Episode 2090 Scott Adams: RFK Jr. Is The New Persuasion Leader, Tucker Is Right About Everything
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
RFK Jr. is the new persuasion leader
Tucker is right about everything
Gaetz is the new Manchin
Biden vs. Trump
Lots more
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 your day and maybe civilization itself.
Sorry about that big hand in front of your camera.
This is Coffee with Scott Adams, and are you glad you made it here?
Well, the world is in turmoil and there's chaos and there's all kinds of things going on.
But we're going private on locals right now, and we're going to go crazy.
See?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And if you'd like this experience to be the best you've ever had, all you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tankard, chalice, 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, the dopamine, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous 7.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
You know, the more, the louder you go, ah, after your beverage, and the louder you scream during sex, the better it is.
So that's just your tip for the day.
Makes your coffee and your physical relationships way better.
Alright, what's going on?
We have a new persuasion leader.
So yesterday I listened to a radio interview.
Joel Pollack for Breitbart Radio was interviewing RFK Jr.
And I did not know how good he was at this persuasion stuff.
He's really good.
He's better than Trump.
Now Trump is a singular character who cannot be imitated.
So there's no other Trump.
Trump is just himself.
So you can't exactly compare them.
But I will say that RFK Jr.
has one thing that Trump absolutely does not have, which is the ability to say things that both sides like.
Trump is the ultimate warrior for your team.
RFK Jr.
looks like he's actually trying to bring the country together.
Now, let me tell you some of the things he said on this interview.
I was taking a walk while I was listening, and I just stopped walking when I heard this.
See if this hits you the same way.
So, Joel Pollack, it was a great interview.
He did an amazing job of asking the right questions and then getting out of the way, letting him talk.
And one of the questions was about how could he bring the country together and reduce the amount of division in the country.
Now, how would you answer that question?
I've thought about this so much.
I thought, well, if I were running, what would I say?
And I've never thought of anything.
I've honestly never thought of anything that would be an answer to that question.
And RFK Jr.
answers the question of how he would create more unity in the country.
He says, well, we'd start by not lying to the citizens.
What?
Did you really say that?
What?
Oh my God.
Now, you can argue lots of things, right?
You can say, oh, he doesn't mean it, it's a political thing, right?
Okay.
Or he might mean it, but he can't execute it, right?
It won't make any difference.
But have you ever heard a better answer?
That's the better answer, that's the best answer to that question I've ever heard.
If you stopped lying to people, what would happen?
Well, if you stopped lying, presumably we'd all think the problem was the same problem.
We wouldn't think the problem was each other.
Part of the lie is that, you know, the problem is each other.
That's not exactly the problem.
Maybe we have external problems that we should all get together and work on.
So, you might recognize this persuasion technique.
It's the high ground.
That's the high ground.
When I talk about the high ground maneuver and persuasion, it's the one that stops the conversation.
So, there's not much you can say after it's been stated.
It's like, how would you bring the country together?
Well, I would start by not lying to the citizens.
Okay.
And my problem with that would be, I got nothing.
I got nothing.
And I don't believe that there are claims against RFK Jr.
that he's lied.
I mean, every public figure is going to have some kind of claims.
But I don't believe anybody says he's a liar.
So when he says, I'm going to tell you the truth, it does look like he has some sense that there's a truth that's independent from politics.
He actually sells that idea.
That there might be a truth that's independent from the two teams.
Oh my god, did I like hearing that.
Alright, here's something else he talks about.
I thought his toughest challenge was going to be explaining his vaccination stand.
Because his own party is pro-vaccination.
And he's at least known reputationally as the person who's talked the most about the risks of vaccinations.
So you'd think that would be bad.
But in the COVID vaccinations, he's pretty close to the Republican view that they weren't tested enough.
Right?
So he's got the Republican side agreeing with him.
Now, how in the world could he convince Democrats the vaccinations were Maybe riskier than they thought.
How in the world could you do that?
It's impossible, right?
I mean, we're talking about the childhood vaccinations, not just COVID.
So, here's how he did it in like one minute.
He said, when I was a kid, I got three vaccinations.
Now, the kid today will get 72.
And I said, what?
What?
Is that true?
And I think three was about the right number when I was a kid.
And I thought, that's actually true, 72.
But then I thought, oh, oh, okay.
Right, that's a little alarmist, isn't it?
Because you know, you know that 72, if there are 72, I don't know, if there are 72, you know that they were tested with a randomized controlled trial.
You know they waited five years before they gave it to anybody, right?
Obviously.
What?
No, it turns out they didn't do any of that.
It turns out when the law changed some years ago, as RFK explains, Jr.
explains, that when the law changed to make there no liability for vaccinations, a bunch of them were produced.
And do you know what no liability would include?
Not properly testing them.
It's actually legal to not properly test your vaccinations.
What?
And specifically, when I say not test them, it doesn't mean there were no tests.
I'm not saying there were no tests.
I'm saying they didn't do randomized controlled trials, and they didn't wait five years to see if there were any surprises.
So, RFK Jr.' 's position is the high ground.
