Episode 2092 Scott Adams: The "Dying Biden" Campaign Strategy, Tucker vs NYT, RFK Jr. vs ABC News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The Dying Biden Campaign Strategy
Tucker versus NY Times
DeSantis versus Disney
RFK Jr. versus ABC News
Ramaswamy versus affirmative action
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the highlight of civilization so far.
Today is the, well, probably one of the most special days you've had since yesterday, at least.
And if you'd like to take that up to levels that nobody's ever, ever experienced in the history of civilization, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice or a 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 dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens.
Now...
Ah!
So good.
Well, there are all kinds of things happening.
Some of them are good.
Should I start with the good news?
Here's some good news.
Greenpeace of Finland, so the Finland version of Greenpeace, is no longer going to protest nuclear power.
So Greenpeace and Finland no longer against nuclear energy.
Is that maybe 30 years too late?
And I asked myself, is it a little bit embarrassing to be in Greenpeace?
Imagine you've been in Greenpeace and you've been fighting for decades to prevent nuclear power.
And you woke up one day and you realized that you were personally responsible for climate change.
Because the climate change problem, and arguably even the war in Ukraine, is because of Greenpeace.
Is that too far?
Do you think there would be a war in Ukraine if we had abundant nuclear energy all over Europe?
I don't know.
I think they'd be driving electric cars and laughing at Russia by now.
Seems to me.
Am I wrong that Greenpeace is responsible for climate change?
Is that an over-interpretation?
Because I think they were the primary group against nuclear power.
And being against nuclear power for the last several decades is exactly the reason that we don't have enough energy that's clean.
I mean, I think they're primarily responsible for climate change.
That's what it looks like to me.
Anyway, it must be awkward to wake up one day and realize the thing you've been fighting for, to fix for 20 years, you had made much, much worse.
Not a little bit.
Much, much, much, much worse.
Good job there, Greenpeace.
Well, more good news.
Wall Street Journal is reporting there are now a few different technologies for removing these so-called forever chemicals from our water supply.
I guess it's really hard to filter out all the little microchemicals that last forever in our water supply.
Usually stuff from pollution, dumping.
But apparently they have at least two new technologies.
One has to do with high pressure and one has to do with some electrical process.
But neither of them are yet fully economical.
However, when you're talking about safe water, Well, you're probably willing to pay a little to get that.
So I got a feeling that it will be economical because people would pay a very high price for clean water.
So that's good news.
There might be a way in of our drinking chemicals all the time problem.
Not right away.
Not right away.
All right.
And now a demonstration of the wisdom of my audience.
Give me the answer before I ask the question.
Answer before.
That's right.
That's right.
That is the correct answer.
The people on the Locals platform are at it.
YouTube is catching up.
The correct answer is 25%.
That is the correct answer.
Would you like to hear the question?
I don't know.
Maybe you'd like to hear the question.
You all got the answer right, which is amazing.
But what percentage of American high school students identify as LGBTQ?
25%.
Yep, 25%.
25%.
Which is a coincidence, really.
Because it's not like there's a years-long pattern of 25% being sort of an almost magical number.
It's not like that ever happened.
Nothing like that.
This is just a coincidence, people.
25%.
The fact that my entire audience could guess the answer before I asked the question, Doesn't mean anything.
Do not make any conclusions from that.
So yeah, that was a CDC estimate.
25%.
Do you know what I think about that?
I hate to tell you this.
I'm going to give you the California opinion of that 25%.
Are you ready for this?
It's low.
It's way low.
Sorry.
And when I say it's low, here's what I'm talking about.
I'm almost positive it's higher in California.
Almost positive.
Especially the bisexual part.
Because among female high school students, bisexuality is so normalized among the women that, I don't know, I think it's closer to half.
Probably something like half of the female students in California would say, you know, it just depends who I fall in love with.
It's actually, it's not the worst thing in the world, right?
If you think the world's falling apart or whatever.
The fact that there are a normal high school female, completely just an average person, would answer the question this way, depends who I fall in love with.
I don't know.
Is that worse?
Is that a sign of things getting worse or better?
It's a little unclear, isn't it?
I don't know.
On one hand, you have to appreciate the open-mindedness.
But could it be too far?
Could it be too far?
That's the question.
I think it's higher in California and California tends to be predictive of where the country is going on these social trends.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that California's a few years ahead of at least the middle of the country?
You don't believe that?
I think there's plenty of precedent where things start in California or maybe New York and spread toward the middle.
No?
Alright, well I guess we don't agree on that.
All right, moving on.
So do you think that's a TikTok thing?
How much of the 25% of high school students being LGBTQ do you think is literally just TikTok?
Do you think it could be measured?
Do you think if you could measure the kids who spend time on TikTok, Versus the kids who don't.
Do you think if you asked the percentage of LGBTQ in both groups, you'd get the same number?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
So we now have a very clean way, I think.
I mean, you wouldn't want to believe the first study you saw on it.
You'd want to see if it could be repeated in different forms.
But I'll bet we can now measure exactly how much TikTok changes the sexual preferences of American youth.
Am I wrong?
Do we not have now all the data we would need if somebody were to do that study?
The data's all available.
You just say, do you watch TikTok?
Do you identify as LGBTQ?
We're done.
So do you think you'll ever see that study?
Do you think anybody will do that very obvious, important study?
Very, very obvious, important study.
Nope.
Nope.
I'll bet you won't.
Do you know why?
Yes, because whoever does that study will be banned for life from all polite company.
Because they will be... If you found that TikTok was influencing people's sexual identification and preferences, it would look like you're saying that those are not real.
You know what I mean?
So if you said, yes, you know, the core, there's a core of it that's real, but then TikTok is causing this extra number of people who might have been in the gray area some way, it's causing them to, you know, commit to something they might not have committed to.
