Episode 2076 Scott Adams: Trump Talks To Tucker, Musk Dunks On BBC, Inflation, Colbert Mocks Biden
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump interview with Tucker
Musk dunks on BBC
Inflation eases for some reason
Colbert mocks Biden
Democrat convention in the murder capitol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's the best thing that's ever going to happen to you in your whole damn life.
And it's lucky that you made it here.
Some of you for the original, some of you for the recorded version, but both awesome.
And if you'd like to maximize this experience, and I know that's the kind of people you are.
You do not settle for ordinary experience when you can have the good stuff.
All you need for the good stuff is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, shells or stein, 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 is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh yeah, that's good.
Ah.
Yep, the wizard of ahs.
That's right.
Well, the funniest thing that happened yesterday, how many of you were lucky enough to catch the Spaces audio event?
So it's a Twitter feature where you hear just audio.
And Elon Musk had a Twitter Spaces event in which he was having a conversation with the BBC.
Let's call it the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Let's call it that.
And it was the most entertaining thing I've seen in a long time, heard.
So I put in my earbuds, and here's the fun part, you put in the earbuds and you hear people just having a conversation, it's like you're in the room.
Because it wasn't technically an interview, it was more like a conversation.
And when you hear a personal live conversation with Elon Musk just talking to some BBC guy and having a lot of fun with it, and I'll tell you how much fun he had.
He had a lot of fun with it.
It was just so entertaining.
I don't know, it was better than the movie, better than most scripted, anything really.
So here's what was good about it.
And I will borrow from David Sachs' tweet in which he summarized the most interesting part of it.
So this is a summary version but it captures it pretty good.
BBC.
Why is there so much more hate speech on Twitter now?
Elon Musk.
Can you give me an example?
Can you give me an example of some of the hate speech you're seeing now?
Well, just one, just one example.
Well, people say, people say all sorts of nonsense.
You don't know what you're talking about.
This is the, and then the BBC is, let's move on.
Let's move on.
Now this was the abbreviated version.
If you heard the full version, oh my God.
You've never heard a reporter get squashed in a live conversation that hard.
Somebody who knows media stuff better commented that the biggest mistake you could make would be letting your interview subject also record the call, but to also do it live.
That the reporter was taking a big chance when he decided to be at a live event and challenge Elon Musk.
Because if there's one thing we know about Elon Musk, he doesn't get embarrassed.
You don't ever want to be in a live conversation with somebody who's not happy with you and also, and also, this is important, doesn't get embarrassed by anything.
Now, Here's how it went.
It wasn't just that when Musk asked him for an example of the Hayes speech, he couldn't come up with it.
Musk put his boot on this guy's head and just drilled him in front of all of us.
Well, we listened, and it was so good.
It was sort of like this.
It was like, wait a minute.
You're saying that you've noticed that the hate speech is up, but you don't have one example?
Just one example.
All I'm asking you is for one.
Just give me one example of anything you saw that looked like more hate speech.
What would be one example?
Well, you know, people say, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
No, but can you give me one example?
Because if it's a big story, it's a big thing, and you can see it personally, you could give me one example.
Couldn't give him one even general example.
And Musk just ground him into the dirt for that.
It was glorious.
It was so much fun to listen to.
But it got better.
So... This next part you're not even going to believe.
Well, the part after this you won't believe.
So then Musk starts grinding this guy down for the fake information that the BBC reported about COVID masks and vaccination side effects.
Now, do you notice the difference?
When Elon Musk made an accusation about the BBC, he gave them specifics.
Yeah, what you said about masks and what you didn't say about vaccine side effects.
That's very specific.
And the guy didn't push back at all.
He just tried to change the subject.
So, after Musk has completely just disemboweled this guy in public, By showing that his accusations had no weight whatsoever, but Musk's accusations against the BBC have well proven weight that they were reporting fake news on the most important event in recent years.
Then, after thoroughly, thoroughly destroying this guy, Musk turns to questions from the audience.
But the BBC guy was still there, And he kept trying to sort of chime in while Musk was looking through questions.
And Musk was just basically dismissing him like he's not even talking.
He had so humiliated himself, the BBC guy had, that Musk reads a question that makes fun of the fact that BBC has two meanings.
You all know the second meaning, right?
One is British Broadcast Corporation, the other is Big Black Cock, in case you didn't know.