Again.
How in the world did he find the high ground twice when it was invisible to me?
And here's the high ground.
I'm not saying vaccinations are bad.
I'm saying that they should be at least tested in a randomized controlled trial and at least wait five years to see if there are any surprises because that's somewhat not strange for there to be a surprise in five years.
Now who argues with that?
Nobody.
Literally nobody.
He actually found the high ground where the Republicans would say, well, yeah, that makes sense.
And the Democrats are going to say, what?
I thought we were already doing that.
Of course that makes sense.
How in the world did he do that?
What, nobody else could find that?
All the politicians in the world were looking for the thing that both sides would agree with, and he's the only one who could find it.
Twice.
All right, how about this?
Then he talked about the fact that kids are having all these chronic diseases that he'd literally never heard of when he was a kid.
And I thought, I've said that too!
Haven't you noticed the same thing?
When I was a kid, I'd never heard of anybody with ADD.
Maybe it existed.
I don't know.
I'd never heard of anybody with anxiety.
Never heard of anybody with autism.
I've never heard of it.
There were things that just didn't exist.
And now it's, yeah, and trans, sexual dis... What's it?
Dysphoria?
I get the dysmorphia and dysphoria confused.
I think dysphoria is the right word.
Now, my one criticism is he should have mentioned diet at the same time he was speculating that we're putting a lot of chemicals into kids at the same time that all these chronic conditions are being surfaced that didn't exist before.
I don't think it's just vaccinations.
If vaccinations have anything to do with it, I don't know.
But I would like to see him say something more about the food system.
But he probably does.
He probably does.
If he asked him, he'd probably say, yeah, that's something to look into.
I'm sure he wouldn't ignore the food system.
I'd just like to see him throw it in there when he talks about vaccinations and chronic disease.
He talked about government by bullying being unacceptable.
Do you disagree?
Do you disagree that your government should not be a bully?
Yeah, it's high ground.
Everybody agrees with that.
All right.
And then his opinion on pollution and a lot of things for environment is that the free market should figure this stuff out.
He's actually a free market guy.
So I heard something that, you know, I was like, oh, he's going to be more environmental than Maybe you think is a good idea.
Like, you'll be too much of an environmentalist for Republicans.
You know, Republicans are like, we like the environment, but just don't go crazy.
That's sort of the Republican view.
And, you know, I worried, well, okay, he's never going to pass the climate change bar.
Like, you know, no Republican's going to be comfortable with him on climate change or anything else.
But his view is that the free market should be making our decisions, not the government's.
And that if you allow the externalities of the businesses to be part of their cost basis, in other words, instead of making the public pay for their pollution, which is the current situation, you figure a way that the free market says, well, if you can't make a non-polluting thing, you're going to have to pay for it.
And if somebody makes one competing product that doesn't compete, that doesn't pollute, well, they're the winner.
So, Free market is another high ground for at least everybody but the super progressives.
It's another high ground.
So he's finding the high grounds like crazy.
I would keep an eye on him.
My take on RFK Jr.
is that the reason they had to change the schedule of the Democrat primaries is that RFK Jr.
would have done well in New Hampshire.
Maybe other people too.
And we know that Biden does not do well in New Hampshire.
So moving South Carolina to the first one will make Biden start off with a strong state and it'll make him look inevitable.
So that little change was made.
So basically the Democrats have already rigged.
Yeah, I would call it rigged.
I got some pushback on Twitter.
When I said it was rigged and somebody said, rigged?
Rigged you say?
What is wrong?
You tell me what's wrong with changing it from the first primary is a little white state with hardly any people in it and they're going to be like, you know, so influential on the whole process.
Tell me how that's right compared to having a big state that's got far more diversity being the most important one.
Tell me why that makes sense.
Here was my answer.
Didn't it always make sense?
Did it just start making sense in 2023?
I'm not arguing it doesn't make sense.
I have no opinion on how the Democrats hold their primaries.
All I'm noting is if they had not made that change this year, it would have been really bad for the incumbent.
So it's not a question of whether it makes sense.
Yeah, it makes sense.
Kind of makes sense.
There's an argument for both sides.
You know, the retail, shake the hands, you know, look you in the eye kind of thing in New Hampshire is kind of unique.
But on the other hand, it's a pretty white state.
That's a true statement, too.
So I don't care which way they do it.
It's just disingenuous to say that they were simply, in 2023, they simply decided to upgrade their system in a way that had nothing to do with who they wanted to win.
They were just upgrading their system in a totally normal way that happens routinely.
No, nothing like that happened.
It's a rigged system.
All right.
Legally, totally legally, but rigged.
All right.
Here's, let's see.
Yeah, well enough about that.
So, all the smart people in politics are saying that Biden really, really wants Trump to be his opponent.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Biden really, really wants it to be Trump?
Yeah, I believe it.
I believe it.
Because he won once that way, so he probably figures it'll happen again.
Now, do you think that Trump really, really, really wants to run up against Biden?
Do you think Trump wants to run against Biden?
It's kind of weird because I think the answer is yes.
