Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump on CNN (wow)
Title 42 Ends
Biden Crime Family fallout
AI rollout coincidences
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and boy, did you pick a good time to be here today.
Talk about some juicy news.
We got some juicy news for you.
But stay around for that.
And if you'd like to prepare, and I do recommend you be prepared, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass.
Or a tankard chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
And join us now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope media, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
And make sure you say, ah, afterwards.
Go.
Ah.
Ah, delightful.
Well, I don't know if you heard, but there was some news last night.
Ex-President Trump on CNN.
We'll talk about that in a moment.
But first, some other palate cleansers before we get to that.
First headline is science is bullshit.
Do you need any details on that?
Just science is bullshit?
Are you good?
That's all you really need on that one, isn't it?
Well, there's a new study that says a third of scientific papers may be fraudulent.
A third.
Now we've heard that half of published papers are not reproducible, which means bullshit.
But apparently a third of the scientific papers, they've got some software that can look for similarities and plagiarism.
And a third of them are just copy-paste, stolen from other science studies.
A third of scientists are just criminals.
Because they have to publish or perish.
So they're just like pulling bits from other people's published work and put it together and hope nobody knows.
And apparently it works.
Because a third of the papers are just copied.
So if you wanted something that would further lower your confidence in the expert class, well, there you have it.
Let me ask you this.
Do you remember that reparations were big news for a while?
Seems like it was in the headlines every other day or so.
And the committee did a bunch of studying, came up with some recommendations, and they changed the recommendations a few times, but it was all news.
News, news, news.
About these reparations.
And then Governor Newsom came out and said, I'm going to ignore all these recommendations because it turns out that reparations are about more than cash.
Oh no.
It turns out that reparations are really, if you think about it, not the cash payments you thought you were getting, not the cash payments we asked you to study, and not the cash payments that we asked you to come up with a framework for how we would do it.
No.
No.
It's really all the stuff we were doing anyway is the reparations.
And we're doing a great job of the stuff we were doing anyway.
And now it's out of the news.
And now it's gone.
Now it might be just because there's bigger news or something.
Maybe it'll come back.
But isn't it funny that the fake news industry can get you all riled up about their story and as soon as it turns completely embarrassing, the narrative just, you can't even tell it anymore.
It's a story you can't even put in the news.
It's just too embarrassing because people like me were calling this from the beginning, oh this is just a white person trick.
Gonna form a committee, study it for a bunch, and then say, I can't do that.
It was obvious from the beginning this was just a play.
And then the play comes through.
It goes just exactly the way I told you it would.
Then it gets ignored because it's ridiculous.
And that was the genius of the move, is it outed the reparations idea as ridiculous without anybody telling them it was ridiculous.
They just had to go through the work of figuring it out and presenting it, and then we could all just look at it and go, oh, well, that's not going to happen.
And then you can move on.
So apparently we're forgetting all about that reparations stuff.
That's over.
It'll come back, but for now it's gone.
What do these four politicians have in common, besides being Democrats?
President Biden, VP Harris, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Fetterman.
Can you think of anything that those four leaders... Yes, yes, no functional brain, right?
Now, Am I just being biased here?
Let me ask you a question.
I feel like I'm just being biased, but you can help me get out of my bias.
Could you name the four Republican top politicians who don't have functioning brains?
Go.
Four Republicans who don't have brains that work.
No, Romney doesn't count.
He's just not doing stuff you like.
No, McConnell's brain is working fine.
Santos is an interesting character, but he's not mentally disabled.
Crenshaw.
Don't throw Crenshaw in there.
No, you're just throwing in all the names of people you don't like today.
Alright, well, How do we ignore the fact that the leader of the country is obviously mentally incompetent?
At least in terms of doing a full day work.
And then the backup plan, the backup plan for the President of the United States is someone who's obviously a public drunk.
A public drunk.
Can't even keep the drinking behind closed doors.
But Kamala Harris, when she appears in public, let's stop pretending, can we?
Let's stop pretending any of that's normal.
No, she's drunk in public when she's doing her job.
There's nobody who can be drunk in public doing their job without getting fired.
Name one person in the real corporate world who could appear multiple times drunk in public, obviously drunk, obviously drunk.