I couldn't say that, probably wouldn't have said that except that's the story.
So Musk says on this audio event, after he's just destroyed this guy's reputation, he says to him, so do you like the BBC?
He's just trying to get him to quote something that'll sound funny when he says it.
And the guy won't take the bait.
He'll say, well, you know, I think the interview is over.
Maybe we should move on.
And the funniest part is that Musk didn't quit with the BBC stuff.
I think he asked them like five or six times.
He had so demolished this guy that talking about anything serious was a complete waste of time.
Because he just clowned him completely.
And then he just starts forcing this guy to admit that he likes big black cock.
And the guy doesn't know what to do.
Because it's not supposed to go that way.
It's just not supposed to happen.
Oh my god.
I fell asleep to that conversation after the BBC guy left.
I fell asleep to it.
The best part of it is, every time somebody tries to accuse Elon Musk of having a sophomoric sense of humour, he just doubles down on it and it just makes it funnier.
Every time he doubles down on his, what would you call it, puerile or whatever's the word for it, sense of humor, it just gets funnier.
And the funny part is that he's not embarrassed by it.
By far, that's the funny part.
That he doesn't mind putting it right out there.
It's like, well, deal with that.
Let's see how you do.
I'm going to put that out there.
Let's see how you do in public.
Oh, that was funny.
But the other things we learned, which I did not know, is that, as you know, Twitter's staff went from almost 8,000 people to closer to 1,400 to 1,500.
to closer to 1400 to 1500.
And it's still running.
And apparently they closed one of three data centers around the year end.
And it was a huge problem.
Apparently, they thought one was redundant.
But when they went to close it, they realized that there were a lot of hardwired connections with the three.
So it almost destroyed Twitter.
But you never heard about that until now.
So that was actually one of the biggest problems for Twitter's future.
And you never heard about it.
They just made it work somehow.
But the other thing is that he was bleeding a few billion dollars a year with the old cost structure, and he says he's gotten it down to they should be cash positive, actually making more cash than they're spending, within the year.
Now that is pretty impressive.
That is pretty impressive.
Can you believe that?
It went from wildly unprofitable, and of course he bought it for twice as much as it was probably worth, and he talked about that as well.
Basically, he didn't want to buy it once he found out what it was really worth, but by then it was too late.
He'd committed, so he ended up having to buy it anyway.
So he wasn't really crazy about the deal, but he's trying to make it work, and he's actually turned it profitable.
In a few short months, he expects it to be cash positive.
Now, that's amazing.
You know, as much as Tesla is impressive, as much as SpaceX and Neuralink and all those things and Starlink, as impressive as all of those companies are individually, the fact that he turned around Twitter in one year.
He turned around Twitter in one year.
That's incredible.
Now he says that advertisers are coming back.
Now of course I couldn't get off the call because I was wondering if the BBC guy would blame me.
Because you know that's been happening in the press lately.
People have literally blamed me for advertisers not coming back to Twitter.
Like actually just me.
Can you imagine waking up into that news?
Like one day I woke up into the news that I had personally destroyed Twitter because one time Musk said something about Dilbert shouldn't get cancelled and therefore he was agreeing with me and therefore he must be a racist and therefore all the advertisers were never going to come back.
That almost was my fault.
According to Musk, most of the advertisers will probably in the long term come back because it's a good platform for them to advertise.
But that was weird.
Anyway, the BBC didn't mention me.
So that felt like progress in my world.
Yeah.
Some would say I didn't have anything to do with it, but that doesn't change anything.
All right.
I guess one of the groups, I just learned this this morning, the BBC mentioned a group that had talked about Moorhead's speech on Twitter, and I guess that group is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and they said they saw Moorhead's speech.
But I learned this morning, from an alert Twitter user, That the same group that says there's more hate speech, they're primarily a climate change advocacy group.
And they don't like that Twitter has anti-climate alarm stuff on it.
So it turns out the least credible organization, because they have a clear bias against Musk and against Twitter's handling of climate change stuff, they're the ones who say there's more hate speech.
But I think they're looking at anti-climate change stuff as hate speech too.
So, nothing the BBC guy said was credible.
It was just a total dismantling of the credibility of the entity.
It was awesome.