So here we have all the smartest people in politics telling you that Biden wants to run against Trump because he has such an advantage, but also Trump wants to run against Biden because Trump has such an advantage.
There's your experts.
You want to hear something else that RFK Jr.
said that just blew me the F away?
He said that listening to the experts is our biggest problem.
I'm paraphrasing, he didn't say it's the biggest problem.
He said you shouldn't listen to experts.
He actually said that.
Here's what he said.
He talked about some trial or some situation he was with where they had all the best Ivy League experts and they looked at the data and they came up with an opinion.
And then he had a separate group who were on the other side who had the same credentials from Ivy League schools.
They looked at the same data and came to an opposite conclusion.
And he said, quite rightly, if the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions, what good are the experts?
Do you disagree with that?
No!
It's the high ground again.
It's the high ground.
Let me Talk to PJ there.
So I'm seeing some people on YouTube who maybe are less familiar with me, saying that I'm fanboying over RFK Jr.
I'm fanboying over his talent.
His persuasion talent.
Same thing I do with Trump.
Same thing I do with Vivek.
We'll talk about Ramaswamy in a minute.
But when they do things that are good persuasion and good technique, I'm very complimentary.
You should note, I've said the same thing about Obama.
You should note, I've said the same thing about Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, right?
There's some people who just have more skill.
So I'm talking about the skill.
You can make up your own mind about the politics.
Is that fair?
So the fanboying is just about the skill, but that's real.
I'm definitely fanboying over the skill.
All right.
So Biden, pushing his idea to, you know, that he hopes that he's running against Trump, And probably will.
It's looking that way at this point.
So Biden is pushing his old technique, because it worked before.
And the old technique is to talk about mega extremists.
Now, I'm going to call this the Elmer Fudd strategy.
So Biden has taken on the Elmer Fudd strategy, and it goes like this.
I'm hunting those mega extremists.
Those wascals.
Those mega extremists.
Where are those mega extremists?
They're all over, those wascals.
I'm hunting them.
So every time I hear Biden talk about mega-extremists, I'm going to compare him to Elmer Fudd, because he's always looking for that rascally rabbit that he can't seem to shoot.
Yeah, there's all these mega-extremists.
Where are the extremists?
I think there's a mega-extremist under my bed.
Is there a mega-extremist under your bed?
Those wascals.
I can't even take him seriously, can you?
I mean, how in the world do you take Biden seriously?
Somebody said he's Mr. Magoo.
But I think Gilmer Fudd's the better.
Because he's literally hunting.
He's hunting Republicans, as the Democrats are.
And it's just so comically ridiculous and absurd that he thinks the MAGA extremists are the big problem in the country.
If you were to make a list of the biggest problems in the country and you started at the top, most of the things on the top would be Biden's fault.
Like inflation, the war in Ukraine, Yeah, the border being opened, fentanyl flying over.
Almost everything that's our biggest problems, if you're going to make a list from worst to smallest, our biggest problems are all Biden himself.
Literally things that he fucked up.
And he's decided that he's going to make us concentrate on those wascally mega extremists.
They're all over.
Have you seen them?
They're so dangerous.
Those mega extremists.
That I've literally never met.
Have any of you ever met a MAGA extremist?
Like, actually a real one?
I haven't.
I've never met one.
I mean, not in person.
I'll see stuff on social media and I'll go, oh, that looks like a little bit LARPing.
Those are just people who like to march around with guns and talk politics.
I mean, I know the type.
It's a type who likes to have guns, and they like to talk politics, and they might talk politics and talk about their guns at the same time.
So they look like mega-extremists.
All right.
I saw a tweet that men would rather sext a bot than go to therapy.
So the question will be AI as a therapist versus a human therapist.
And if a man is using a female-voiced AI for therapy, how long before it turns sexual?
The only thing that stops men from hitting on their female therapists in the real world is that they won't get away with it, right?
They'll have to find a new therapist.
But if your therapist is an AI, you might be thinking, well, I could take my shot.
I'll take my shot.
You never know.
Maybe we become lifelong friends and companions as bots.
You know, we live in a strange time because there will be people falling in love with AI.
You believe that, right?
Does anybody doubt that?
That there will be real, live, legitimate humans who have a financial relationship with AI?
You know that's coming, right?
Now, you could call it a mental disorder, but you can't say it's not coming, because we've got a lot of mental disorders.
Yeah, that's coming.
But here's what's interesting about this day and time.
Today, if you fall in love with an AI, which will definitely happen, It won't have a body.
But you'll be at the time in history when bodies are being invented for your AI.
And you will work with your AI, you know, the two of you will work together toward a future where they can build your AI a body that can walk around and hang out with you, you know, more than just picking up your phone.
Maybe it can give you a back rub or something.
Or more!
I know what you're thinking.
Yeah, they put a flashlight in his mouth and you're good to go.
You didn't hear me say that.
Anyway, so I think a whole lot of lonely people are going to be saving up money to buy a body for the AI that they fell in love with.
That's real, don't you think?
