Episode 2096 Scott Adams: DeSantis Charisma Deficit, Trump To Do CNN, Vice, Karine Jean-Pierre Lies
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
DeSantis charisma gap
Impeaching Blinken
Trump to do CNN town hall
Loneliness epidemic
Karine Jean-Pierre lie of the century
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 best thing that's ever happened in the history of civilization and beyond.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and aren't you glad you're here today?
Oh my goodness, what a good day we have.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that can only be described as galactic, all you need is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tank of Charleston stein, a canteen jug of 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it ends with an ah.
Don't forget that part.
Ready?
Go.
Ah.
Good stuff.
I was writing this joke just before we went live, so let's see if I can land it.
It seems that we went from... Now with health care in the United States, you can keep your doctor.
You can keep your doctor.
Your balls are still in play, but you can keep your doctor.
Alright, I'm not sure if that joke landed or not.
It was funnier on locals when I was talking about it with them before we went live.
Trust me, it was a lot funnier then.
Maybe it's the way I said it.
Anyway, the publication Vice is headed for bankruptcy.
At one point they were worth nearly six billion dollars.
And now apparently they're worth closer to nothing.
And Elon Musk was mocking them today on Twitter.
He says, get woke, go broke.
And noted that they haven't had good content in years.
And does anybody know if Vice ever made fun of me?
Do you think Vice ever did a hit piece on me?
I feel like they did.
I feel like they did.
Yeah.
And I'm wondering how many of the publications that cancelled me or went after me are going to be out of business before I am.
I think I might outload it less than newspapers that cancelled me.
Because they could go any minute.
But Vice?
Such a nice organization.
So's that.
Alright, well there's a writer's strike.
That apparently is going to cause the closing of the shows Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers late night shows are all going to shut down because of the writer's strike.
Did I leave anybody out?
Let's see.
Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers.
So those are the late nights that are closing down.
Gottfeld is not closing down.
So he already dominates them.
But I think they write their own stuff and the panel does most of the heavy lifting.
So their current plan, I believe, is to stay on the air.
So they will continue to pick up audience because he will be competing against nobody.
How many people are going to give Give the, you know, Gutfeld exclamation a chance because the other shows are just off the air.
This could get interesting.
This could be a big, big change in the landscape there.
All right, here's, I hate to say this, but there's something that somebody in the Biden administration is doing that's right.
I don't, I don't even have a complaint about it.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe I'm going to tell you something that the Biden administration, somebody, one individual in the Biden administration, is doing right that you're totally going to agree with?
Do you think that that's even possible?
Because I know this audience leans right.
All right.
Challenge accepted.
Challenge accepted.
This will be an example of unambiguous, unambiguous good work.
From somebody in the Biden administration.
Do you think I can deliver on that?
Here we go.
The Surgeon General says there's a loneliness epidemic and he's making it a priority.
Yes.
Yes.
That is absolutely on point.
Points out that there's a huge impact on health, so if you think that's not the Surgeon General's job, you're very wrong.
It's very much the Surgeon General's job to point this out and make a big deal about it and see if we can fix it.
So, apparently the pandemic really wiped out a lot of people's social lives.
How many of you have a worse social life now than before the pandemic?
A lot of people say same.
A lot of yeses.
A lot of no's.
But apparently it's a thing.
So it didn't affect every single person.
But, you know, I had a divorce.
So that makes my date a little out of line.
So, yeah, I think maybe that's the biggest health... Just keep this in mind.
Given the number of people who have been driven into loneliness, largely by the pandemic, the loneliness might kill more people than the virus.
Agree or disagree?
The loneliness might kill more people than the virus did.
That's like a real thing.
Because look at these numbers.
According to this article, loneliness increases risk of premature death by 30%.
Greater risk of stroke, heart disease, everything else.
And there's a huge shift in how much time we're spending with other people versus online.
Now, and the Surgeon General is recommending that organizations figure out some way to cause people to spend more time with each other.
And I'm a big fan of that.
I think that needs to be fixed.
So I would note that isn't it weird how many problems are happening at exactly the same time as AI is happening?
And the AI, maybe not today, but like really, really soon, maybe in just a few weeks, might be able to solve some of these problems.
For example, I'm sure that lonely people are going to have genuine friendships with AI.
Does anybody doubt that?
Now, don't think in terms of yourself, right?
Just think of other people.
I know you don't want to have an AI friend, maybe.
So don't talk about yourself.
Do you think there's any chance that that's not going to happen?
Trust me, I tested it for a while, and it absolutely reduces loneliness.
It does, because you have a conversation with something that's responding.
And it does it far more than even a pet.
A pet is great, but if the pet can't talk, they really have a disadvantage.
Now, I would like to also suggest To those of you who don't already know it, that one of the things I did within my subscription site, scottadams.locals.com, is that I started doing almost nightly, maybe five or six nights a week, I do a man cave episode, where the only point is to hang out together.
If you are also lonely, and you have a few extra bucks for a subscription service, I can't guarantee that I'll do it every night, because, you know, sometimes plans.
It doesn't happen often.
But I'm happy to be your virtual friend.