Alright, so the Democrats, in looking at where they would hold their 2024 convention, They decided that in the entire United States, the place that would make the most sense for a Democrat convention would be in Chicago, which Joel Pollack and Breitbart helpfully points out is the murder capital of the country.
They're literally having their convention in the murder capital of the country.
Now, Does that not tell you that they don't care about anything because they must have the elections rigged already?
I mean, this feels like a group who isn't trying to win.
Just consider that they're seriously looking to run Joe Biden for president and they're going to hold their convention in Chicago.
You tell me they're trying to win.
They're not trying to win an election.
They either have it already rigged, so it doesn't matter what they do, or they stop trying.
What's the other possibility?
I don't see another possibility.
It's either already rigged, or they just stop trying to win.
And the stop trying to win wouldn't make any sense at all.
So I'm going to use my technique, which I've recommended now.
My working assumption is that they believe they've already figured out how to rig the upcoming election.
I don't have evidence for that.
I have no facts to back it up.
I have only an observation of something that can't be explained another way.
You cannot explain this level of incompetence in the Democrat Party unless they know it doesn't matter.
Unless they know it doesn't matter.
And I think they know it doesn't matter.
I also think that the real reason that they want Trump to run... I think I'll be the first person I've heard say this.
The real reason they want Trump to run is not because they think they can beat him with Biden.
It's because they won't believe Trump when he says it was rigged.
Boom.
That's why.
Because he's the only person that can rig the election right in front of him, and right in front of you, and it won't matter.
Because you're not going to listen to Trump saying an election is rigged again.
You won't listen a second time.
But imagine for a moment Mitt Romney ran for president again as a Republican.
And imagine for a moment, just hypothetically, if Mitt Romney said, wait a minute, this doesn't look right.
I don't believe this election was rigged, or was proper.
If Mitt Romney tells you that the election was rigged, the Democrats have a big problem.
Because people are going to think, Mitt Romney doesn't exactly just always agree with the Republicans.
He would actually have to actually literally believe this must be true, or he wouldn't say it.
You know, that's the sort of impression you have.
Now you can imagine a bunch of other Republicans that you would put in the same boat.
If Tom Cotton ran for president and he didn't like the result of the election and genuinely thought it was rigged, you'd believe him.
Because he doesn't have any history that would suggest he would lie about such a thing of that importance.
I'll bet you could name five other Republicans.
Chris Christie, Take Chris Christie.
If Chris Christie ran for president, lost, but thought the election was rigged, genuinely thought it, you'd believe him.
You would believe him.
There's only one person who could claim the election is rigged and you wouldn't want to necessarily back him because you're going to get in trouble and get thrown in jail and lose your job.
That's Trump.
Trump is the only person they can cheat right in front of you.
Everybody else they would have to be way more clever, and I don't know if they know how to be way more clever.
So let me be clear.
I have no evidence of anything being rigged.
No evidence.
None.
Zero.
However, the Democrats are sending a signal that they're not trying to compete under normal circumstances.
It looks like they have something else going on.
Something else.
Whatever it is.
Yeah, let's take Vivek as another example.
Vivek Ramaswamy.
If he lost the election, but legitimately claimed it looked like there were irregularities, you would believe him.
Why?
Because he's gotten this far and he didn't tell you any lies, right?
So why would this be the first one?
It would be weird for that to be the first one.
But Trump's a different animal.
You know, Trump plays fast and loose with the fact-checking.
Always has.
So if you put him in the office again, you make him lose again, the one thing you can guarantee isn't going to happen is an insurrection at the Capitol.
You know why?
Because they put you in jail for protesting.
Because it's not really a free country the way it used to be.
And honestly, it's not.
It's not a free country the way it used to be.
So, that's my hypothesis.
My hypothesis is my working understanding, without evidence, without evidence, but my working assumption is that everything is leading in one direction, which is they plan to cheat, they know they can do it, and Trump is the only person you won't believe when he says it happened.
That's what it looks like.
Well, more to that point, but indirectly, even Colbert has mocked the president's cognitive ability.
Yes, this really happened.
So, you may have seen the interview where Biden was talking to Al Roker.
Al Roker is not what you would call the hard-hitting interviewer.
He's there for the Easter egg hunt and the weather and fun stuff.
And so Al Roker does this softball kind of, hey Joe, how many more Easter egg hunts do you think you'll have?