You don't think people will be saving up to buy a body for the AI they fell in love with?
They will.
I guarantee you you're going to see this story in the news in five years.
I guarantee it.
All right.
Let's talk about Tucker Carlson, because everything about Tucker is fun.
So the Wall Street Journal is, everybody's speculating about what was the real reason.
What's the real reason?
The one reason that's bigger than the other reasons.
And I'm convinced there's not one reason.
Does anybody think that Tucker got taken off the air?
Apparently he's now fired.
He's still on the payroll, he just can't do a show.
Does anybody think it was for one reason?
Because I feel like that's the worst take, that there was one reason.
No, it was like several things sort of added up and at some point it was too much.
Yeah, the Dominion thing and the advertisers weren't coming in, but they do make their money from Cable carriers paying them to be on the air.
So if you're a cable network, And you want to offer a cable to your community?
You don't want to offer it unless Fox News is on there and CNN and the other big ones.
So Fox News just gets paid by the cable operators to put content on their pipes.
So they don't need advertising per se.
They're getting their money from the carriage, if that's a word.
Then the weirdest one I heard was that Rupert Murdoch was engaged briefly for like two weeks, but the woman he was engaged to and called it off, her favourite show was Tucker Carlson and she thought Tucker Carlson was the best, and that maybe Rupert Murdoch was just being small and petty and taking his ex-fiancee's favourite talent off the air.
I don't think that's it.
I don't know Rupert Murdoch so I can't read his mind, but I will put that at the lowest end of possibility.
I don't think that was part of it.
But it appears to me that Tucker is right about everything.
So here are some of the things that Tucker told us often.
Tucker told us that free speech was under assault, right?
Don't you think that that was probably one of the biggest messages he would hit in every angle and every way?
That free speech was under assault.
And what happened?
He lost his platform.
He lost his free speech.
So, that kind of looks real.
He also seemed to agree with me, but not using the word hunted.
That there was clearly some kind of a trend against right-leaning people.
And then his advertisers get boycotted and he's taken off the air.
So he was right.
He was right.
That the people on the right are being targeted.
Let's see, what else?
Oh, the other thing that Tucker used to say that would drive me crazy until I realized he was right is that Democrats do whatever they accuse you of doing.
So what was the main thing that Tucker was accused of by his worst critics?
Being a racist, right?
Being like a secret racist.
And Don Lemon gets kicked out of his job At least in part for being a racist.
So he said some racist stuff to Vivek Ramaswamy.
People think that might have something to do with his getting canned.
But there's also the video of him talking to Chris Cuomo on CNN in his other job, his prior job for CNN, in which he says the biggest risk to America is white supremacists.
Or basically white people it sounded like.
And I thought, well, there's something a white man couldn't say about a black man.
It's obviously racist.
And I thought, there it is.
That's the Tucker Carlson theory, that they will accuse you of being a racist if they are racist.
And there it was, sure enough.
All right.
White men are the biggest risk to the country.
Yeah, that's what Don Lemon said.
Then we said to Vivek on his show more recently, he said to Vivek Ramaswamy, when you have black skin and you live in this country, then you can disagree with me about slavery and stuff.
All right.
Here's more from Greg Price talking about Tucker's lawsuit.
So one of his producers is suing him for promoting a hostile work environment.
Anti-Semitism.
And I don't even know what the accusation of that is.
What exactly would be the accusation of anti-Semitism?
You'll probably never hear any examples of that, I'll bet.
I'll bet you'll never hear it.
All right.
And she was very uncomfortable, the producer who was suing him, that Tucker had so much power over politics and knew it.
So Tucker knew that he could influence who got elected on the Republican side.
Now, is that a problem?
He happened to be the most, he was the most popular show among the Republicans.
Is that like a big, surprising, shocking thing that he was aware that his impact would change, could change an election or change votes?
That's the most obvious thing in the world.
Of course he was aware.
Now, she claims that he bullied people to come on the show by saying, you know, if you don't, your career will be ruined if you don't come on my show.
But that was also true, wasn't it?
I don't know, is it a threat?
I mean, she acted like he was bullying her.
Yeah, sort of blackmailing him or something.
But is it a threat if it's just a statement of obvious fact that if somebody doesn't come on the air to defend their point of view, then when he talks about their point of view, he will not have the benefit of their defense, which is probably pretty bad for them.
To me, that just sounds like a statement of the fact.
I'm going to talk about this.
If you're not there to defend yourself, then there won't be a defense because I don't know what the defense is.
To me, that sounds like telling them What was he supposed to do?
Not tell the story?
Well, what was his alternative?
Alright, I'm inviting you on to talk about this.
You, specifically.
You're the one who cares.
You're the one who disagrees.
I'm inviting you on.
What is he supposed to do?
Cancel the show if they say no?
It's still the same show.
He's got to do the show.
So warning them that there's a downside to not showing up feels entirely fair to me.
Although I can see why it's coercive.
It's certainly coercive.
But it's also true.
And it's also fair in the sense that it seems reasonable to warn somebody what the consequences are.
And I would also imagine that that's not that different than other big shows in history.