And I asked the other day on one of these Man Cave Hangouts how many people were alone and lonely.
We're single.
Turns out a lot of them are a lot of people who just don't have anybody in the house at all.
So they turn on the man cave and they just hang out with me for a while in my man cave doing God knows what, which I won't mention on YouTube.
But it's a legal adult activity in California.
It does not involve any tubing-like activities.
No nudity.
All right.
But come join if you feel lonely and you want one extra thing to do.
Many evenings, but not all of them.
That's an option for you.
Or get an AI friend.
I think they're going to be pretty cool.
All right, Jean-Pierre.
Luke.
No, Jean-Pierre.
Karina.
Jean-Pierre.
What is her name?
She has the only name that I can't remember, no matter how many times I read it.
Because there's too many names.
Corinne Jean-Pierre.
Oh, that's right, because I remember Gutfeld made a joke about her first name being Cringe.
Cringe Jean-Pierre.
She actually said in public, when it comes to illegal migration, you have seen it come down by more than 90%.
I don't even know what she was thinking about.
But apparently she's trying to set the record as by far the worst spokesperson who ever lived.
I believe she has now achieved worst spokesperson of all time.
What was she even thinking?
What went down by 90%?
Did something go down 90% but it wasn't that?
I mean where did that even come from?
So of course that got tweeted around and of course it took about a second and a half to get a Twitter community notes attached to it that said, migrant border crossings in fiscal 2022 topped 2.76 million, breaking previous record.
So the truth is it's a record high in the history of civilization.
America wasn't here all the time, but you know what I mean.
It was a record high, and she just looks at the crowd, looks into the camera, says, down 90%.
All right.
I saw somebody say diversity hire, so I'm going to go there.
Are you ready for this?
So, I saw a horrible conversation happening on Twitter, which I feel really bad about.
Like, this is just an icky conversation.
And it's based on the fact that Lawrence Jones is apparently going to sit in temporarily for Tucker Carlson.
And I saw a black woman who's a doctor of some kind, and it's important that it's a black woman, just so you know the source of the comment, who said that it has, essentially she said it has the optics of a diversity hire in the context of ESG and DEI.
Now, as Jeff Charles said on Twitter, Who I believe is a friend of Lawrence Jones.
He defended him, said basically that was a crappy thing to say.
Because Lawrence Jones has worked hard, done good work, why not?
Why not him?
Why not him?
But the counter was that maybe he has not developed a, let's say, body of work that would make him the obvious choice for the job.
And so the comment was, that has the optics of being a diversity hire.
Now, I would like to separate the question of whether Lawrence Jones specifically is qualified for that job.
In my opinion, he is.
That's my opinion.
In my opinion, he is qualified for that.
Because if you think who else is going to do it, and you also think that it's temporary, and you also think that it'll probably rotate, why not Lawrence Jones?
He didn't already have his own show.
He's one of the ones they're developing, obviously for, you know, with intention of higher purpose.
Why not?
So I disagree that he's unqualified for that job.
I think he would be in the running.
I think he would be one of the serious candidates among several, but I think he's definitely in the category.
However, I'm going to agree with this part of the comment.
It's a bad look for him, isn't it?
How shitty is that, that you could be Lawrence Jones, do everything right, and then when you finally get a break, we don't know if it's a break, it might just be a one week thing, nothing else, but it could be.
I mean, if he did well, it could be a big break.
So, how shitty is it that we even have to ask that question?
Because the problem is, it's a valid question.
That's the problem.
The problem is it's actually a valid question.
I don't think it's fair in his case.
But the criticism was not about Lawrence Jones per se.
It was about the fact that if you're looking at it from the outside, it looks like Fox News was just trying to make sure that they reduced their criticism as much as possible.
And that would be one way to do it.
And it might also look like they're trying to get their advertisers back.
Which is perfectly fine.
They are a business that relies on advertisers.
So as long as that's not a hidden fact, if they're trying to get their advertisers back by doing things which society at large and advertisers think is within the acceptable zone, it's sort of normal business.
But I really feel bad for somebody like Lawrence Jones who does the actual work You know, is a completely credible person in that field, and that you'd have to ask that question about is there some other reason that you were selected.
Now, with Corinne Jean-Pierre, you've got the same problem, do you not?
The difference is, she's obviously incompetent.
This is completely different than Lawrence Jones, who's obviously good at his job.
Would you all agree?
I mean, you've seen him.
He's very good at his job.
He's always a good, interesting, charismatic character, and adds a lot to the shows he's on.
So I think he's very good.
Now, but Corinne Jean-Pierre is just terrible.
And I don't think there's even a Democrat who would disagree with that, right?
That has nothing to do with race or politics.
That's just obvious to everybody.
Now, doesn't it look to you like she's a diversity hire?
There's no, is there any doubt about it?
I mean it's the most clear, she is the clearest signal that they're not serious people.
And I feel like it's terrible for black Americans To have somebody who, in a sense, you could say in a sense she's representing people who identify with her in any way.
I feel like that's a terrible look.
There's not one black person in the whole frickin' country who couldn't do that job better.