And there's no repercussions.
It's not even a news item.
Don't you think it should at least be discussed at the highest levels of importance?
What exactly is more important than having a leader of your country whose brain actually functions?
Seems important.
But we've actually been gaslighted As a public, we've been gaslighted to the point where four major political entities in the United States, president, vice president, two major senators, and we don't care if their brains are working.
And we've been talked into that being normal.
Somehow that just seemed okay.
We'll just go on with our day.
Leaders don't have brains.
No problem.
Well, anyway, I just thought that was worth noting.
But the funny thing is, no matter how many times I say it, it won't make any difference.
Tomorrow, nobody's going to care that the person one heartbeat away from the presidency is a public drunk.
And obviously so.
We're not even dealing with that.
Just to say that doesn't exist.
No, no, no.
It doesn't exist.
All right, it's not like we haven't had drunk politicians before, but I feel like we've got to do something about it.
So, Title 42 ends.
By the way, Trump could do a lot with that.
The fact that Democrats don't have functioning brains.
Imagine what Trump could do with that.
Just naming those four people and saying, are they even trying anymore?
They're not even trying.
All right, Title 42 ends today.
That was the thing that allowed the border control people to keep some people south of the border because of COVID restrictions or something.
But anyway, that's ending.
And then all the smart people say there'll be a giant wave of immigrants.
Looks like that's going to happen.
But the news that I saw, I think this was Washington, no, Wall Street Journal.
That we don't know how different it's going to be actually.
That it's a little more complicated than that.
So it seems that the Biden administration approach is simply to reduce the illegal part by doing as much as you can to funnel them towards legal ports of entry where they can lie about their status and say they're all They're all escaping from bad situations.
They're not here to get jobs.
So make it easy for them to lie about why they're here.
Some of them are here for the real reason, of course.
But most of them would have to lie.
And so we'll build an app that they can lie and find out where to tell their lie so all the process is legal and fine.
Does that feel like... Yeah, Trump didn't mention Federal, you're right.
Does it feel like that's not even trying?
Yeah, we're doing all these things, but all of them have the collective action of, you know, whether you have to use the app.
I guess there's about an app for the immigrants.
But they all have the same character.
They're just trying to turn a thing that's illegal.
They're trying to legal-wash it.
Is there a name for that?
Where you take something that's illegal, and everybody doesn't like the illegal part, and you just redefine it as legal.
To make the problem go away.
Because if the people come in and use the app and use the appropriate entryways and they lie to the border patrol and say, oh yeah, we're here because of all the danger, not because of the jobs, because of all the danger, then they get in.
And it's legal.
Completely legal.
So we actually legalized lying.
Effectively.
Didn't we?
Didn't we turn every immigrant that we let in into a liar?
Not everyone.
Some of them actually have a real case.
Yeah, we forced them.
Here's your first day in the American sphere.
Day one.
Here's an app and we're going to require you to lie on the app.
What?
Yeah, yeah, to get into the country.
That's it?
Yeah, but we require it.
There's no getting around this.
You have to lie to us.
But you know we're lying.
Well, not every one of you.
Some of you might not be lying.
But you know most of us are lying, right?
Well, can't read your minds.
We don't know.
Maybe.
So that's a pretty weird system we've got going there.
We'll see how that works out.
I have a suggestion for replacing Title 42.
We'll talk about Trump after I'm done with this.
I had an experience yesterday in which I was trying to cancel my Xfinity TV service, but keep their internet and keep the phone service.
I wanted those.
And I'm thinking that if we really want to thwart the people at the border, Instead of making them find an app and somehow get a smartphone and sign up on the app and work through the language issues if there are any, instead of doing that, which I agree is a good first step to thwart the immigrants, make them have a lot of paperwork, because apparently Biden is willing to ship you back if you came here without lying in your own country first.
So apparently you're supposed to go, if you're, let's say, from, I don't know, Venezuela or something, you're supposed to go to some place in your own country, and you do your lying there locally, and then you can legally come into the country.
But if you leave your country and come here and do the lying when you're on our soil, totally illegal, and Biden will ship you back.
Makes total sense, right?
That where you lied makes the difference.
And the Biden administration is going to ship your ass back if you didn't catch the paperwork detail there.