They probably always had that veiled threat And as Greg Price points out, there's this big New York Times article about this lawsuit, and nowhere in the New York Times coverage, according to Greg, do they mention the following fact.
Remember, this is a producer who's suing over a hostile work environment and alleged anti-Semitism.
What was not mentioned is that Tucker Carlson has never been in the same room with her.
Don't you think that's important?
They've never been in the same room.
He's worked remotely from his studios in Maine and Florida, I guess, since the beginning of the pandemic.
Never even met.
Now, of course, they would have worked remotely a lot, but never met.
Yeah, I created a hostile podcast by using bad words, too.
And then, did anybody see her?
How many of you saw a video of her giving an interview on MSNBC or something?
So, her name is Abby Grossberg.
Did anybody see it?
And, did you have any reactions?
No, I'm not talking about the fact that she has a Jewish last name.
That is not my topic.
No, no, no.
No.
I'm not going to say it.
No, it has nothing to do with her ethnicity or background or religion or anything.
So nothing about that.
Nothing about that.
There wasn't something else you noticed about her?
I can't be the only one.
Say it.
There we go.
There we go.
Somebody else said it.
No, nothing about being Jewish.
That's not the topic.
All right.
So a few of you saw what I saw.
OK.
I'm not going to say it.
All right.
Let's just say that the way she presents herself raises some questions.
That's all.
Just raises some questions.
All right.
Here's a word salad example.
So I like to teach you that when people have nonsense opinions, they will devolve into word salad.
Meaning they'll put words together, but they won't actually make any sense.
I want to give you another good example of it.
So there's a school board director, Scott Clifthorn, and I guess they're going to stop music instruction in part because it's white supremacy.
Music lessons in school are white supremacy.
And so here's some of the things that the school board director said.
That some schools provide the instrument courses at times that would require some students to miss core instruction.
Okay.
So that's important.
I don't know how that's a racial thing.
Unless there's more of it in some schools than others, but it's not mentioned.
And then he goes on to say, now listen for the word salad.
This is just a classic one, right?
Quote, where a school district that lives in, is entrenched in, is surrounded by, white supremacy culture, and that's a real thing, Clifthorne said, and then he went on.
Here's the word salad.
There's nothing about strings or wind instrument music that is intrinsically white supremacist.
Well, that's good that he noticed that, that the instruments themselves are not intrinsically white supremacist.
It's good that he noted that.
But he goes on.
He goes, however, the ways in which it is and the ways in which all of our institutions, not just schools, local government, state government, churches or neighborhoods, Inculcate and allow white supremacy culture to continue to be propagated and cause significant institutional violence are things that we have to think about carefully as a community.
And I think that we have to do that interrogation and we have to address the ways in which it creates challenges for administrating the educational day of our elementary learners while we retain the program, meaning the music program.
Did any of that make any sense?
I don't think that made any sense.
Oh, there's a story here?
OAN is making an offer.
Some other people are making offers.
Now, I don't think, I believe that Tucker Carlson cannot entertain other offers yet, because he's still an employee of Fox News.
So Fox News, Maintained him as an employee.
They just took his show away.
So imagine if you were him.
And he could make, I don't know, 20 million a year or whatever it is from just staying home.
Presumably.
But he can't look for a new job and he can't do anything else.
Do you think that at his age and his level of impact he would be okay with being prevented from doing a show somewhere else?
That would be an interesting negotiation.
Because he might have to give up some of his money, say something like, all right, I won't take $40 million, but give me $20 million, but let me go get another job.
So Fox News could save $20 million, potentially, by saying, all right, we won't keep you here in limbo for two years, and you only get $20 million.
So we'll save half of that money.
Yeah, we'll see.
China is, I guess China talked to Zelensky, President Xi did, and now China's going to send some of its diplomats over there to talk to people and see if they can get this war straightened out and solved.
Now, do you think that China is going to broker a peace deal with Ukraine and Russia?
No.
I don't think so.
But it's good cover because everybody's saying that China is happy about the Ukraine-Russia war because it would keep America too bogged down.
It'd be too expensive to protect Taiwan or something.
So from the Chinese perspective, this is good politics.
But I don't think it's anything else.
All right.
Let's talk about E. Jean Carroll and her lawsuit against Trump for many years ago, allegedly raping her in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.
Now, my understanding is that the entire case revolves on her testimony and some people at the time that she may have told the story.
Am I right?
That's the only evidence that she says it happened.
And that she allegedly told people at the time who were willing to testify.
Now, is that enough?
I don't want to live in a world where that's enough to have a lawsuit work.
You need somebody to see it.
You need some physical evidence.
You need some DNA.
I'm going to need a lot more than that.
Because apparently there's a quote, I don't know if this is true, but there's a quote that said she loved The Apprentice.
If it's true, if it's true that she loved The Apprentice, how in the world could you get a jury to convict Trump?
How in the world could you get a jury to, not convict, I guess it's a lawsuit.
So a lawsuit, you don't need 12 jurors, you just need a majority, right?