Do you think that you could do that study and get it funded and then publish it and the mainstream media would say, hey, look at this, there's a bunch of people who think they're LGBTQ, but probably wouldn't think that at all unless they use TikTok.
Nope.
I don't believe there's any way to do that study.
Try to hold in your mind, there's sort of a theme for today.
So here's today's theme.
It's sort of that slow-boiling frog situation.
That things get weird a little bit, and you go, oh, that's weird.
Well, it's just a little bit.
It's not like you're going to spend your day thinking about it.
And then the next day, it's twice as weird.
And you go, well, look at that.
It doubled.
But it was doubling from a little small number.
So it's still not that weird.
And then it gets a little bit weirder.
And we've reached a point where the weirdness is so extreme, but we don't feel it or talk about it or act like it's extreme, because we got used to it.
It just sort of snuck up on us a little bit at a time.
Right?
So the fact that TikTok is reprogramming the sexuality of Americans, and we're not doing anything about it, I mean, in all likelihood.
At the very least, we should have studied it.
Right?
So I don't want to get ahead of the science, but I think it's obvious.
I mean, I don't really even need a study to know what's happening.
But I could be wrong.
I still want the study.
You know, maybe.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Never know.
It just sort of snuck up on us, didn't it?
If this had just come out of nowhere, let's say TikTok had never existed, and it just suddenly appeared, and at the same time all the polls like suddenly went to 25% LGBTQ in high school.
What if they both happened like suddenly at the same time?
Would we put up with it?
No, no.
If it happened suddenly, we'd say, my God, that's the worst thing in the world.
They're reprogramming the biological impulses of our humans.
They're going to stop reproducing.
We would have stopped it immediately.
But because TikTok sort of slowly caught on, and then this other number kind of grew slowly to where it is, we got used to it.
No problem.
Nothing to do here.
Nothing to see at all.
That's the theme for today.
You'll see more of it.
Rasmussen did a poll on the popularity of Tucker Carlson.
59% of likely US voters have a favorable impression of him.
59%.
I'm going to ask you another question.
But before I ask it, I'd like you to give me the answer.
Let's see if you can do it twice in a row.
Oh, you did it again.
Amazing.
Yeah, the answer is 25%.
You haven't even heard the question.
That's twice.
Now, those of you who are new to this livestream, are you impressed?
They're actually guessing the answer precisely before they've heard the question.
And they're going to do it a second time in a row.
Watch this.
According to Rasmussen, what percentage of the public have a very unfavorable impression of Tucker Carlson?
25%.
25%.
Alright, in another story.
By the way, I guess this video got over like 57 million.
How would you like to be a member of the mainstream press?
Right, you're a member of the mainstream press.
And Tucker Carlson does a little, whatever, two-minute video in which he doesn't even make news.
There's nothing specific on it that would make news.
And he got over 50 million views because people are so interested in what Tucker Carlson has to say.
75 million hits?
Somebody says.
Maybe it's more by now.
But do you think mainstream media is a little bit worried?
About how popular he is?
I'd be worried.
So I still think he's going to do some kind of a debate-y kind of a format, but we'll see.
Here's some news in my life.
Yesterday I registered to vote.
I know.
It's a pretty big thing, isn't it?
So I normally say that I don't vote because I don't want to be influenced by my team.
But events have caused me to register to vote.
So I'm a registered Democrat now.
Bet you didn't see that coming.
I'm also black, according to my self-identification.
But I'm a black Democrat now.
I registered yesterday.
Now, can you Can you guess?
I know that the people on Locals, they already got a preview.
I did a Man Cave episode last night that's available only to subscribers.
And so they already know the answer.
But I want to see if YouTube can guess why I registered as Democrat.
Can you guess?
I know the Locals people, some of you know.
Why did I register as Democrat?
Some say it's so I could vote in the primary and support JFK Jr.
That's one thing I might do.
That's a possible thing I would do, but that's not the reason.
Fentanyl?
No, not specifically.
My identification with a party Is unrelated to who I would support for an office or what policies.
So my party identification is not related to a policy preference or a candidate preference.
Although it would give me the ability to maybe help give Biden some competition in the primaries.
But that's not the reason.
Is it because they hunt Republicans?
You're close.
So you don't get targeted?
Close.
I mean, that's part of it.
You don't want to be called a white supremacist?
Not quite.
That's not quite there.
I mean, I don't like that, but that's not quite the reason.
You're so close.
Let me tell you the reason.
It was only Democrats who decided that I'm a racist.
It wasn't Republicans.
So, since Democrats have decided that I'm a racist, I've decided to join their club.
So that all the racists are in the same place.
And the next time they talk about me, and they do it in a big story, and they say, this damn racist, and look at his political opinions, oh, he's a Democrat.
Every time they call me a racist, they'll have to publish that I'm a registered Democrat.
I thought it was funny.
And if it entertained me, that's good enough.
So, yes, if you call me a racist, I'm going to register Democrat and I'm going to be a proud, proud racist Democrat.
I feel at home with my people this way.
All right.
And then I also started identifying as black again.
I used to, but I'm identifying as black again just in case there are any Favoritism.
I just want to be well-situated.
Because sometimes they'll say, well, you know, maybe you should have been identifying this way for a long time.
Otherwise, we're not going to give you any benefits.
So I want to make sure I got a good track record.
All right.
Nikki Haley is saying out loud what everybody's thinking, that Biden likely won't make it to the end of his second term.
That he literally won't survive.
Peggy Noonan was writing something along the same lines today in the Wall Street Journal.
And of course other people, Van Jones mentioned it on CNN, that really it's like voting for Kamala.
Now you remember my theme?