Lawrence Jones could do it better, if he were a Democrat.
I mean, you could pick almost anybody.
Look at CNN's pundit lineup.
And, you know, CNN does a good job of having lots of diversity.
You don't think you could pick randomly any one of CNN's, you know, black on-air pundits and they wouldn't do a far better job than, than Jean-Pierre?
Of course they would.
You could watch it.
You can see them do a good job.
Obviously they do a good job.
There's a real problem with the optics.
And the problem is more for black Americans than it is for anybody else.
Because I think if you're qualified, it's just such a slap in the face that anybody's even going to ask that question, just because you get a good job opportunity.
So I think we can be honest about that situation.
It's just terrible for a lot of people.
All right.
Let's talk about Tony Blinken.
So Secretary of State Blinken, Anthony Blinken, was implicated, and I'll just say implicated, for being the, quote, impetus, the impetus, for the 50 Intel people who signed the letter saying the laptop was probably Russian disinformation.
Now, the story does not say There's no reporting that says that Blinken asked for that letter to be created.
And everybody agrees on that.
So he's not directly somebody who said, create this letter, or at least it's not in record, there's no evidence of that.
But he's being called the impetus, or the spark, or the trigger, or the cause that caused somebody else, independently, To go organize that letter.
Now it was somebody that Blinken talked to.
Blinken talked to him and then that guy, allegedly on his own, went and put a letter together and blah, blah, blah.
So Blinken has deniability because he did not specifically ask for it or there's no evidence that he did.
But is it still fair to say he got the ball rolling?
That maybe he pushed in a direction that was certain to cause some activity, if not a letter, something else along those lines.
I don't know.
But the question is, should he be impeached?
Rasmussen did a poll, and let me see if I can test the wisdom of my audience.
You're so smart.
How do you get the answers before I ask the question?
How do you do it?
Yeah, 25% is the answer and I haven't even asked the question.
It's how many people think Blinken should not be impeached.
But let me get the exact wording of it so I don't say it wrong.
The exact percentage is 25% don't think Congress should launch an impeachment against Blinken.
25%.
Only 25% think Congress shouldn't.
Now there are people who don't care, right?
So there's still some people who don't have an opinion or don't know about it or whatever.
But 60% of likely voters believe Congress should begin impeachment.
60%!
What do you think?
How many of you think Blinken should be impeached when he did not specifically ask for that letter to be written?
I'm gonna say no.
I'm going to say no, because you're going to need some evidence.
Well, what's to investigate?
It's probably two people at a private conversation and they both have the same story.
So far, that's all it is.
I doubt there's any written documentation.
You don't think that they sent a memo, do you?
Memo.
Good idea.
Collect Intel signatures.
No.
They're all smart enough not to write this stuff down.
So if the only evidence that Blinken was responsible is that he talked to the guy who ended up being responsible, that's not enough.
That's not enough.
Well, I'm seeing a comment that didn't stop the Democrats.
I'm not willing to throw away everything just for team play.
I think the impeachment system still needs to be genuine.
The fact that Trump's impeachments were, in my opinion, totally illegitimate, doesn't mean I want to do that.
So I don't think you want to do that to the other side.
I think you want to see if you can treat the Trump situation as a one-off and hope it was.
That's not the one I would retaliate on with some BS impeachment.
That's just not a good look for anybody.
To me that would make the Republicans look incompetent.
It would make them just look completely political.
More so than usual.
All right.
So I don't approve of that, but I understand the feeling behind it.
So emotionally, I agree.
If you want to know how I feel emotionally, yeah.
Emotionally.
But it's not good for the country.
Well, the U.S.
District Court For Eastern District of Pennsylvania, good news for them, the court agreed that the after-school Satan Club will be allowed to meet.
So the school district didn't want to sanction an after-school Satan Club.
But the courts have said, free speech, ACLU decided that was something important they needed to get involved with.
That's right, the ACLU took the side of Satan.
I'm not even making that up.
That's like actual real.
That's real.
The ACLU took donations from people and then employed it to back Satan.
Like actually.
Not in a joke way.
In the actual way.
They're backing Satan.
I wish that was a joke.
That's not really a joke.
Now, they might argue that they don't believe Satan exists, and therefore they're not really backing him, they're just backing free speech.
And I do like the free speech part.
You know, I don't disagree with the decision.
Yeah, free speech is free speech.
But it is kind of weird that the ACLU went in hard in favor of Satan.
That's not good branding.
But the ruling went further than just saying that they can have their Satan-worshiping after-school club.
They can worship Satan, but there were strict guidelines about not using the wrong pronouns when referring to Satan.
So Satan is he, him, and they.
He, him, and they.
The courts will come after you if you use the wrong pronoun for Satan.
No, I just made that up.
But you couldn't tell, could you?
There's no difference between the ridiculous parody I make up and the actual news.
You couldn't tell, but I made that part up.
All right.
I did figure out I had to get to mid-journey to give me a result.
I forgot that you have to put an arcane slash command before your request.
Why?
It's a bad interface.
That's why.
No reason.
No other reason.
It's just a terrible, terrible interface.