Trying to figure out if he's really running.
And then, I'm sorry, Biden.
And then Biden Trips over his words in his Biden way and it becomes another viral thing and more evidence why they don't want to let him talk in public if they can avoid it.
And here's what Colbert did.
So after they show the video, Colbert comes back, he's wearing aviator glasses like Biden, and he does his Joe Biden impression.
And I'm going to do my impression of Colbert's impression.
So that you can get a sense of how much he was mocking him.
Because I've never heard Colbert go this hard, even in a funny way, I've never heard him go this hard at Biden.
So he goes, he says, that's right Jack, I got big Easter news.
Joe Biden can lay eggs, easy as pie.
No, I push him right out of my cloaca.
I don't know what that is, must be a body part or something.
Serve him up, scrambled, or sit on him for a while.
Also a beautiful flock of little baby Joes.
Peep, peep, peep.
Colbert quipped, and then he goes on, point is, I am mentally fit once again to run for President of the United States.
What's going on?
Where's Jill?
Marco?
Jill-o?
So even Colbert used this example as someone who is demonstrating to the world that he's not mentally fit to be President.
He just put it right out there.
Now, what does that tell you?
It's hard for me to imagine that the Democrats actually expect Biden to be the nominee.
Do you think they're desperately trying to find a replacement and they just can't get one yet?
Now, how many of you saw Newsom?
He's doing some kind of national tour.
I've never liked him less than his interview that I just saw when he was, this is Newsom I'm talking about.
He is the most arrogant, cocky guy.
I kind of hate him when he talks because of his arrogance.
Now, I don't think he can turn that off.
I watched him, he was being filmed just leaving the White House, so he'd visited the White House to, you know, make himself look like more of a national candidate, I guess.
So Biden wasn't even at the White House when he visited, so who knows what he was doing.
But he leaves and he's got his, you know, he's got his little jacket over his shoulder, and he's got that swagger and that look in his face, and you just want to slap him.
Yeah, he has the most slappable face.
I don't believe in violence.
I'm not advocating violence.
But you see his dumb, arrogant face and you're just like, oh, there's no way I could look at that for four years.
And I was actually fairly pro-Newsom in terms of his skills.
I still think he has skills.
But he has to turn off that face.
That face is not getting you elected.
I don't think.
I don't see how the Democrat base can vote for the whitest person in America acting arrogant like a tall rich white guy.
That feels like exactly the opposite of the Democrat vibe.
And how in the world Do the Democrats keep running old white men?
Or even, you know, not so old white men?
How in the world do they keep doing that?
And getting away with it?
By the way, did you know that black support for Democrats, just to support what I've predicted, that if you look at black American support for Democrats, it's at an all-time high.
Among women.
So black women are supporting Democrats at an all-time high rate.
Black men are starting to desert to Republicans.
Did you know that?
That the black vote has bifurcated, male and female?
Now, this supports what I've been saying.
That the Democrat Party is a party of women.
It's run by women, effectively, even if they don't have the jobs that would suggest they're in charge.
But it's effectively run by women.
Because you can't do anything as a Democrat that women are not 100% behind.
So they control what happens.
And I think that the Republican Party is becoming sort of the dad party.
And the Democrats are becoming the mom party.
And it's exactly what you think, in terms of why some would be important at different times in history.
Because you know from your own life, if you have a mother and a father, that there are times when dad is the right answer.
Right?
You got trouble?
You got trouble with another country, son?
Call dad.
Dad will make sure that Little Rocket Man doesn't send any rockets at you.
Dad will make sure that Russia doesn't invade Ukraine.
Dad will make sure that China doesn't go into Taiwan.
That's Dad business.
Mom will make sure you get fed if you're hungry.
Right?
So she's just making sure you've got your basics.
So if you're worried mostly about your basics, then you want Mom.
If you're worried about Destruction from outside forces, you definitely want dad.
So, they have become the mom and dad party, and I'm wondering if Trump could take advantage of that.
The first thing I'd wonder is, if I were Trump, I would mock continuously the fact that the Democrats want an old white guy for their standard bearer.
And I would just joke with the fact that he was also an old white guy.
If I were Trump, he could actually say this.
He'd go, look, does it make sense that we're running two old white guys for president?
I mean, I'm glad that I'm in the race because I have something to offer.