My theme is that things started out weird, But because it was just a little weird, you let it go.
And then it just kept getting weirder until here we are.
All right, so here's the progression.
We collectively, the United States, elected a very, very old president, which I thought was a little weird, right?
He's definitely older than the optimum age.
But it was a special case, and it was all about beating Trump, and blah, blah, blah.
All right, so time goes by, and we got used to that weirdness, which was pretty weird.
Pretty weird that they would run somebody that old just to try to get that win.
But now we've actually reached the point where I can say this, and it's not a joke.
This is actually what's happening.
The Democrat strategy for winning is to run a guy who's going to die in office.
Now, if I'd said that on the first day, Of his, you know, first campaign.
Look, they got a long-term strategy that involves Joe Biden dying in office.
You would have said, well, that's crazy, Scott.
But we're actually, literally, no hyperbole, their strategy is to run a guy they expect to die in office.
That's a real thing.
And we're just like talking about it like it's ordinary.
And let's see, the The Democrats' strategy is what I'll call the Die-in-Biden strategy.
So they went from the Hide-in-Biden, because they needed to hide him because he was too embarrassing to be in public, so they went from Hide-in-Biden to Die-in-Biden.
Do you know why we didn't care so much, we again, collectively, the voters of the country, they didn't care so much that Biden couldn't put two words together?
Because they didn't see him.
They just hit him.
And now you're concerned that he's basically on the edge of death.
So they changed their strategy to, well, we're not going to say it out loud, but obviously he's going to die.
Obviously, you know, the odds are he's not going to make it all the way to the end.
So really it's about Kamala.
And somehow, somehow we've normalized the idea that one team can run a guy who's going to die in office.
And here's the best part.
The guy that they expect to die in office, they also think has the best chance of beating Trump.
That was the best they could do.
So of all the 70, 80, I guess 80 million Democratic voters, let's say 50 million of them were over the age that they could run for president.
So they had 50 million choices and they picked a guy who's a notorious liar, has strange international connections that look sketchy through Hunter Biden, and will probably die in office.
And he's their champion.
That was the best they could do.
And how would you like to be Trump and to know that the odds are he might beat you?
The dead guy.
You're going to get beaten by a dead guy and probably Now, one advantage that Biden would have is that if you're somebody who's definitely going to die in office, or people think that's the likely case, there's one group that you're going to get a lot more support from, am I right?
People who are already dead.
Because people who are already dead, they're going to identify with this dead candidate thing.
So I think Biden's going to get all of the votes from the dead people, like usual.
I'm just joking.
Come on, I'm just joking with you.
Dead people don't vote.
Much.
So it's the Dianne Biden strategy.
Let's see if we can make that a thing.
Dianne Biden.
All right, I told you the other day, and I think nearly 100% of you disagreed.
And now I have some people agreeing with me, so I'm going to circle back.
Here's what I said.
DeSantis picking a fight with Disney is bad politics for DeSantis.
And people disagreed because they knew the details.
If you knew the details, you'd say, wait a minute.
Disney did something they shouldn't have done.
They got into politics.
DeSantis slapped him down.
I love it.
Right?
Don't you love that?
Disney went woke, DeSantis, and tried to get into the business of the government, and then DeSantis slapped him down.
You love that, don't you?
Now, that's what you would say if you were a Republican, and you knew the situation well, like you'd followed the story.
How many people do you think that fits?
I mean, do you really think that the public of the United States is following the DeSantis Disney story?
Of all the stories in the country, do you really think?
25%.
I see you.
Do you really think that the non-news-watching public has any idea what that's about?
Of course not.
No, the only thing that they're going to hear is that DeSantis is mad at Disney, and vice versa.
What is more popular in this world, Disney or DeSantis?
No contest.
Disney is way more popular than DeSantis.
So the only thing that people are going to hear is that DeSantis, who should be the serious governor, doing serious things, has picked a fight with Mickey Mouse.
And he might be losing.
He's not even winning it at the moment, because they're suing him, and who knows what's going to happen.
And then it got worse.
Or it got worse.
He's in Israel right now.
So when people are saying, wait a minute, the reason we liked him is that he was doing his governor job really well.
So he just stuck to his knitting, so to speak.
And we liked that.
He was just a good governor.
Well, what's he doing in Israel?
Now, allegedly, it's part of his international trade that, of course, governors do.
Do they?
Do they?
Is he signing a lot of international deals where he's over there?
I don't think so.
To me, it looks like he's running for president and he's spending time in Israel while Florida is sitting there marinating in lack of leadership while he's gone.
I mean, that's what it looks like.
So to me, I thought there was a huge political disadvantage for DeSantis.
But almost all of you disagreed with me.
However, backing my side, is that in The Hill, I think it was The Hill, that quote, whispers are growing louder among Republicans, among Republicans, that DeSantis has miscalculated in his battle with Disney.
There are real dangers, they say, of his fight with the corporation becoming a distraction from his likely presidential campaign.
And one that could make him, wait for it, one that could make him seem petty and vindictive rather than strong and decisive.
That's it.
That's my point.
So if it makes you feel any better, according to one report, the Republicans who know how things work are now completely agreeing with me That he's looking petty and vindictive rather than strong and decisive.
Now, what's the reality?
What's the reality?
Well, the reality is he was probably strong and decisive.
Would you agree?
The reality is that he was strong and decisive.
He pushed against somebody that people don't usually push against.
He was very decisive.
And it was strong because, you know, it was a very clear and strong reaction.
So, those of you who are saying, but Scott, the truth is, it was strong and decisive.
It was.
I know that.
That has nothing to do with my point.
If you're fighting with Mickey Mouse, you're fucking losing.
That's my whole argument.
If you're fighting with Mickey Mouse, you're losing.
Don't give me your details.