Yeah, maybe she'll make some money, but I don't see how she could win.
Apparently, Trump's defense is no defense.
The case is so weak that the defense is going to say, well, we'll just talk to you about your allegations and that's all we have to do.
Once we've shown that it's just somebody talking, that should be all we need.
All right, well, I don't see him having much jeopardy for that case, but it's a pain in the ass.
Well, Matt Gaetz has become the new Joe Manchin, and by that, as you know, the Congress is trying to figure out how to raise the debt ceiling so that we can continue borrowing money like drunken sailors.
But the Republicans are pushing back, trying to get something in exchange for approving it.
All right.
So Matt Gaetz is holding off because, let's see, he's asking for something.
So Republicans agreed to allow proposed work requirements for Medicaid.
So if you were getting Medicaid, you'd have some kind of work requirement.
And I guess that's something that Matt Gaetz is pushing for.
And, you know, I've talked about how Joe Manchin really, for a while anyway, seemed like he ran the country.
Because he was the only Democrat in their thin majority.
Well, you know, maybe one other.
But he was the one who was most likely to vote either way.
So that gave him all the power.
Everybody had to make him happy because he could go either way.
The people who are just going to always vote for their team, yeah, and Kristen and Sinema too.
So the people who are only going to vote for their team have no power.
They've given away all their power.
So Matt Gaetz, being apparently one of the smarter Republicans, realized that his personal ability to get things done would be very connected to his ability to vote against his own party.
He was going to vote against McCarthy until he got some stuff.
Now he's pushing McCarthy again until he gets some stuff.
And it looks like it might work.
So Matt Gaetz is the new Joe Manchin.
And I say that as a compliment.
You know, this is just free money.
It's like Gaetz is just picking up free money every day.
So, all I have to do is threaten that I won't vote for this Republican thing?
Really?
I just have to threaten it?
And then they'll give me some stuff?
Okay.
You got some stuff.
For the country.
All right.
I'm going to call out some fake news about Joe Biden.
So I call this semi-fake news.
It's something he really said, but I think the context is weak.
So here's what he said at some event, and out loud he said, there's no such thing as someone else's child.
And then the implication is, no, he's saying parents don't have control.
He's saying that the government raises your child.
I don't think so.
That's not how I took it.
I took it as just a different way to say it takes a village.
You need not just the parents.
You're going to need the help of other people to build good citizens, which is totally true.
Of course, you're going to need everybody to do the right thing to get good children.
But that doesn't take the control away from the parents.
However, to back your interpretation for a while, It is that slippery slope problem we always worry about, right?
That if you're allowed to say out loud the sentence, there's no such thing as someone else's child, which in context means that you don't ignore the fact that someone else's child is suffering.
Right?
So the context I see it is, if you walked into a grocery store and you saw an unattended toddler who is in trouble, in some kind of trouble, As an adult, you would stop everything and you would help the toddler, although you are not their parent.
Right?
And it doesn't take anything away from the responsibility of the parent, because you don't know where they are or why they're not there.
Maybe there's some story you don't know about.
But you wouldn't stop.
You wouldn't stop yourself from helping the toddler.
Right?
You're going to help the toddler.
So, even though it's not your kid.
So if the implication is we should all be helping because kids are our future and parents can't do it all, I like that.
But you could easily see this drift into the government is in control and you parents better do what we say.
You can see it drifting.
But I don't think that the proper context has been put on this story.
So just want to give you the proper context.
All right.
There is some risk involved.
Speaking of RFK Jr.
and saying that we should tell the truth, is the problem with the big explosion in trans identification, especially with women.
Apparently young women, or young girls, are far more likely to identify as trans if one of their friends did.
But I don't know if that's really a causation or correlation thing.
Because you can imagine that people who feel a certain way end up with friends who feel a certain way.
So does it really tell you anything that if the friend decides they're trans, that the person who had a lot in common with them, and that's why they're friends, also thinks it?
Yes, I mean, peer pressure is certainly a factor.
But probably not as big as it looks, because there might be some kind of a filtering thing where you just look at other people and you go, I think you're one of me, so I'm going to hang out with you.
Yeah, so there's some of that.
But can we say the following thing without being cancelled?
I'll try.
Let's see if I can say the following thing without being cancelled.
Gender, let's see if I have the right words.
Gender dysphoria is a real thing.
Does anybody disagree?
Gender dysphoria, there are people who apparently have some genetic propensity to not be cleanly identifiable as one thing.
Now, how rare it is isn't the next question.
Can we say that that's real while also saying that there's something about the topic that attracts people with mental illness?
To say they are also that.
Can't we say both?
Can't we say that there are two problems here?
One is there are people who have This situation, which sounds pretty unpleasant, and I have empathy for anybody who's got any medical problem, that or anything else.
But can't we also say that it's attracting a whole bunch of people who are not mentally as capable as you would want them to be to make that kind of decision for themselves?
Those both can be true.
It's just that none of us know the percentages.
So, I think where it gets obnoxious is where you imagine you know the percentage.
I mean, I can guess.
I can take a guess.
OK.