But why are the Democrats offering you only the same thing that I'm offering, an old white guy?
If you want an old white guy, I'm your old white guy.
I've already done this job.
I'm great at it.
But it doesn't make sense for the Democrats to be offering an old white guy.
That's the opposite of your brand.
Why are you doing that?
So I think actually Trump could embrace himself being an old white guy.
Just say, well, I'm unique.
I was president before.
You know what you're going to get.
And Biden's just a bad choice because he doesn't represent the primary.
Well, let me put it this way.
The Republicans are all about capability.
So if he can demonstrate the capability, he should be president.
That would be consistent with Republican theory.
It's not about your identity, it's just capability.
The Democrats are all about identity.
So for them to pick Biden because he can win seems outside of their brand.
They should pick somebody who is the right person, even if they can't win.
That would be consistent with the brand.
Now, of course, winning matters to everybody, but I think Trump could tear them apart by mocking them for not being true to their own philosophy.
If you say, you can't even believe them to be true to their own core philosophy, how can you trust it with anything else?
At least you know Republicans are going to favor getting the job done over identity.
You can count on that.
You can count on if we have to choose between looking good And doing the work, we're going to do the work.
Because we always do.
Just think about how strong that message is.
When Republicans have to choose between looking good and doing the work, we always do the work.
That's what we promise you, that's what we always do.
Democrats are going to choose looking good.
And even Democrats know that.
That's why it works.
Even Democrats know that they will choose looking good over getting the job done.
You say that, and you're going to get some Democrats to vote for you Republicans.
All right.
So Trump did his interview on Tucker Carlson.
And I didn't get to watch the whole thing, but I picked up kind of the vibe early on.
And as you know, when I talk about Trump, if I talk lovingly about his technique, it doesn't mean I agree with all of his policies or that he's never done anything you don't like.
It just means he might have done some technique that was good.
Here again, he's doing some good technique.
He talked about when he was being arraigned, That some of the police or officials involved were literally crying because they thought it was so unfair.
Now, that's so good.
Now, I can't prove that any of that's true.
You know, there's no fact-checking that would know that that's true or not, so that's good.
It's hard to fact-check.
And it might have been one person.
But still in terms of persuasion, you can actually picture the police crying because they had to arrest him.
It's very good.
And he led with that.
That was like his first introduction to the topic was that people were crying when he was arraigned.
I love that.
That is so good, persuasion-wise.
Because that brings you right into the scene, doesn't it?
That put you next to Trump.
While he's being fingerprinted, I don't know if he was fingerprinted, probably not.
But whatever they were doing that he had to be told to do because he was being arrested or being arraigned, you're just right there and you're seeing the people crying.
You're seeing them wear police outfits and tears running down their cheeks.
He is so visual.
His visual sense of communication is just unparalleled.
He goes right to the picture.
So that was good.
Then he sort of changed the subject from the current problem because everybody, I think he sold at least all the Republicans that it's an illegitimate prosecution.
And he even used examples of people who are not his friends who said it was illegitimate.
And then he talked about his other two problems.
One he calls Boxgate.
What's he called the other one?
Boxgate and the Box Hoax.
He calls it the Box Hoax.
That's the Mar-a-Lago documents.
And then his phone call with the With Georgia, where he asked him to find votes.
He's labeled that a perfect call.
So everything gets a brand.
And every time he brands something, I laugh, because it always works.
So he's got the box hoax, which I'm totally going to use.
As soon as you hear box hoax, because those words even go together well, because they both have an X on the end.
It's a box hoax.
Now imagine if he had chosen secret document hoax.
If you thought it was a secret document hoax, it would still have secret document in it.
And you'd say, oh, secret documents, that could be important.
But he doesn't do secret documents.
He goes box.
Do you know why box?
Because a box is visual.
You can see a box.
It's in your head.
And now it's about a box.
That's so good.
It's so good.
It makes you even forget about what was in the box.
What's in the box?
It doesn't matter.
It's a hoax.
It's a box hoax.
Yeah, but what's in the box?
How would that matter?
It's not about what's in them.
It's about the box.
It's a hoax.
And then, what was the other one?
Oh, The Perfect Call.
So he's reintroducing The Perfect Call.
I don't know if that's his strongest work, The Perfect Call, but it's not bad.