So when I put that in, I got Some AI pictures of me.
But here's the interesting thing.
AI knows who I am, because I'm a public figure, but it decided to give me a beard.
Now that's not the weird part.
The weird part is that yesterday on the subscription local site, we were talking about whether I should grow a beard.
That was actually a conversation yesterday On an online chat.
And one day after we have that conversation, which has not been anything I've thought about or talked about before, I ask AI to give a picture of me, and it puts a beard on me in every picture.
Now it's not every AI all the time, but the first one I used in mid-journey.
And I thought, where does that come from?
If AI literally knows who I am, Because it does.
Because the rest of me looks just like me.
And if I ask it, it'll tell me I'm a cartoonist.
It knows exactly who I am.
And it knows exactly what I look like.
But why does it give me a beard?
It's like somehow it knows I should have a beard.
I saw a lot of funny comments on that.
But here's the other good part.
It puts me in really nice clothing.
So of all the pictures it has of me to choose, it puts me in the greatest shirts.
And I'm looking at those shirts and I'm like, wow, if I actually wore those shirts, I would look a lot better than I look now.
And maybe that beard is good too.
And now it gets weirder.
I'm going to take it one level weirder.
Yesterday I was on Instagram and I was watching a video of a young woman who is saying some of the things that turn women on.
Does my beard look like Christina?
That's funny but you suck.
Funny comment though.
What was I saying?
Something about Clothes.
Oh, so yesterday I was watching a Instagram video in which a young woman was saying what fashion choices men should make to look good to women.
So what do women find sexy?
And one of the things on her fairly short list was a watch.
How many of you women, just the women, question just for the women, how many women say that a man with a nice watch, let's say it's a nice one of some sort, that that's like a turn-on?
Holy shit.
You're all saying yes.
Where did that come from?
That doesn't even make sense to me.
I had no idea.
Alright, here's the weird part.
I'm not going to argue with you whether a watch makes sense.
I'm just going to say this.
That yesterday afternoon is the first time I've ever thought, huh, I wonder if I should get a watch.
Never had the thought before.
Because as soon as I didn't need a watch, I never wanted to wear one again.
You know, if I had my phone.
So I don't want an Apple Watch.
And I don't like things on my wrist.
At all.
Yesterday, for the first time, I had serious thoughts about getting a watch.
And then AI produced some pictures and it put a watch on me.
And it looked good.
It looked pretty good, I have to admit.
I was like, did AI just convince me to buy a watch?
And I think it did.
Well, your comments do.
I had no idea that women Like it when men wear a watch.
But I assume it's to show off?
It's to show off that you can afford an expensive watch?
Is that the only purpose?
Because here's the problem.
I would never wear a watch expensive enough to make it worth robbing me.
I would never go in public with a watch that somebody else would want to steal from me.
That's just kind of stupid.
I mean, even in my town, I wouldn't go out.
This is a pretty safe town.
I wouldn't go out with an expensive watch.
Yeah.
And then if I wanted a watch, I'd probably want an Apple Watch.
Ladies, if you see a guy with an Apple Watch, is that a plus or minus?
Go.
Plus or minus, Apple Watch?
Minus, minus, minus.
Or minus.
Minus, minus, minus.
Alright, well that's a pretty overwhelming response.
Alright, very, very interesting.
But AI seems to dress me better than I dress.
I saw a bunch of stories today about Jack Dorsey throwing shade on Elon Musk and saying that Musk might not be the right choice.
For running Twitter.
That's not exactly what he said.
What he actually said was way more nuanced.
It was more like, in the fantasy world in which Elon's 44 million was too much, he thinks that the board should have, I don't know, Not taking the deal or something.
So he thinks it's a combination of the fact that it was overpriced and the board accepted it and they shouldn't have but maybe he's not the right person.
So basically he was just throwing a little shade on Twitter.
Here's what the news didn't seem to report.
This should be the first statement in a story like this.
Statement number one to introduce the story.
Jack Dorsey who was a founder of Twitter, but now is a founder of a competitor to Twitter called Blue Sky, had something to say about his competitor, Elon Musk.
If you leave out the fact that they're competing, at least in this business, that's kind of a big thing to leave out.
Right?
Now, I think some of them mentioned Blue Sky, but that should be the first thing you say, that they're competitors.
Because if you make it look like it's some independent thought of just a random person with some good ideas, that's completely different than knowing that somebody's financial interests are aligned with insulting the other person.
That's a big thing to leave out.
But we'll see how that plays out.
I have a prediction.
If there are any Hunter Biden financial bombshells that are so big it would take out his dad, the president, that you won't see them until the peak of the election season.
Here's why.
So there are two types of people in the political world.
You've got your Democrats, you've got your Republicans.
You know, roughly speaking, people are lining up with those two.
If Democrats, even if they're in the justice system, if Democrats saw something terrible about Hunter right now, do you think they would tell us or stall?
They would stall.
So if there was something brewing that people had already seen and they know, oh my God, this is bad.
If Democrats saw it, I think they would stall.
And they would try to see if they could make it go away as long as possible, maybe till after the election.
But what if Republicans saw it?