So if we're willing to deport people for bad paperwork, which is all this is, because literally they're saying the same thing, it's just they have to say it in a different place with different paperwork.
That's all.
But if we can thwart them with paperwork, I think that they should hire Xfinity.
To use the same people who thwart you from cancelling your TV service.
Let me tell you what Xfinity did to prevent me from cancelling my service.
See if this sounds familiar to every online service you've ever tried to cancel.
And I start writing down the tricks because, let me ask you this.
Do you remember the first time you ever tried to buy a car as an adult?
And you remember that the salesperson had to go talk to the manager, and they'd be gone for like an hour, and then they'd just do it again.
Oh, I gotta talk to the manager again, I'll be gone for another hour.
And the first time that happened, you said to yourself, well that's a weird little process, but it's probably only something that happens at this car dealership.
And you put up with it and you get your car because you really want a car.
Then someday you talk to a friend or you go back again to buy another car someday.
It's the same thing.
Isn't that weird?
They always have to talk to the manager.
Huh.
And then finally you figure out that the talking to the manager part is all part of the wearing you down process.
They're trying to wear you down.
They're trying to exhaust you, so you'll make decisions that are good for them and bad for you.
Well, Xfinity and other online services do the same thing, and there's no question that this is intentional.
But let me tell you how clever it is, alright?
So first, if you want to cancel Xfinity, you say to yourself, will I call them or try to do it online?
What do you think about when you think about calling them?
What happens to your brain and your body?
Oh, hopeless.
Right.
You know it's hopeless because all of the companies have made it hopeless to call them because they want you to use online.
So the first thing I say is, well, I could call, but I don't want to be on the phone all day and still not get it done.
Because the risk is you spend hours and it still doesn't get done because you can't penetrate their calling problem.
So I go, all right, I'm going to use their app.
And then I find out that the browser refers you to their app.
I'm like, all right, all right.
But they have more than one app, and they're phasing out an app, and they got a new app.
So is it the streaming app, the other app, the My Account app, the one that's being phased out, or is it a new one?
I'm going to use the browser.
But the browser tells me to go to the app, but I finally get the right app.
And when I dig down into the app, the app says, yeah, if you want to cancel, you're going to have to go to the browser.
So this is common.
The first time I saw this, I thought it was just an accident.
But you'll find that most of your online places, when you want to cancel, the browser will refer you to the app and the app will refer you to the browser.
I didn't believe it until I saw it three times in a row.
Three different companies.
And there will be multiple apps and browsers.
Try doing anything with Kaiser.
Three apps, a browser or two, there's a business, there's a personal.
It's impossible.
But I decided I was going to treat it as a competition and not a task.
If I thought that cancelling the service was a chore or a task, I would hate every part of it.
So here's a little reframing tip.
You ready for this?
I reframed it as a competition.
In which I was going to take as long as it took, and I was going to beat them.
I didn't care what it was going to take.
I had an audience, because there was a guy working on my AV at the time.
I had an audience.
I had work to do while I was waiting for all the various things I'd have to wait for.
And I just settled in.
And I said, motherfuckers, you're not going to beat me.
But boy, did they try.
Wow, did they try.
Let me tell you what other tricks they've got.
The first one was that when you sign in to the website, after you're signed in, it redirects you to a sign-in page.
How many times have you seen that?
Just a coincidence, right?
Every time I go to sign in someplace to cancel, the sign-in takes me to another page to sign in.
Now, do you think that that was the second place I signed in?
Do you think that that was the right place?
No.
That's the one that sent me to the app, and the app sent me back to the browser.
And it turns out that the browser does not have any menu choices.
Neither the app nor the browser have any menu choices for cancelling.
But you have to look for a long time to figure that out.
So I go to Google, because I know other people have had this problem, and I Google how to cancel.
And it produces a secret URL.
Motherfuckers.
There's a secret URL.
So I go to the secret URL, and sure enough, that seems to be getting me closer to the mix.
But they have lots of options that look like it would cancel.
For example, one of the options is manage your services.
So you could change what services you're ordering.
Doesn't that seem like an obvious place to cancel?
If you're going to manage your services, you can add to them, you can change them, and obviously, one of the choices would be to cancel.