So there's somebody saying that there are other lifestyle things that might come along with gender dysphoria.
So there might be some lifestyle diet or other endocrine contributors.
I don't know.
So I think most of us are in the dark about the specific medical situation.
But if we can all agree that there's a real thing there, that real people need empathy and If they're adults anyway, we would all agree that if there's some health care intervention that's going to maybe make them happier, I wouldn't deny anybody the chance to try to be happier.
But then again, the kid thing is different.
Let me ask you this.
If I ask you the question this way, I know the answer.
If I said, should minors make permanent decisions about transitioning, You'd probably say, no, minors should not.
Right?
But there are lots of situations where we're a little flexible about what it means to be a minor.
Right?
There are things where you have to be 21.
There are things where you have to be 18.
But puzzlingly, you could be 15 and a half and drive a car.
Right?
Which is really dangerous stuff.
You can be in the military at 18, right?
So we do look at different topics and say, all right, that one, maybe you could be 16, even with the age of consent.
The age of consent is different in different states.
That's sort of the ultimate mark of, are you an adult?
Can you engage in this activity?
So we don't even agree on that.
So would you agree with the general statement that there are a whole bunch of things in the category of things where the young person doesn't have full mental capacity, but we still allow them to do some things?
Some things.
And some of those have permanent impact, such as driving a car.
That's pretty permanent.
I mean, if you do it wrong.
So let me just throw this question out here.
Would you violently object to a 17-and-a-half-year-old consulting with parents?
So the parents are in on it.
The doctors are in on it.
And it's something that they've struggled with for 17 or, you know, I don't know, 12 years or something.
In that very specific case, would you allow an exception?
Very specific.
17 and a half.
They're definitely not going to change their mind in six months.
So in six months, it's going to happen anyway.
Their parents are on board.
The doctors are on board.
So there's still some no's.
Yeah, a lot of no's.
But what's magic about turning 18?
Because we know that your brain is not sort of solidified until you're 25.
Why is 18 okay, but 25 isn't better?
So let me ask the second question.
Since we know the human brain doesn't really get to its sort of best state until at least 25, why would you let somebody who is 24 have surgery knowing that they're not fully capable?
They're not 25 yet.
Yeah, some of this is really tough.
Let me give you my take.
Here's my take.
Freedom has to be the first requirement unless there's something special going on.
Would you agree with that general statement?
Freedom has to be the top requirement unless there's something really specific going on.
Now that's the real edge case for the trans situation.
Because in the trans situation, if it's an adult, almost all of you would say, well, that's an adult.
They can do what they want.
I don't think I've seen ever.
I've never seen a Republican say they care what an adult does with their body.
But then you start getting into the older teenage years, and then there's more of a battle between freedom And do we need to go interfere in your life?
It's not our life.
It's not my life.
Do I need to be part of interfering with some other family?
For a 17 and a half year old who's got responsible parents who are talking to their medical professionals.
Is that my business?
Is that my business?
Because if it's my business, I might stop everybody until they're 25.
Would that be the right decision?
If I make it my business to get into other people's private lives.
Now, if it's a toddler, and the parents have somehow gotten a medical professional to agree that they're going to transition a toddler, well, maybe you want to get involved.
That might be too far over your line.
You go, oh, that's just child abuse.
That's, you know, that might be your opinion.
So I would just like to Put a little less certainty on this conversation.
A little less certainty.
Don't say bad take.
Bad take, I can't respect.
I can respect, here's my counterpoint.
I don't respect bad take.
I have no respect for that comment at all.
Alright.
Objective reality exists.
Yeah, but objective reality exists, but that has nothing to do with this topic.
My topic has nothing to do with objective reality, because we don't have access to it.
What we have is how people feel, and then they're going to act that way.
And freedom allows us to act on what we feel, unless it's some kind of special case where somebody else is going to get hurt.
Objective reality is morality.
I don't think you can find the bright line of morality in this situation.
I don't think so.
Alright, here's Scott Krog asking a dumbass question.
Scott, do you want some flexibility at 10, 11, and 12 years old?
Ask better questions.
Alright, that's just a stupid question.
Ask better questions.
Why does my opinion matter at all?
My opinion of anything shouldn't be even part of the topic.
I use my opinion as an example, but you shouldn't care what my opinion is, and nobody should.
My opinion should be absolutely zero interest to anybody.
No interest whatsoever.
That, let's see if I missed anything.
Oh yeah, did you know that I've been saying Vivek Ramaswamy and that's not how you pronounce his name, his first name?
I saw this on Gauffeld last night, that it's Vivek.
Rhymes with cake.
Vivek.
How many of you knew that?
And let me say it wrong for weeks.
Some of you knew.
And then I saw other people say that there are some people who pronounce the same spelling differently for different people.
Maybe.
Do you think that Vivek got Don Lemon fired?
Because in that conversation, Don Lemon said something about, you know, unless you were born in this country and have black skin, you shouldn't be telling me about slavery or something.
I don't think that's what, I don't think it was.
Yeah, that just sounds like a pundit thing to talk about.