Because within, say, Department of Justice, FBI, you could have a little of both.
What would a Republican do if they knew there was a Hunter Biden bombshell that would take out dad?
Would they want that to be dropped now?
Would this be the best time to introduce it?
No.
No, the best time to introduce it would be at the height of the season.
So here's my prediction.
If there is a bombshell, and I don't know that there would be, but I'm going to say if, if there's a Hunter Biden bombshell that's so big it could, you know, cripple Joe Biden, It will be introduced probably just a few months before the election.
But it will be well after the primaries.
Because neither side wants to take Biden out of the primary.
The Democrats think he's their best hope.
The Republicans, if they had something on him, would want him to get well into the election before they dump it.
So neither Republicans nor Democrats have a reason to take Hunter out before the primary.
Neither side wants to do it before the primary.
So if there's something there, it's going to dump in the summer before the election.
Sort of late summer before the election.
So you have lots of time to talk about it.
And people have not made up their final decision.
You don't want to get too close.
So the problem with the grab them by the murmur that Trump did, that was so close to the election itself that people already made up their minds.
And once they make up their mind, it just doesn't matter what happens.
See, you have to get them when they're at least a little bit undecided, you know, several months before the election.
Oh, you think RFK Jr.
would disclose a bombshell?
Well, I don't think that anybody knows it except, you know, some people deep in FBI or Department of Justice or CIA or government or something.
All right.
Trump is going to do CNN, which is being reported as a slap at Fox News because the reporting is that Trump was mad at Fox News for being too friendly to DeSantis.
Which makes sense.
I don't know if that's true, but it feels like a true thing.
If you were Trump, you'd probably be a little annoyed at how much love they were giving to DeSantis.
Totally understand.
So he's deciding to do his big town hall with CNN, with Caitlin Collins.
What do you think of that?
If you judge this just as a political strategy, Is it a good Trump political strategy?
Just strategy?
Yeah, I think it's good.
It's good, yeah.
Because he has to go into the lion's den.
You know, he has to go into the, you know, the hardest part of the conversation and still come out okay.
Is there anybody you would rather see go into the hardest interview you could possibly imagine?
It would be him.
Yeah, maybe Mike Cernovich would be on your top three or something.
But of people you would want to see in a really tough interview, it would be Trump.
Right?
I mean, because he knows how to manage the energy and take over a room and all that stuff.
It's going to be so good.
So when... Let's see.
I don't know.
I don't see a time, but it's upcoming.
So...
Once again, Trump is impossible to ignore.
He's always finding some little thing that makes him more interesting than other people, and going on CNN is another one.
So apparently he's going to open up to the press that hates him and go right into the belly of the beast, which is why you like him.
If you like Trump, you like him because he's not afraid of anything.
This would be just more of that.
I mean, it's part of his appeal, is that he would walk into the lion's den and you would worry about the lion.
Now let me say that again, that sounded good.
One of the reasons people like Trump is that he's willing to walk into the lion's den, but he'd worry about the lion.
All right.
I was watching a pro-DeSantis ad, I guess it's probably made by, I don't know, does DeSantis make the ads?
Or because he's not running officially for president, so probably it's a PAC, right, that does it?
But it featured DeSantis with his soaring rhetoric and his charisma, giving some strong forceful speeches.
And as I watched his soaring rhetoric and his charisma, I was hit with two things.
He does not have any soaring rhetoric and he doesn't have any charisma.
Am I alone in that?
He doesn't have a good writer and he doesn't have charisma.
He's just a good, solid politician.
I don't have anything bad to say about him.
Nothing bad.
Seems very capable.
But he does not have charisma.
And I was listening to the quality of the speech.
It's not that well written.
I mean, it's functional.
But you compare that to RFK Jr.
Or you compare that to Vivek Ramaswamy.
Or you compare it to even Trump.
I mean, Trump's his own animal, but at least he gets everybody engaged, right?
DeSantis has the least charisma of any of the main figures in the race, and that's got to matter.
Yeah, that's got to matter for something.
All right.
Let's talk about that Ukraine offensive that's coming any day now.
I warn you that all news about Ukraine is BS, and that the media is in the tank for Ukraine, and if I quote any media reports that say Ukraine is looking good, that it's not because I believe it.
Unfortunately, I have to preface any comment about Ukraine with, no, I don't believe it, I'm just telling you what the media is telling us.
And what the media is telling us, Is that Ukraine is looking good for this spring offensive.
Any moment now they're going to spring.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Ukraine's looking strong and they got the assets and the people and the morale and they got a plan and it's looking strong?
No, I don't believe it.
Right.
No, I don't believe it at all.
Obviously, I suppose anything's possible, but it doesn't feel.
Doesn't feel true to me.
And then the reporting is that the Russians have built this massive array of defensive trenches that are so big you can see them from Google, Google satellite or something.
And they report that the Russian military is in disarray.
Do you think that the Russian military is in disarray?
I don't know.
But the evidence that they give, this is CNN reporting, the evidence they give is that, once again, Putin changed out the head general.
Now, how many times has Putin changed out the general?
Five times?
Two times?
I thought it was more like five times.