Obviously.
Nope.
Nope.
You can only add to them.
You can only upgrade.
That's it.
I think you can downgrade, but you can't cancel.
So you have to figure that out.
So you've got Google searching, five different apps and browsers in play.
Then, of course, it sends you to a chat.
Sends you to a chat and then tells you you're going to have to wait for a long time for the chat.
There are five people ahead of you.
Now normally I would bail out at that point.
Too much time.
But not this time.
No, I came to play.
I put that down and I said, I don't care how long I'm going to wait.
I'm going to wait for that chat bastard to come and talk to me.
Sure enough, the chatter finally, finally comes on.
And what does the chatter do?
Asked me the same questions as the last chatter.
Same ones.
Had to verify the account, make sure who you are.
So they're going to have to ask your name and who you are and your account numbers every time you talk to somebody else.
And you're never going to talk to the right person.
So at the end of all this stuff, do you know what the chat person tells me?
Oh, you're talking to the repair people.
That's right.
That wasn't the right place.
It was the place that they sent me to.
Like, I didn't make it up.
It's exactly where they sent me to.
They actually send you to the repair place first.
Because it's the wrong place.
And they say they can't do it.
Now he says he's going to transfer me to the right place.
How often does the transfer work?
Have you ever been transferred to the place that can help you?
Well, it sort of, kind of worked, and then I had to wait again, right?
I just could put it in another queue.
Now here's the other trick.
When you call to cancel, do their computers work?
Do the people you're talking to say, well, my computer is working great today, and not only is my computer working, but the response time is really tight.
I'll get this done, and this could take 10 seconds.
No.
No, they will tell you that there's something wrong with the computer system at that moment, and they can't possibly do this transaction.
But if you waited a long time, maybe they could get it done.
See, they're all trying, and all of this is designed to make you give up.
And under normal circumstances, I would have given up.
Because I always have something more important to do.
And for two years I've been telling myself, I want to cancel that service because I'm paying for it, and it wasn't cheap.
But I always say, no, a full day of my time is not worth the one monthly payment.
Right?
I don't want to spend a whole day Just to avoid one payment of the month, I'll just do it next month.
And then next month, and next month.
So basically, it's a way to make me never do it.
But I was there to play.
So I stayed, and I worked, and I chatted, and I... Let's see, what else did they do?
Yeah.
And then there were lots of misspellings on the chat, which made me wonder...
If the person even knew how to cancel my program.
So now I have to worry if they're cancelling the other services I need, like my internet.
And I'm thinking, oh my god, oh my god, my internet service is going to be cancelled.
But finally, he said he cancelled them, or she, I don't know.
Maybe it happened.
So all I'm saying is that if Xfinity could partner with the Biden administration and simply say, yeah, everybody south of the border, you're welcome to come in.
There are no restrictions.
And then just make them go through the Xfinity process to get into the country.
And that's it.
Nobody else would ever get in the country.
Because the immigrants would be like, fuck this.
I'm going to Canada.
All right.
So Trump did a town hall on CNN last night.
How many of you watched that?
Here are my big takeaways, and I'm going to get into some details because they're all fun.
Number one, you think you remembered how fun he was.
You think you sort of remember it, but you're also sort of glad That you were out of the fight for a while.
Kind of glad not to think about him for a while because he just takes over your brain and sets it on fire.
Oh my God!
I have never been more entertained by an hour of content on a screen.
And I actually mean that.
I don't think... Those of you... I was doing live stream while it happened.
And if you watched, I think you can validate that.
I almost hurt myself from laughing so hard.
I've never seen a performance that good.
Now, did he pass the fact-checking?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Did I agree with everything he said as being true?
No.
No.
So it's not about what's true, right?
And I'm not going to tell you he should be your president.
Because I'm a single-issue voter, and the single issue is fentanyl, and he never mentioned it.
So if you're asking me, you know, do I back him or not because of this performance, no, I don't.
Because he didn't even mention my number one issue.
But, as a performance, I'm going to grade it as a performance.
Oh my God!
There is nobody, nobody in the world that we know of, who could do what he did.
I'll talk about it in detail, but it was amazing!
It was so entertaining.
Again, not on a political scale, but as a performer, it was amazing.