Don't tell me how strong he is.
Don't tell me how right he is.
Don't tell me how good it is for the system.
I agree with all of that.
I completely agree with that.
It's just that fighting with Mickey Mouse cannot win.
It cannot win.
Alright, point eight.
Alright, as you know, I've been promoting the idea that I'd love to see a debate between RFK Jr.
and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Now the reason I want to see it is that neither of them at the moment look like they're going to be the nominee, but a lot of us think That they have the qualities we would look for in a president, on either side, and maybe more qualities than the two people who are likely to be the nominees.
So, if you want to put a dent in the possibility that the likely nominees are the inevitable nominees, we need a debate of the two people who are the, I would say, the most impressive Possibilities for both sides.
Most impressive.
Now remember, RFK Jr.
is already, he got 19% in a recent poll, which is a lot for somebody who just jumped in and people don't quite know him specifically.
They know his family name, of course.
Now, a lot of that I think is probably anti-Biden.
They just, somebody younger would be nice.
Yeah, it'll be 25% soon.
But when I tweeted about it, I got 1.3 million views so far this morning.
Now, for context, for me to tweet something that gets over a million views, that means that people are really digging it.
That's a strong, strong signal that this is a popular idea.
Now, it doesn't need to be popular with everybody in the country, but if you've got 1.3 million people willing to you know, look at this tweet and a lot of people retweeted it, etc.
There is a real strong desire for it.
Now here's the fun part.
Normally this would, you know, I think in a normal year this wouldn't be a practical idea because people wouldn't want to upset the apple cart of who the top candidates are.
The Republicans would say, leave us alone, let Trump be Trump.
And the Democrats, in a normal year, would say, let Biden be Biden.
But because of the extraordinary situation about both of these candidates, I think people would take seriously the challenger debate.
Here's the other thing that's fun.
Both RFK Jr.
and Vivek have a quality in common that I love.
And it's that they're willing to talk to people who disagree with them in the media.
So both of them will go on, you know, Vivek has been on CNN, and RFK Jr.
has been on Fox, and they've both been on all kinds of podcasts that are all over the board.
They're probably the only two people who would be in that position at the same time who would actually be willing to talk to anybody who gave them the right platform, independent of party.
That's a really, really strong characteristic or ethical stand for both of them, which I respect.
The other thing that's completely different about this cycle is that podcasters are the primary movers of opinion.
I think that's true.
Would you agree?
Now it could be that I'm too far into the bubble, but I think that maybe it's not primary yet, but it's a really, really big part.
It might still be 40-60, with 60% being the major media.
But podcasters are a real legitimate power, and many of them have huge audiences.
The Megyn Kellys, the Joe Rogans, you can name a lot of them.
So it seems to me that given the popularity of the idea, and the fact that podcasters love big audiences, and both of the candidates would like more attention, nothing would get more attention than the two of them debating.
Am I right?
If the two of them had a debate on just a well-established, Dr. Drew would be good.
Lots of podcasts would be great for this.
Don't you think this would be good for both of them?
Because they're both battling their own party at the moment, so they just have to look good to their own party.
That would be a real strong play.
So I don't think there's any way that RFK Jr.
or Vivek could lose by debating each other.
Because the way debates go is everybody just thinks that the one from their party won.
So it's going to look like both of them won to each of their own parties.
So they're not going to hurt, like they're both so clever that they're not going to embarrass themselves in a debate.
It's going to look good for both of them.
And that's what they both need.
Yeah.
Sticks and hammer.
It'd be interesting.
Yeah.
All right.
So I think now we wait because I would be very, very surprised if there are not already invitations out from major podcasters who know it would be the biggest audience they ever had.
If you're a podcaster and you're right for this to host that kind of debate, you will never get a bigger audience than that would bring you.
Am I right?
That'd be the biggest audience that any podcaster ever had.
You know, maybe Joe Rogan's Special Case or something.
But there's no way that that wouldn't be anything but a win for everybody involved.
So I think it's going to happen.
Alright, speaking of RFK Jr., so he does an interview on ABC News, and at the end of the interview, I saw this in a Scott Moorfield tweet, at the end, ABC said they admitted that they deleted or censored extended portions related to discussions around the COVID vaccine.
What?
They interviewed a candidate for president, and then they decided that a major part of what he said, which is really pretty key to his entire existence, that they would just delete it.
And then they told you they deleted it.
What?
Now, I think the answer is because they believe it's misinformation.
That doesn't work anymore.
If he were just a pundit, You could argue, well I would still be opposed to it, the censorship, but you could argue that at least that makes sense, you're trying to save the world or something.
At least you'd have an argument.
What is the argument for censoring a presidential candidate who's polling at 19% in the primary?
I can't think of one.
Can you think of any legitimate reason for censoring that?
Yeah, no, if you were an expert and they thought he was just wrong, maybe.
Voters need to hear everything he says.
The voters don't need to hear just the part the ABC thinks you need to hear.
They need to hear it all.
Now, again, how in the world do we settle for this?
It's because things got a little weird during the pandemic.
And then they just kept getting weirder until that point where ABC News can get on the air and tell you to your face that they decided what information from a major candidate for the presidency you would see.
And they thought that they could say that in public and you'd say, oh, good for you.
It's a good thing you edited out that dangerous stuff so I didn't hear it.
Like, how is that okay?
It's only okay because, again, we started a little bit weird and it just sort of kept getting weirder and then we got used to it.
That is so not okay.
That's not even in the right zip code of being okay.
And they did it like there was nothing to even be embarrassed about.
That's how far things have come.
All right.
I have a special request to all of you.
Please, I beg of you, do not ask me what I think of a potential presidential ticket that would include a mixture of a Republican and a Democrat.
Please don't ask me that again.