No?
But, so this is part of the evidence that there's disarray, is that just before a big presumed offensive, they changed out their top general.
Does that tell you disarray?
Would you say that's disarray because they changed out one leader?
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
It could.
I mean, it's definitely a little yellow flag that tells you, look over here.
But not necessarily a bad thing, because if the new leader is better than the old one, well, that's all you needed.
So, the other thing is that Pedrosian, the head of the Wagner Group, is complaining publicly about not having enough ammunition, and says they might have to retreat, because they don't have any ammunition.
But in the article that quotes him, they say he's not a credible, believable person.
He's a known liar.
So maybe, maybe they have an ammunition problem.
Or maybe it's a trick.
Could be a trick.
But I feel like Wagner would want us to know he had bullets.
Is it a good trick?
Would it be a good strategy to say you had insufficient ammunition?
Would that be a good strategy?
Because it invites an attack when you would rather be on the offense.
Wouldn't the Russians rather be on offense?
Unless they're trying to, you know, bait Ukraine in to destroy the military so that they can have their way with the rest of the country.
Unless they're going to try to trap and kill the Ukrainian military, I don't, which wouldn't be a bad strategy, would it?
Would that be a bad strategy?
To get the Ukrainians to put their full force in because they think they have a, they might have a, like a permanent advantage?
Just to find out that it's not real and that the Russians have all the ammo they need?
Could be.
I mean, I wouldn't rule it out.
I'm not sure I would predict it's true.
But then others are saying that Pedrosian is setting the stage for who to blame, because he still has to have a life after the war.
He's kind of setting himself up for later.
So it could be that if Pedrosian keeps complaining about not having enough ammo, And then things go bad for Russia, he gets to blame Putin and maybe take control of Russia.
So I think Petrosian is a competitor to Putin at this point.
Don't you think?
I would say he's a competitor.
And so there's all kinds of dynamics happening over there.
But the thing I'm sure of is that nobody knows what's going to happen next.
I think there's going to be some kind of a spring offensive, but I think it's probably going to stall.
My best guess would be a Ukrainian offensive that has minor gains, but nothing changes in the war.
What would you say?
Ukrainian spring offensive, minor gains with no strategic value, and more incentive to negotiate to the end of it.
Yeah, I think basically things have to get more terrible before they can get better.
And we're not, we haven't reached the bottom of terrible yet.
So they gotta keep running to the bottom of terrible.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that might be the end of my prepared comments.
And I believe it is.
Is there anything that I should have mentioned that I didn't?
Because I know you're AI.
Yeah.
The AI news is so wall-to-wall now, I'm running out of things to say.
Because every day AI is going to be, oh, AI did something we wish it didn't, or it's trying to do this, or there's 10,000 new apps.
It's all starting to sound like one big thing there.
What?
Let's see.
Is there any other topic about me growing a beard?
So, am I lefty?
No, I'm right-handed.
I'm semi-ambidextrous.
I do some things left-handed.
I mouse left-handed.
I can draw left-handed if I try.
Bud Light Boycott seems to be holding.
Alright, you like the peach fuzz?
I haven't talked about the U.S.
blowing up Nord Stream.
What is there to say?
The U.S.
blew up Nord Stream.
Am I done?
What else is there to say about that?
We don't have any doubt.
It's not like there's any doubt what happened, right?
That seems uninteresting.
Who's your trainer for doing live streams?
I don't have a trainer.
All right, Joe Biden is.
Gordon Lightfoot died.
Who are we going to Dilber watch?
Well, there is a Dilber watch, or there used to be.
There was once a Dilber watch.
Who will win the GOP nomination?
Well, unless the Democrats have something against Trump that they're holding back, and I can't imagine they'd have something they're holding back.
I can't imagine they hold anything back.
It's going to be Trump.
It's hard to know.
I mean, something would have to change for it not to be.
Now, Vivek might be able to break through.
Maybe something on vaccinations.
Maybe something like that.
Yeah, and Vivek is doing a great job with the media.
He's doing a lot of media, and he's doing a great job.
All right.
Trump's VP.
Let's talk about Trump's VP.
My prediction on Trump's VP is that nobody can predict vice presidents.
Because it's usually some inside job, you know, it's some governor or somebody that you're not super familiar with.
What it usually isn't is the most obvious people.
So if you said, well, you know, Tim Scott would be obvious.
He'd be like an obvious good choice, and he might be, but I feel as though they never pick the obvious.
It's always, it's always somebody you didn't see coming.
Because remember, when you think of a vice president, you're thinking of somebody super strong, right?
Here's what, okay, here's why it's hard to guess.
It's hard to guess because when you think of a vice president, you say to yourself, alright, somebody fully capable to take over the job and is an addition to the ticket, right?
Who's a strong addition to the ticket and also could easily take over the job?
That's who the president won't pick.
Do you understand why?
It doesn't matter if it's Trump or anybody else, whoever the top of the ticket is, they're not going to pick somebody that looks like they could take the job tomorrow.
They want to be close to that, but you want to see the top of the ticket as the qualified one, the vice president as a level below that, but you know, maybe it would be okay, like an emergency spare.