All right, and then Tucker seemed to be all in on Trump.
If anybody saw the interview, would you say that Tucker is clearly supportive of Trump, at least as a candidate?
It looked like it.
And haven't we seen reports that Tucker didn't like Trump?
Like secret emails that he was mad at Trump or something.
But they look like best friends.
Like even the chemistry as they were sitting there looked perfectly comfortable.
And then what Tucker said was also perfectly complimentary.
So Tucker's take was that Biden is the most dangerous of the two presidents.
Because Biden is the one that let the Ukraine war happen, and he's the one that... You know, wrapped up pretty tight.
Now, I don't know if that's true.
But he does have a good version of events where he had threatened the big powers.
They were sure that the threats were real, but 10% true, as he says.
Yeah, they 10% believe me.
And by the way, I love when he says that.
Putin didn't believe my threats, but he 10% believed it.
And then he said the same thing about Xi.
He didn't believe my threats, but he 10% believed it.
And that was enough to stop him cold.
And it's funny because even when he talks about it, he's talking about it like they shouldn't have believed it.
Like it wasn't even a real threat.
And it still worked.
Alright.
I'm seeing a comment that says, Daniel Day Lewis is overrated.
I'm not sure how that fits into the topic.
But it probably does.
Somehow.
Alright.
Here's the, oh and then Trump says nuclear war is the biggest problem, not climate change.
And the climate change people have a problem because the climate is not acting the way it's supposed to act according to their narrative.
Now we do understand that any five or ten year period is not necessarily telling you something important because it's the longer term trend.
But it's still a problem.
If your narrative is you should be alarmed, but everything is heading in the right direction instead of the wrong direction, it's tough to get that argument to land.
And California is a perfect example.
California doesn't get enough rain, and it's because of climate change.
California gets blasted with more rain than we've ever seen, and it must be climate change.
So the story is kind of falling apart a little bit.
We're worried about climate change, but we're closing our nuclear plants.
It's just not lining up at the moment.
So Trump, cleverly, is saying the big problem is potential nuclear war.
And then he tells a very scary story, which is also visual.
He tells the story of how powerful the atomic weapons are, nuclear weapons.
And he says that in Hiroshima, Which, as he says, some people call Hiroshima.
The way he talks is just so damn funny.
He said that granite was melted by the nuclear blast and you can't melt granite even with a blowtorch.
Now that is the most visual Explanation of a nuclear weapon.
It melted granite and you can't melt that with a blowtorch.
You said that they found the granite looking like it had liquefied.
It's so visual.
Just so visual.
It's amazing.
And I would say that Trump looked energetic and did not look like he'd lost anything to age.
Yet.
He did seem a little tired the night he got arraigned.
But you can kind of understand that.
That was probably a bad night.
The night before.
All right, big headline today is that inflation seems to have eased to 5%.
And that's lowest it's been in nearly two years.
Still alarmingly high, but not nearly as alarming as maybe you thought it could have been.
Now, have I ever told you that economists are terrible at predicting the economy?
Have you ever noticed that?
What is the one thing that 100% of all economists were sure of?
That inflation was wildly out of control and we weren't doing anything to stop it, or at least not enough.
But it looks like it's slowing down.
Now that's not just because of interest rates, is it?
Or just because the economy is slowing a little bit on its own?
I don't understand why inflation could ever go down.
Because our debt situation is worse, not better.
Right?
The debt situation is worse, not better.
So, I guess this is more evidence that we can't predict anything this complicated.
We can't predict the climate.
We can't predict the economy.
We can't predict elections.
We can't really predict any Ukraine war.
There's nothing we can predict.
But we keep acting like we can.
I don't know what that means.
Somebody just said that my wife must use a diffuser on my head.
What?
First of all, I'm not married.
But second of all, I don't know what a diffuser is.
And I certainly don't know why I'd use it on my head.
But, okay.
NPR has left Twitter, is that true?
That's funny.
Who does that hurt?
Does that hurt Twitter or does that hurt NPR?
I would have to think it hurts NPR more than it hurts Twitter.
We'll see.
Alright, I guess what I would add to this is that my biggest concern for the country was inflation.
To me, that was number one.
Because I think the other stuff, actually, we have under control.
But inflation, I didn't even know how you could get it under control.
I didn't even know what plan could possibly work.