There is no chance of that happening.
It's zero.
I'm not going to entertain it.
It would be like, well, what if the moon crashed into the Earth, Scott?
Can you give us an opinion on that?
It's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen.
Ever.
So every time you ask me that question, because I'm getting it in DMs, I'm getting it in my email, I'm getting it by text, everybody's asking me, well, what if Trump ran with RFK Jr.?
What about that?
No!
It doesn't matter if it's a good idea.
It doesn't matter if it's a bad idea.
The only thing that matters is it's not going to happen.
That's all.
It's just not going to happen.
So I can't answer that question.
All right.
I'm trying to figure out how to handle this Steven Crowder, Candace Owens divorce situation.
I feel like I want to avoid it, but everybody who had that same instinct has sort of waded in already.
I don't want to be the last person in the world who didn't say something about it.
So I'm going to say something generic.
So Steven Crowder, there's a video going around, I don't know how anybody got it.
That shows a private conversation between a husband and wife captured on their own ring doorbell.
Now, how somebody got that, probably from her lawyer or something, I don't know, maybe.
But, I give you this warning.
If you watch the video, and that's the only information you had, you would conclude that Steven Crowder is the worst husband and maybe a terrible, terrible person.
Would you all agree with that?
If that's all you saw, it looks really bad.
Like, really, really bad.
However, I give you this one context.
We've been fooled by hoaxes exactly this way.
Where you see the video and you say, there's only one interpretation.
Remember the Covington kids?
When I went on live stream and said, well, there's only one way to see this.
This kid is bad.
I mean, this kid's a bad kid.
And then it was totally wrong.
Completely opposite.
He was a good kid and didn't do anything except stand there.
That was it.
And yet he looked like the bad guy because of the way the video only shows one side.
Likewise, of course, with the drinking bleach hoax and the fine people hoax, etc.
So, do you believe, do you believe that there's absolutely nothing that the wife could have done that would make you say, oh, that changes everything?
I can't.
I can't think of anything that would make me change my mind about this situation.
Does that mean, hold on, does that mean that no such thing exists?
It really doesn't.
It doesn't mean that you understand the situation.
Just because you can't think of any other way to interpret it, and I can't, I can't think of any other way to interpret it.
Like, I've racked my brains trying to say, alright, how could this be okay in my wildest imagination?
And I can't come up with anything.
But remember, I also couldn't come up with anything with the Covington kids' hoax.
The fact that you can't even imagine something that would change your mind about this situation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And it's also none of our business.
And I just feel bad for them.
I just feel bad for both of them.
So I'm not going to speculate what it might be that you don't know that could change your opinion on things, etc.
But I will just put this thought into your mind.
They probably knew each other before they got married.
Am I right?
Do you think that the wife was just like suddenly surprised?
That he's controlling?
I don't know that she was suddenly surprised.
So the question I'd have to ask is, did one of them change the nature of the relationship with sort of a bait and switch?
I'm not alleging that.
That would be a shitty thing to do.
I'm not alleging that.
But suppose, use your imagination, suppose they had a relationship where she actually explicitly said, yeah, I want you to be in charge, and I want you to be in charge at this level, at this exact level that you saw, where he would tell her she couldn't drive a car, you know, he would tell her what she's doing wrong.
Is it possible that she knew exactly what she was getting and explicitly agreed to it?
Is it possible?
What do you think?
There's so many things possible.
But let me say again, if the only thing we know is what's on the video, there's no defending him.
Right?
Looks pretty bad.
But what you don't know is what was the nature of their explicit agreement before they got married about how they would treat each other.
And did it change?
One of them baited and switched.
Wouldn't you agree?
One of them baited and switched.
Because when they got married, they thought, hey, you're great.
Hey, you're great too.
Let's get married.
Obviously.
They obviously thought each other were great when they got married.
So if they don't think each other is the same person that they married, which one changed?
Do you think that Steven Crowder just became that guy lately?
Pretty unlikely.
Do you think that he ever revealed his true nature before she agreed to marry him?
I don't know.
That's actually a good question.
Do you think that she ever presented herself as okay with a certain situation and then once she was married said, well, I thought I'd be okay with this, but it turns out I'm not.
Yeah.
Don't know.
So I don't think he can be defended.
Would you agree with that?
That he can't be defended, based on what we've seen.
But I only caution you that you don't know the whole story.
And you couldn't.
It's not even possible.
So, I can't defend him, but I can tell you you don't know the whole story.
For whatever that's worth.
I'd like to say that about everybody.
I'm not even a fan.
I mean, I'm not a big Crowder fan.
I think he's been entertaining sometimes, but I don't follow him or anything.
But I do think that just like the Tate brothers and just like anybody else who's not my first choice of people to hang out with, I think he deserves the benefit of a doubt.
No matter how hard that is.
And it's really hard.
It's really hard.
Alright.
Here's a story about Chinese solar panel tariffs.
Okay.
Wake up to do this story.
Currently it's important.
So Biden wants to waive some tariffs so that, I guess, we can get more Chinese solar panels at a cheaper price.
And, you know, that's part of his, I'm sure, part of his climate initiatives.
And then there are some people who want to reverse that, and that would include some Senate Democrats.
But here's what I had trouble with the story.
They want a 24-month pause, some of the people in Congress, on the enforcement.
So it's a pause on the enforcement of solar panel's anti-circumvention tariffs.
So anti means opposite.
So anti-circumvention.
But circumvention is also the opposite of something.
So you circumvent Which is the opposite of doing the thing.
So if you're anti-circumventing.
Okay.
So you're anti-circumventing is what you want to do, but they want to, some of the people want to pause.
So that would be stopping the anti.
So you're not anti-ing the circumvention, which is reversing.
Just give us our goddamn solar panels.