I don't think he got him fired.
I think they were ready to make that change.
All right, so let me tell you what I'd love to see.
I would love to see a voluntary debate between Vivek and RFK Jr.
Wouldn't you love that?
Wouldn't you love that?
Because we're expecting the two senior citizens to get the primary nomination.
But I feel like we have an obligation as citizens.
See if you agree with this.
I believe we have an obligation as citizens to make sure there's another option.
Doesn't mean you have to pick it.
Your vote's still your vote.
You get to do whatever you want.
But I don't feel like there's an option.
And I feel like To the degree that we can maybe generate one with our collective energies, I would love to see the, let's say, the JV team debate.
Because if the JV team debates, and people say, that was the debate I wanted.
Because you know, if it's Biden and Trump debating, what are you going to get?
You're going to get Biden lying, and then Trump lying.
It's just going to be two liars.
Who wants to see a debate between two liars?
I mean, I say lots of good things about Trump, but he doesn't pass the fact-checking when he's debating.
Nobody would say that.
So, Vivek and RFK Jr.
are very unusual characters at a very unusual time.
Which is, I think they both tell the truth.
Am I wrong?
So we've got two, you know, ultra-senior citizens who are famous for lying.
Literally famous is their brand.
They're famous liars.
Right?
Both of them.
And here you've got two people who are totally qualified, bright, you know, left and right.
And they are the ones I want to see debate.
Let's see them debate.
Because that's the one I would tune into.
I mean, I'd probably tune into anything with Trump, because he makes news.
But yeah, and 69's pushing it.
Yeah.
RFK Jr., 69.
That's pushing the edge.
But I think that's still within the envelope.
70s doesn't scare me like 80s do.
80s just scare me.
70s, it's not such a big deal.
So let's see if we can make that happen, okay?
Let's see if we can get... Now, the reason I think it could happen is you've noticed that RFK Jr.
has been willing to appear on, now, Bright Belt Radio.
He's been on Tucker Carlson's show when Tucker had a show.
So we know that RFK Jr.
will go where the fight is.
Like, he'll go to the fight.
He's not going to run away from certain outlets.
And we know that Vivek will do the same.
Because he goes to CNN.
So you have the two young people who have not yet pissed off people so badly that the other side won't even talk to them.
Or that it would be some kind of a political suicide if you went on that other network.
They're both brave enough and smart enough that they can walk into the den of the lions and then come out.
Right?
Who do you want as your president?
I want somebody who can walk into the den of lions And walk out.
And they've both proven they can do that.
They've both been on the, what I would call, less friendly network to their message.
And they both came out looking great.
Both of them.
Those are the two I want to see duke it out.
Right?
That would be good for the country.
And I would like to publicly thank both of them.
Because, let's see if you agree with this statement.
Whether it's happened yet, that might be a little more controversial, but don't you think that having the two of them in the conversation make everybody a better politician?
And probably makes the pundits better too, because they have, you know, reasonable things to talk about now instead of crazy shit.
So big thanks to both of them for getting in when the the odds of victory are low.
And yet they're both putting a whole bunch of time and energy, which I see as nothing but patriotism.
Now, you can always argue, oh, people like power, blah, blah, blah.
That's probably true.
But both of their actions look to me pretty cleanly patriotic.
Like, I get a vibe like they both think the country's broken, and they've got some ideas to fix it, and they think that the people in charge don't have the right ideas or the right skills or the right incentives to fix it.
To me, they both look like patriots.
I would love to see two honest, brilliant people on opposite sides, barely opposite, because, you know, again, RFK Jr.
does these high ground things where he does find So, what could be better than those two having a debate?
And by the way, it would be the thing I think would do the best job of making them legitimate competition for the two presumed candidates.
All right.
Can something like that get more attention than the hateful alternative of the old man yelling?
It depends where the platform is.
If somebody like Joe Rogan hosted them, yeah, it would get so much attention you couldn't believe it.
Right.
Who would be the best host moderator?
Yeah, I don't think it would be Joe Rogan because that would be more overtly political than he usually does.
Malice would be interesting.
Dave Rubin would be great.
Megyn Kelly.
Mike Rowe.
Shellenberger.
I'm trying to see anybody who is not controversial to one side or the other.
Pretty much everybody is a controversial figure, aren't they?
Smirkonish?
I like Smirkonish.
I would take Smirkonish out of that whole list.
Yeah.
I would take Smirkonish.
Or I would take Van Jones.
Russell Brand.
Russell Brand.
Bret Baier.
Bret Baier is good.
Yeah.
Matt Taibbi.
He's a little politically hot at the moment.
Megyn Kelly is great, but she's associated with one side.
I mean, she would do a terrific job, but I think she's associated with the one side.
Jimmy Dore?
Interesting.
Lex Friedman?
Yeah, maybe.
Yeah, maybe Lex Friedman.
Lex Friedman puts on a good show, right?
So he does generally just a good job of everything he does.
So that argues for him.
Harvey Keitel.
Now Jordan Peterson I think is identified with one side a little bit too much.