But it seems to be reducing.
Peter Zeyan predicted the Ukraine war.
No, I'm not talking about predicting that a war happens.
I'm talking about predicting how the world would go.
Predicting how the war would go, people did pretty poorly on that.
Except for me, it turns out.
I was the only one who predicted that Ukraine would stop Russia.
So far.
I could still be wrong.
But so far.
Now, who was I listening to?
Somebody smart.
Was it Zan?
No, somebody else.
A CIA operative, I guess, was saying that Russia is definitely winning in Ukraine.
And the thinking was that they have unlimited time to just grind on them, and nothing's changing that.
As long as they want to keep grinding, they still have money, they still have resources, they can still make more bullets.
Yeah, Busamante, you're right.
That if you were to predict it forward, there's only one prediction.
There's one side that's not going to quit, and they've got a reason not to quit.
They've got a pretty good reason.
That's a pretty good, that's a good story.
Now, I don't think that's going to happen.
I think it's going to be negotiated, I think Russia will keep the Russia, you know, the primary Russia-speaking groups, and there'll be something called Ukraine that's got less territory than before.
I think that's how it's going to end.
Now, it might require Trump to be president, so I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, but that's what I think is going to happen.
I think a lot of people think that.
All right, what do you think about these Ukrainian military leaks?
So the experts are saying a lot of it looks real.
I guess it had stuff to do with Ukrainian military defense weaknesses and some other stuff that apparently matters.
The experts think that the leaks were bad enough they could have gotten people killed.
So that's pretty bad.
But others say that there's enough sketchy looking stuff in the leaks that at least some part of it That at least some part of it looked like it was fake.
And then some people say, oh, it's Russian disinformation.
So the Russians are putting out like some fake stuff.
Well, maybe.
Here's my assumption.
I think that RSI put it out.
I think it's a fake leak.
And that the Ukrainian weaknesses are probably not real weaknesses.
In other words, it might be trying to convince the Russians to take a different strategy than the one they have, and it would convince them to take a weaker strategy instead of a stronger one.
So, my guess is that the documents have some real stuff in them, so that it looks real, but that the things that mattered, the only things that mattered, were fake.
And then it would basically fool the... Cope.
There's another cope NPC here.
You copers are all alike.
I think you're all binaries.
You don't understand anything except yes or no.
Oh, people are questioning my expert opinion.
Oh, let me tell you.
How was your expert opinion of how Russia would do in the war against Ukraine?
How'd that go?
How did the experts do compared to me?
I beat all of the experts.
So far.
So you can mock me for not being an expert, but you should also accept that I've beaten all the experts so far.
And I fairly consistently beat the experts on a wide range of topics.
In fact, Predicting better than the experts is the only fucking reason you're here.
Because I can consistently do it.
It's the only reason you're here.
All right.
But not every time.
Of course, I've been wrong as well.
So, that's my take.
If I had to guess, and it would only be a guess, like 60-40 kind of guess, my guess is that some part of it is fake, but the faking is not coming from Russia, the faking is more likely coming from the Ukrainian side.
How many would Would agree that there's at least, would agree that it's at least a working hypothesis.
How many would agree that it's at least possible?
At least possible, right?
Because once you've seen, you know, how disinformation works, you know, the Hunter laptop and everything else, once you see it, it's usually not the people you think who put out the misinformation.
Usually the people who are complaining about the misinformation are the sources of it.
We see this over and over.
What did the government and the FBI and everybody say about Russia collusion?
That it was real and the people who said it wasn't real were lying.
But it turns out that the people who were in charge were lying.
So we do have a history of the people who say those other people did this.
It was really the people complaining who did it.
So that's my guess.
There are a bunch of medical cures coming, which is interesting, because it's the same time that population is going into a decline in industrialized countries, or at least Western countries, mostly.
No, I guess it's industrialized countries.
It includes Asia.
But some of the medical cure is coming at the same time that we don't need any more babies because we'll have robots and AI.
Michael Milken had an article on this and apparently we'll be able to routinely clean tiny cancers from our body just normal.
Like if you've got an early cancer, you'll just be able to take some pills and just make it go away.
Or maybe get a shot, I don't know.
So he's saying that that's coming pretty soon.
Immunity from dozens of viruses with a single vaccine?
I don't think people are going to take his advice on that part.