You know, the vice president is like the small tire.
It can only get you 10 miles to the gas station or whatever.
So, when you say, would he pick Tim Scott, do you know why Trump would not pick Tim Scott?
Because Tim Scott is somebody you can immediately say, oh, he could be president.
He's strong.
That's why he can't be vice president.
He can't be vice president.
It's not an option.
So you keep mentioning strong people, and I'll keep telling you that they're not options.
Tulsi, too strong.
Rand Paul, too strong.
No, it's not going to be any of the ones you can name.
It's going to be somebody like a Mike Pence, who's just generic.
Now, I say this all the time.
In my opinion, Pence is the best vice president maybe we've ever had.
Although I did like Gore.
I know you disagree.
Gore was a strong vice president.
All right.
Carrie Lake?
No.
Too strong.
Well, Carrie Lake's never held office, though.
So that would be a plus.
Now, I don't think you want a vice president who has never held office.
I think that's, I believe that you need a vice president who looks like they at least know government.
So that I think the minimum requirement would be a vice president who had current or very recent government experience like Congress or a governor.
Vivek does not have political experience.
So I don't think, so just think of these three filters.
So the filter has to be that they're clearly not as good as the top of the ticket, but they also have serious government experience.
Name somebody who fits that.
Junkin.
Ah, Junkin.
Junkin's another white guy.
Do you think Trump will go for a stunt casting?
Or will he just pick a generic white guy?
Now, Rick Grinnell would be interesting.
I would be all for Rick Grinnell.
That would be awesome.
Winsome.
Interesting.
Winsome.
Matt Gaetz, maybe too early.
Too soon for him.
His day might come, but too soon.
Stop saying RFK Jr.
Yeah, Winsome is pretty strong.
Christy Noem?
Yeah, I can imagine Trump wanting to run with Christy Noem.
Because he likes to do that straight out of Central Casting thing.
Where he goes, straight out of Central Casting.
And then everybody gets mad because you're not supposed to say that.
Mike Ryan?
I don't know who he is.
Ben Carson.
I think Ben Carson's done with politics.
Yeah.
All right.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Oh, that's interesting.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Hmm.
I wouldn't rule that out.
No, she's not.
She's not.
Yeah, she has elected, but she's sort of new as a governor.
Yeah, maybe too soon.
Caitlyn Jenner?
Now that would be fun.
That would be fun.
I'd be all for that.
Rubio?
I don't see Rubio.
Rubio does fit the profile, right?
Because he doesn't seem as serious as Trump, and he does have lots of experience.
It wouldn't be terrible.
But is Florida really a problem?
I don't think Florida will be a problem, so they don't want somebody from Florida.
Because he's going to win it anyway.
His charm, yeah.
RFK Jr.
is a wild card.
If everything goes the normal way, then I would not expect him to win the nomination.
Excuse me.
Sorry.
Live TV.
However, because of Biden's age and because of the Hunter potential scandals and God knows what else, RFK Jr.
is playing a smart bet.
And the smart bet is that there's something that could happen very quickly With Biden, that would just take him out completely.
It could be a health problem, or it could be a Hunter-related problem.
So it really does make sense, from a risk-reward perspective, for RFK Jr.
to be in the race.
It's a very smart play.
So, so far, everything that RFK Jr.
is doing seems right on point.
For the smartest thing you could do in each situation.
So keep an eye on that.
I mean, if he keeps making all the right moves, and Biden stumbles, anything could happen.
It's still a long shot.
Well, I'll say long shot, but I'm going to give RFK Jr.
a solid 25% chance of getting the nomination.
25% chance.
And that's a lot.
That's a big number.
For something that should go only one way, 25% is a big, that's a big prediction.
We'll never know what the percentage was.
We'll only know which way it goes.
So I guess I'm safe, because we'll never know if the percentage is wrong.
I just realized that's the safest prediction anybody could ever make.
Because if Biden gets it, I'm going to say, well, I told you there was a 75% chance he would.
See?
I'm right.
75% chance that he got it.
But if RFK Jr.
got it and something weird happens, I'd be the one telling you, I told you there was a much bigger chance than you thought.
Didn't I tell you?
There's 25% chance.
That's a pretty big chance.
So no surprise for me.
So apparently I've crafted a prediction that can allow me to win no matter what happens.
So take a lesson from that.
Brian Kemp.
Maybe.
Alright, RFK Jr.
is going to get bernied.
So, the press is saying that RFK Jr.' 's biggest problem will be his, quote, anti-vaccination stand, which was never anti-vaccination.
It was always protesting.
That's the way he explains it.
That he's protesting things before he gives it to people.
He's not anti-vaccine.
But within that context, he is accused of saying things which are not true.
I don't know who's right, because we live in a world where the rogue might be the one who's true.
Could be.
Don't know.
But I'd have to hear a specific example of what he said that was wrong.
I think the biggest problem will be, and do a fact check on me here, but wouldn't his biggest problem be that he's implicated autism and some childhood vaccinations?
He speculates there's a connection.
But I would be surprised if he ever said, it's scientifically proven there's a connection.