I can't read this story.
It's too complicated.
But I think we need some solar panels.
All right.
Alan Dershowitz just keeps saying things that I agree with.
So of course, you know, he famously votes Democrat, but he's willing to defend anybody whose civil liberties have been abused.
And he says, quote, not the American civil liberties unions, not the usual people in the academy, not the New York Times, not any of the liberal establishment, the lawyer continued, are basically defending civil liberties.
For me as a liberal, as a person who just defended the rights of liberals for 60 years of my life, the idea that they, meaning the liberals, are now turning into McCarthyites is so disappointing.
I feel like Dershowitz is feeling like Greenpeace in Finland.
I just spent decades of my life fighting for something that I don't like how this turned out.
So Dershowitz defends liberals forever, you know, defending their civil liberties, and then ends up finding out that they're the very people denying civil liberties to others.
Ouch.
Anyway, the New York Times is trying to take out Tucker because he, apparently when you Try to kill the king?
You better get it right the first time, because the king is coming for you.
And Tucker, of course, is a huge critic of the New York Times.
So do you think that the New York Times had an ethical obligation in their reporting about Tucker Carlson?
Did they have an ethical obligation to note that he is one of their biggest critics?
Do you think that was in the story?
Do you think the New York Times said, here's a story about our biggest critic, who continually accuses us of fake news, and has used the following examples of where we actually didn't report fake news.
And so he's always pointing out our fake news, but when we tell you things about him, you should totally believe it.
That's what, again, how weird is that?
Literally, the biggest critic of the New York Times in terms of prominence, the biggest one.
And they don't even mention?
That's not part of the story?
How is that not the most important part of the story?
To me, that's number one.
That's sentence one.
Our biggest critic Who has often accused us of fake news.
For example, there was a time we reported that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And he also got on us for the Russia collusion hoax and also the fine people hoax and the other hoaxes.
How is that not the first paragraph?
Because if you don't know that the New York Times and Tucker are mortal enemies, And that Tucker Carlson is one of the most existential risks to the business model of the New York Times.
If you didn't know that, how do you understand the story they tell about him?
All right.
Here's some of the terrible things that he is alleged to have done by, according to the person bringing the lawsuit about all the rampant sexism.
All right.
He once referred To his older female fans as post-menopausal women.
So he once referred to older women as post-menopausal, which is very sexist, isn't it?
Wait a minute.
What kind of women are post-menopausal?
Is it the young ones?
Isn't older women and post-menopausal kind of similar?
So that made it an unfriendly work environment, because he noted that biologically, women become post-menopausal after some age.
What?
Well, surely there are much stronger ones.
All right, so that's the weakest one.
If that were the only complaint, I don't think there'd be any issue, right?
If that were the only complaint.
But there are some big ones.
You ready for this?
There's some big ones.
He once referred to, and I can barely say this out loud, it's so terrible.
He once referred to a woman as... It's just so hard for me to say this.
And this is not me talking, because I would never use this word.
But he allegedly once referred to a woman as... Yummy.
Yummy.
How can he keep his job?
Well, it's a good thing they got rid of him.
Because, you know, that's something that no man has ever said about a woman.
I've lived a long time.
Have you ever heard a man comment on the attractiveness of a woman?
Has that happened in your experience?
What?
Oh, some people say they've seen that.
Oh, you've seen that?
No, I've never seen that before.
I've never seen a woman comment on the attractiveness, or a man comment on the attractiveness.
So strange.
I used to own a restaurant where most of the front of house staff were women.
But there was one exception.
We had a bartender.
And that bartender was unusually good-looking.
Do you know how many times the female employees said something about him while I was present?
This was a typical conversation from the female employees of my own company.
Oh my God, do you see him?
Oh my God.
All the fucking time, all day long, they would talk about how hot he was.
All day long.
You couldn't get away from it.
Was he gay?
No, he was very not gay.
Alright, so, but that's not the only thing.
Apparently, Tucker used the C word when referring to Sidney Powell.
Wow.
Wow, so that's sexist.
So, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that she embarrassed the entire Republican Party and changed politics in the United States by believing the Kraken.
And that Even at the point when it was clear that she didn't have the goods, she still, you know, led Fox News and Tucker and others, you know, along the... until eventually he just disavowed her, basically, by saying that she had no evidence for her claims.
So, how many of you are offended by him using the C-word about one specific person, Sidney Powell, for this specific set of events?
Is anybody offended by that?
No, I thought the word was well chosen.
I thought that word... So that's the strongest word, right?
It's the strongest word.
And I think the situation called for the strongest word.
Now, he didn't say it on TV.
He wasn't screaming it.
I believe it was in an email, right?
It was in a private email.
Would anybody like to confess that they've ever used the C word about a male or female in a private context?
Anybody?
Have any of you ever used that word?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Do you know what words are allowed privately?
What would be an example of an inappropriate word that somebody's using privately to someone who doesn't mind that word?
What would be an example of that?
Nothing?
Nothing.
There's no such thing as an offensive word spoken privately to someone who's not offended by the word.
That's not a thing.
That's like it literally made up.
In order for this to be offensive, you have to take it out of its original context, which is two people talking privately.
And they have to move it into the public context and then imagine if it happened there.
Oh, imagine if he'd said this in front of other women.
Oh, that's terrible.
But that didn't happen.
The entire offense is an imaginary offense where you have to change it from two people privately talking who weren't bothered a bit to some imaginary context where it was other people hearing it.
Otherwise, it's nothing.
It's nothing.
So they got that.
But that's not the only thing.
Hold on, hold on.
Apparently people who are not Tucker Carlson also said things.
So, I mean, Tucker Carlson is bad because people who worked for him, when he wasn't there, would say terrible things too.
