could pretend to be a woman, I suppose.
No, you can't do that anymore.
I couldn't be on the women's team, so I could be on the men's team, and I would be competing against the best male players, therefore I would sit on the bench.
Follow me on this, right?
I'd be playing against the best male players, so I'd probably sit on the bench.
If I joined the trans league that wasn't just trans, it's anybody who wanted to play, I would play against people who were, you know, I'd end up in some league that's similar to my skill set.
There'd be some women in it who are good at soccer.
There'd be some trans athletes in it, of course.
And I'd be playing on an even field with people I was competitive with.
Fine.
That would work perfectly for me.
So, I do like that idea.
I don't know how practical it is to form a new league.
It's a little impractical.
But not so impractical you couldn't do it.
And I've often said that the male and female binary is only good for the top athletes.
The top female athlete?
Yay!
Gets a college scholarship.
The worst female athlete doesn't get on the team or sits on the bench.
Same with the men.
Yay, college scholarship, get all the girls, you're the captain of the football team, look at you!
The lowest athlete doesn't get on the team, or sits on the bench.
You need a league for those people.
That's the league I want.
And if trans could fit comfortably in that league, because the only thing that matters is how well you play, not anything else, good idea.
So I'm going to back that concept.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, is there any other big story that I missed?
Is there anything I'm ignoring that you think I should not have?
Chinese radiation-proof soldiers?
I've somehow ignored that.
Yeah, Finland has joined NATO, which nobody cares about.
Does anybody imagine that Finland joining NATO would make a big difference to anything?
I mean, Russia won't like it, but was Russia going to attack Finland?
You know, was Finland at risk of attack?
I don't know.
It looks like it changes nothing to me.
It looks like something to talk about, but not something that matters.
BRICS is growing, but again, as long as the US economy is strong, people are going to want dollars too.
Oh, interesting.
I just saw a comment that I don't know the story behind, but the comment said that Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, wants overdose deaths by fentanyl to be murder, which would mean that the dealer would be guilty of murder.
Yes.
Yes, thank you.
Yeah.
In fact, I would go further.
I would say that dealing fentanyl beyond some scale, right?
I wouldn't talk about the smallest dealers.
That's a special case.
But if you're a professional mass fentanyl dealer, that should be the death sentence.
Death sentence.
Because that's mass murder.
If there's somebody who's moving product to 10,000 people, And I assume there's some big dealers who are moving to 10,000 people.
If you give fentanyl to 10,000 people, you're going to lose 5, 10, 100, I don't know.
You're going to kill a mass number of people.
That person should be executed.
Who disagrees?
A mass fentanyl dealer, the big ones, just the big ones, that should be murder.
That should be absolute death sentence, no doubt about it.
Here's, oh, we've got another dumb person entering the box.
So Mike K, I'll need to talk to him like a dumb person to respond to.
He yells in all caps, just stop popping pills.
So could I take a moment just to talk to the dumb person here?
All right.
Mike, Mike, you're thinking about addiction like you're thinking about M&M's.
M&M's you could stop taking.
An addiction means you can't stop it.
It's taken over your brain, Mike.
Mike, if people could just stop taking fentanyl, we wouldn't have a problem, Mike.
But you can't stop it.
You can't.
That's what an addiction is.
And by the way, Mike, they don't even know they're getting fentanyl.
And Mike responds, yeah, just stop.
Good job, Mike.
Good job.
All right.
I believe I've mocked Mike enough.
Get hosed again?
What?
NPC alert.
More mocking please.
Does everybody appreciate it when I give the special announcements to stupid people?
It's a mixed bag.
Some no, some yes.
Some no.
I guess you don't want to be on the receiving end.
Alright.
And, oh, here's another all caps.
I've noticed that all the dumb people like to signal their, who they are.
And Jacob DeCaliete says, stop taking drugs!
Better yet, do not start!
You know?
If only somebody had thought of that.
Stop taking drugs.
Wait, better yet, hold on, better yet, don't take them in the first place?