But editing genes to eliminate birth defects?
That's amazing.
Growing new organs from patients' own cells and even slowing the aging process.
So, if you think we've got a problem with too many old people compared to young people, what happens when they don't die?
Old people kind of have to die, don't they?
Like our entire system depends on the old ones dying.
If the old ones don't die, the new ones don't inherit, you know, nobody gets ownership of the companies, the whole system would fail.
Wouldn't it?
I don't know.
We'd have to rewrite the system somehow fairly substantially.
But I worry that we'll solve our aging and everything else, but we won't have any money and we'll wish we were dead.
Do you think we'll get to the point where we can live forever while wishing we were dead?
Here's why, listen to this.
I lost a little bit of respect for Scott Adams when he freaked out over the COVID stuff.
You know that never happened, right?
Do you know that?
Do you know that you fell for a hoax by the Reddit and 4chan people?
I was literally famous for telling people not to freak out.
In fact, my brand, the thing I was most well known for, is doing a nightly broadcast telling people not to freak out about the COVID.
So you got badly hoaxed, my friend.
Now, I was part of making that hoax seem real, because I played along with it for a long time.
And I even apologized for the thing that never happened, because I thought it was funny.
And it made people like you think that I had changed my views.
So you need to check yourself, because you fell for a pretty big hoax.
And you should be embarrassed by that.
And Lyle says, more coke.
The NPCs only have one word.
Cope.
Cope.
I'm going to call you the OPCs for the cope part.
So we know the truth.
Please stop calling it a hoax.
So we know the truth.
No, you don't know the truth.
If you think that I was pro-vaccine, pro-max, and panicked about the virus, you do not know the truth.
And it's easy to demonstrate.
There are people who have comments here.
So you tell me.
You tell me.
Was I pro-mask and pro-vaccination?
No.
They'll tell you.
They've been listening to me every single day.
No.
See there.
So if you believe the opposite of reality as all of these people are telling you, the problem is clearly with you.
Just look at all the other people who watched every single thing I said for two years.
They watched every word I said, and they all have the same opinion.
But the people who disagree Have a different opinion, didn't watch me as much.
Or they only saw selected tweets and stuff.
Yeah, but still.
Why do I block Cat Turd?
Do you want me to tell you why I block Cat Turd?
Because he also believed the same hoax you did.
And he was pretty vocal about it.
So, Cat Turd is an idiot.
I don't know if you know that.
He's an idiot.
So you don't want more exposure to him.
He was entertaining for a while, but he was an idiot.
So Al says, "Scott was pro-vax and pro-mask at various points.
No.
No, there was no point.
There were various points where I told you the pros and cons of everything that was discussed.
There were times when I told you what the study said.
Sometimes the studies were wrong.
There were times when I told you what was true from an engineering perspective about masks, but I never said that they were worth using.
Except in weird situations, maybe.
Yeah.
So if you know me mostly from Twitter, you saw people like Cat Turd and various idiots put together the things where I talked about the pro of something, And then they would leave out the part where I talk about the con, so you wouldn't see the cost-benefit analysis, you would just see one side.
And the reason that fooled you, do you know why that fooled you?
Because you're binaries.
It only fooled you if you're an NPC.
Because the NPCs can't see nuance, so they would be invisible, it would be invisible to them that anybody could say something has a pro to it, if there's also a con to it.
See, so that's why it confuses you.
I can say, well, there might be these benefits for these people, but there would be no benefits for these people.
And then you would see one of those, and you'd say, he says there's benefits.
He's Provax.
Nope.
Nope.
Clown show.
Trust no expert was the common thread to everything I said.
That is correct.
So, raise your hand.
I want to see how many NPCs there are on here.
Raise your hand if you believe that I'm lying about my pandemic views.
Go ahead.
I want you to out yourself as believing the hoax.
Okay, we've got some people.
There's somebody who just wants clown and emojis.
That's an NPC.
Lying, that's an NPC.
CIA NPC.
There are a lot of NPCs today on YouTube.
It's the people who literally can't handle a cost-benefit analysis.
The idea of cost-benefit is just too hard.
Let's move on.
Alright, enough of that.
Alright YouTube, I'm gonna Talk to you later.
I'm sorry that 4chan and Reddit did that to you.
Maybe you can find some kind of way to recover from that damage.