So this is something that some of the men must have said, I assume the men, about some female guests.
They actually talked about which of them were more effable, but they used the F word.
Now, that's something that people don't ever do.
Now, I would agree, if you're having that conversation in front of women in a business setting, that's pretty unacceptable.
Would you agree with that?
That if it's a business setting and it's a mixed group, that is unacceptable.
I agree completely.
But here's the thing.
The allegation is that Tucker wasn't in the room.
Tucker wasn't there.
It's actually about other people.
They're trying to make accusations about other people stick to Tucker.
Tucker said something privately in an email or a text or something, which is a nothing.
These other people did something which, if it happened, I would agree that would be inappropriate behavior.
And if I had been the boss, I would have tried to put an end to it.
Because it makes people uncomfortable, and you just don't need it.
But, New York Times is trying really hard to slime this guy, and they have so little.
There's just so little that they have to work with.
What else do they have?
It was reported that somewhere around the office there are multiple photos, I don't know why, of Nancy Pelosi in a bathing suit in Europe.
Now, I don't know why.
I assume it's because she doesn't look good in a bathing suit, because she's 90 or whatever she is.
Is that why?
But, is that sexist?
Are you telling me that the men in the office have never made fun of the body shape or the look of a man?
They've never made fun of Chris Christie's weight?
No?
You don't think there's any man they've ever made fun of?
Do you think anybody on Fox News ever said anything about Trump's haircut?
Or his weight?
Even?
Body shaving is the most, like, common thing in politics.
As horrible as it is.
I'm opposed to it.
But it's just so common.
And it goes both ways.
I don't know.
That's all they got?
Let's see, what else they have?
The accusation that no woman was safe from being called a C-word.
Should they be?
Should women be safe from being called a bad insult?
Here's my opinion.
Women should be safe from that word.
Unless there's Sidney Powell and they just said the Kraken is coming and then you believed them because they seem to be credible and then you screwed up everything and you cost your network three quarters of a billion dollars and your job.
If that happens to you, yeah, you can use the C word.
You could use it all day long under that situation.
But no, you're not going to call your co-worker, who's five minutes late to the movie, the C-word.
If you're acting like calling the C-word is just always right, or always wrong, that's dumb.
It's not wrong.
There's absolutely a place where that word belongs.
And I'm not going to lose it.
It's vital to my communication strategy.
But I will reserve it for the worst of the situations, or when it's funny.
That works too.
For example, I would never use that word for Kamala Harris.
Because whatever I think about her, that word doesn't seem to apply.
She has a competence problem.
But for some people, in some situations, it's just the only word that works.
All right, West Virginia's Republican governor, Jim Justice.
What a great name for a politician.
Wouldn't you love your name to be Justice?
Yeah, that's just a great last name.
Justice.
But he's 72, but he's going to run against Senator Manchin, who's sort of a centrist Democrat.
Now, you see this and you say to yourself, yay!
We could, you know, if you're a Republican, you say yay.
You say yay, we could get another Republican in there and mansions unpredictable.
Sometimes he likes us, sometimes he doesn't.
So this would be good, right?
And then I read about this guy's background.
He owns a sprawling empire of coal mines, processing facilities, and agricultural interests.
That's very close to exactly the wrong person for government, isn't it?
It's sort of like exactly the wrong person.
Who wants a coal magnate as a senator?
Like, I think that coal is necessary at the moment.
But who wants a senator whose financial interests are completely tied up with coal?
Do you think somebody who owns a sprawling coal industry, do you think that person's going to give you an objective view of climate and energy?
That's crazy.
It's so crazy.
And then people say, oh, he has a good chance.
We like him.
That's crazy.
Anyway.
So I saw this story that I'm so curious about, but I don't know the answer to it, which is Brian Ramelli, as I say almost every day, he's a great follow for keeping up with what's happening with AI.
Not just, you know, hey there's a new app, but really understanding the implications and where it could go.
He's the best one for that, I think.
He tweeted about, there was an article about one-third of US teen girls seriously considered, and I won't, I'm not even going to use the words because I don't want to get demonetized just for using words, but let's just say it was, they considered doing something that would be the cessation of their mortal existence.
And the news said one-third of U.S.
teens thought about it in 2021, according to the CDC.
One-third.
So here's the first thing I would add to the story.
Is that a lot?
I don't know.
One-third sounds about normal.
Sounds normal, unfortunately.
So it might be up, but still it's a problem.
But here's what Brian says about that.
When we prompt AI...
Any AI, in a way that does not pay homage to any agenda at all, we arrive at the response, we arrive at the reasons.
So that would be the reasons for why the one-third of US teen girls have considered that.
And the question AI asks us, are we ready to hear it?
Oh my god!
What does he know that we don't know yet?
Did he ask AI to explain what's going on, and did it give him a definitive answer?
I don't know that the answer is right, but given that the answer would be based on the collection of human language, etc., it might be something that strikes us as right, because we think the way AI thinks in many ways.
You've seen it?
You don't want it.
What do you think is the answer?
Some people think they know the answer.
Oh, we don't think the way AI thinks?
Yeah, we do.
Not every person.
Because every person thinks differently than every other person.
So you can't say AI thinks like every one of us.
But AI is based on human thinking patterns.
It's based on our language.
So in theory, the reason we can talk to it and it sounds like a person is that it does match our, it matches our thinking process in general.
Well, I guess I don't know if you know the answer to that.
All right, Heineken is introducing these new AI guides so they look like an avatar on a screen in airports.
So I guess it's advertising their beer, but at the same time, it's providing a service.
So it's better than an advertisement, that you can interact with it.
So you could walk up to a deepfake-looking CGI character, and you could just talk to it.
And it'll help you in the airport, like tell you when your flights are or whatever.