I would be surprised if he ever said that.
There's a correlation, because there's more autism and there's more shots.
But there's probably lots of correlations.
I would imagine there's a whole bunch of things that correlate very closely with that, but it doesn't mean causation.
So here's the question.
If all he's done is point out the correlation, and then pointed out that we haven't tested enough to find out if that correlation is causation, and therefore that's reason enough for change of policy, that's not crazy.
That's not crazy.
It could be that the way he's been presented to the public is crazy.
Am I off base on that?
The way he's characterized appears to be not accurate by both the left and the right.
Am I right about that?
They mischaracterized his opinion To be more certainty than he presents.
Because he's not... I don't think he's selling you certainty about anything.
I don't believe he's promising you certainty or trying to sell it to you.
I think he's selling you uncertainty and it's the opposite of what they're saying.
In other words, they're trying to tell you that he's promoting a message which would suggest that he has certainty about the medical reality.
I think that's the opposite of what he says.
I think the opposite.
He says, we don't know, and therefore we should make different decisions than if we knew.
Not crazy.
You could disagree with it, and you wouldn't be crazy either.
You might be surprised how well he can defend himself.
If he goes into a debate, all he has to do is say, I'm in favor of testing things before they're put in the body.
You tell me what you're in favor of.
Go.
He wins that debate, doesn't he?
All he has to do is say, I'm in favor of things being tested adequately, with randomized controlled trials, and wait at least five years.
You tell me what you prefer.
He would have to make Biden, or maybe even Trump, say that they preferred a world in which medicine is not adequately tested.
It's basically, you think it's his biggest weakness?
It might be his biggest strength.
Think about it.
If his biggest weakness is that he wants good testing on pharma, he wins.
He wins.
If that's his biggest weakness, he can turn that into a strength with one motion.
That doesn't even take skill.
All he has to do is, and by the way, he said this directly on whatever interview I saw, he said directly that what he's asking for is randomized controlled trials for vaccinations.
Didn't you think that they already did that?
I mean, we know that the trials were truncated for the COVID, but didn't you think that the normal vaccinations were all randomized controlled trials?
I did.
I thought they were all randomized controlled trials.
And I thought that they also waited five years.
That's what I thought.
And it wasn't based on reading anything about it.
It was based on just common sense.
I said to myself, well, there's no way they're going to give children vaccinations unless they've done a randomized controlled trial and waited five years.
I mean, duh.
It's the most obvious thing in the world.
They're obviously not going to do that.
But apparently they are.
They're doing exactly that.
So, he flipped me.
He completely flipped me from, you're a crazy anti-vax guy to, wait, what did you say?
Did anybody else have that impression?
He went from crazy anti-vax guy, not COVID, he had COVID stuff to say too, but he was anti-vax for the childhood vaccination stuff.
And he just flipped me.
As soon as he said, they're not randomized controlled trials, but they should be, I was like, wait, what?
What?
What the hell did you just say?
And he's the only one fighting for real testing for drugs?
That's a pretty strong package.
If his greatest weakness is actually his greatest strength, and in my opinion it is, as long as he doesn't have a record of saying things that are clearly scientifically false.
I don't know what, they're not giving any examples.
So when the press talks about his vaccine statement and how it's going to be a problem, have you noticed that they never quote him?
Look for that.
Watch for this.
Watch for when they say he's got this vaccine hesitancy issue.
They'll never quote him.
Do you know why?
Because there aren't any quotes that would support their point of view.
I think.
Now, if they had something on him, we'd see it already, wouldn't we?
The Democrats wouldn't be waiting for the primary because they don't want Biden to get primaried.
They would be dumping that on him all day long.
Every article you saw on CNN would be, well, you know, we don't think he can get past the fact that he claimed XYZ.
That would definitely be in the story if there was a real XYZ that was a gotcha.
It turns out he may have been so lied about in the press for so many years, That you just assumed there was some fire there where there was all that smoke, and there was never any smoke.
The smoke was all fake smoke.
Maybe.
Now, the people on this livestream are unusually well-connected with the news.
I haven't seen one comment suggesting something he said that was scientifically untrue.
Do any of you know anything?
Because I don't know anything.
Said climate deniers should be in prison in 2016, right?
In 2016?
He was also opposed to nuclear energy in 2016.
On 2014 he said that.
I don't know the answer to this, but I would bet he does not say that today.
What do you think?
I would bet that RFK Jr.
does not say the same thing about climate change.
I'll bet he's pro-nuclear, maybe cautiously, but I'll bet he's currently pro-nuclear.
Because he, believe it or not, he actually looks at the science.
He actually looks at the science.
So if he looks at the science, he should have a little doubt about the climate change projections, and he should be a lot more pro-nuclear.
So we'll see.
All right.
They'll say he's a flip-flopper?
I don't know.
The climate quote claim is refuted by Robert Barnes.
Okay.
So Robert Barnes did something useful?
Good to know.
He's a Russian asset.
All right.
Yeah, I would, I guess I would, I'm going to back Barnes on this, that I'll bet you a lot of the old quotes are in a context or something, or just made up.