Now, is that the greatest thing?
In terms of commercializing AI, that's just one of the best ideas I've seen.
I would love to be able to talk to a non-human entity to ask a question at an airport.
Do you know why?
Because talking to human entities in the airport doesn't go well.
Have you tried?
Yeah, you have to wait in line, You get up there and then they tell you that that station is closed.
Well, why am I waiting in line for something that's closed?
Oh, I was just answering that one question, but we're closed.
You made me wait in line?
I waited in line!
You saw me waiting in line, and when I got here you say you're not open?
Maybe you could have told me that sooner?
And then you get into a fight with him and all kinds of things happen.
So, yeah, I want to talk to... Same reason I want to use an ATM instead of using a teller.
I just don't want...
The human problem in my transaction.
I just want the information.
Yeah.
So here's another thing that is a big deal.
So you've heard that Biden is going to charge people with good credit who have loans, they'll pay an extra 50 bucks a month or something, and that will help pay for people who have bad credit but also would like to get loans.
Now it turns out that this will hurt Asian Americans more than white applicants because not only will the Asian Americans have the highest credit scores in general, Says this report.
But they also get turned down for loans more than white people.
Did you know that?
Did you know that Asian Americans have the highest credit, but they get turned down more than white Americans who do not have as good a credit?
Is that racism?
Is that obvious racism?
Probably.
Let me give you a counter-argument.
You ready for the weirdest counter-argument?
You will never see this one coming.
This is one that you would not see coming at all.
Ready?
I've told you this story before, but now I'm gonna tie it to this story.
I used to be a commercial lender.
I would make loans for small businesses, usually dentists and professionals like that.
And my job was to review loan applications, So I would look at all the factors of their creditworthiness, and then I would take it to my boss, who would be the final sign-off, but I would make a recommendation that you would typically agree with.
So I've done all the work.
I bring it to my boss and I say, here's a loan.
It's for, I think it was a dentist office.
And as you can see, the person asking for the loan, they show their income and they show what it will take to service the loan.
And you can see that they don't have enough money to qualify under our standards.
And my boss, who had been a lender for 40 years, takes the application from me, and while I'm telling him that they don't have enough money to pay back the loan, he writes approved on it.
While I'm telling him they don't have enough money to pay the loan.
And I said, uh, what just happened here?
So now you're thinking it's because it's white people, right?
He was a white guy.
So you think he basically just gave the white people the loan, aren't you?
Is that what you're thinking?
Nope.
Asian-American.
He was a white guy.
But he said, no, now I'm going to tell you what he said.
This is not from me, right?
Because what he said is super racist.
I'm just reporting what he said.
He said, Asians lie about their income to save taxes.
And I said, what?
And I said, yeah, it's so typical that you can count on it.
And I said, what?
Are you freaking kidding me?
You're going to sign this loan that literally says he can't pay for it?
He goes, yes.
And then he gave me the kill shot.
You ready for the kill shot?
He points to the other side of the office and there's this big bank of files.
And he says, go look at all the files of the defaulted loans.
Because it was just all the people who defaulted on their loans.
He goes, spend a day there and tell me how many Asian surnames you find in the file.
That was the end of the conversation.
There weren't any.
He said, there aren't any.
I've been doing this for 40 years.
There aren't any.
Do you know why?
Now, he explained it's not necessarily just that their cash flow is better than they report.
It's not necessarily that.
It's also some kind of a cultural necessity.
That if you make a loan, you're paying it back.
If you need a second job, you're paying it back.
If you default because you simply don't have the money, even after it defaults, they pay it back.
Do you know how rare that is?
And he told me the story about somebody who, you know, couldn't pay back a loan, Asian-American, and it got written off.
So his, you know, his credit was bad and basically everything that could happen bad had already happened and he didn't need to pay it back.
So at that point he was off the hook.
And he paid it back.
Because he couldn't live With an unpaid loan.
Just no, I'm not going to do that.
And he took great personal extra work and sacrifice, and he paid it all back.
Paid back every penny.
So here's what I think might be happening.
If you tell me that Asian-Americans are getting turned down more often, I feel as if maybe lenders stopped doing what that old lender did a million years ago, which is discriminate.
He just actively discriminated.
But he was discriminating against white people, in a sense, because he was favoring another group, which is different, I guess.
But it could be that the loans are coming in not looking as good, and they're being turned down for reasons that are not exactly have anything to do with race whatsoever.
So it could be that there's actually no racial component whatsoever.
It's just that some loan applications come in looking differently than others.
It might be just that.
So that's just speculation.
I have no way of knowing what, but if you've never heard that story, does that blow your mind?
It's sort of a mind-blowing story, isn't it?
That's one of the most influential stories of my life, is about the benefit of good character.
Basically.
So the benefit of good character in the Asian-Americans got them a lot of loans that maybe the paperwork said they shouldn't have gotten.
So good for them.
Good for them.
And by the way, I think that we should address whatever that inequality is with the loan approvals.
Somebody needs to dig into that.
Because if it's not, if it's not what I said, what the hell is it?
Have you ever met a banker who didn't want to make a loan to a qualified Asian American?
Is that a thing?
Is there any banker in America who doesn't eagerly, you know, love that loan?
They love it.
So the fact that they're getting turned down more than white people, that is a mystery.
I think we need to figure that out.
But it might not be the answer that you think it is.
It might not be racial discrimination.
It just might not be.
But I'd worry about it, so I'd look into it.
It's worth looking at.
All right.
Is there any banker that can override AI recommendations?
Sure.
Maybe not in the long run, but in the short run, yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
All right.
Anecdotes don't matter.
2008 crisis was about making loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
Yeah.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you on YouTube.
I'm gonna say bye and then talk to my locals folks here for a bit.