So the first thing I'd say is age is not showing.
So his age did not show at all.
Which is not to say I'm not concerned about it.
I do think age is one of the biggest issues for both Trump and Biden.
But it didn't show.
And that's worth mentioning.
You know, four years from now may be a different story.
But at the moment he looked 25.
In terms of his mental dexterity.
All right.
Somehow we got a friendly crowd at a CNN town hall.
That was weird.
The crowd was very pro-Trump.
And I assume that's just because anti-Trump people just didn't want to go?
Maybe they couldn't get any anti-Trump people to sign up?
I don't know.
But somehow he had the crowd on his side.
And even the questions were friendly from the crowd.
Here's something that I thought was missing from the entire evening, but I didn't watch all of the commentary after.
So can you do a fact check on me?
So here's a fact check I need.
I did not hear CNN harp on racism.
Yes or no?
I didn't hear it.
Was there anything about racism?
And isn't that weird?
Yeah, it's like obviously missing because wasn't that the number one thing?
Why would it be missing?
Did it stop working?
And it makes you wonder if that's a strategy.
Did any of the commentators say anything about racism?
I didn't see it, but I would say that's notable and maybe it's also a compliment to CNN.
Maybe that shows some interest in covering the issues instead of just making stuff up.
Alright.
It was interesting that Caitlin Collins was the interviewer and I'll say a few compliments to her.
Caitlin was very well prepared and very professional and she made the show great.
The two of them were a perfect combination for entertainment, right?
Now, there wasn't much she could do, because Trump totally bowled her over, and he would stop her with one hand.
I was laughing, he does the one-hand stop.
She starts talking, and he just puts up the hand, and he just stops her with the hand.
Yeah, now I'm talking.
So, she tried to ask questions, but when Trump got going, he would just go.
And he would just be talking on top of her and there was nothing that CNN could do.
CNN set themselves up in a way that is hilarious.
They probably won't do it again.
But once the hour was blocked off, they couldn't turn off the camera and they couldn't stop him from talking over Caitlyn because she doesn't have a big booming voice where she could just sort of take control.
But he does.
So he just completely owned the stage, got to say whatever he wanted to say, while she was trying to fact-check him by under-talking.
So he'd say stuff like, and the sun is hot!
And she'd say, in a lower voice, well, the sun is not always hot.
Not at night.
And the clouds are in the sky.
Well, it could be fog.
You know, so she's just under-talking him, like fact-checking him.
But the under-talk fact-checking?
Even if it was correct.
I don't know how much was correct.
Didn't really have the same weight as what he was saying.
So he was just winning and winning and winning.
The fact checking was just bouncing off.
So that was fun.
So Caitlin was dressed in a pantsuit.
All white pantsuit.
Which was the perfect choice.
Because she'd be talking about this E. Jean Carroll stuff and, you know, me-too-ing and misogyny stuff.
So she dressed like a virgin man in an all-white pantsuit.
And I thought, that's kind of clever.
I think it would have been a mistake for her to present herself as an attractive woman.
Because she is an attractive woman.
So she could have gone that way, sold the miniskirt or whatever.
But she went with the most professional, virgin, young man look.
And by the way, she looked great.
It's not an insult.
Style-wise, it was terrific.
Very good.
But it's just funny to see how they plan out the images.
So I thought she did as good a job as you can do in that situation, but it was just an awesome combination of characters, Trump and her.
Some would say that Trump actually grabbed her by the pantsuit.
Anybody?
Grabbed her by the pantsuit?
No?
Alright, we'll let that go.
Of course they had to talk about E. Jean Carroll and the case that she said that he raped her.
The jury found that he didn't rape her, but that he sexually battered her, which is touching, unwanted touching of a sexual nature.
And of course, the whole point of that was that she was defamed.
So it wasn't so much just that she was victimized, she would say, but that she was defamed.
And then CNN put Trump on stage to talk about it.
For those of you who didn't see it, let's see if you can predict what happened.
Did Trump do any further defaming of Eugene Carroll?
Was there any extra defaming that happened?
So if her intention was to stop all the defaming, how'd that work out?
Oh, there was a little defaming left.
He did a little defaming, yeah.
We all got to hear that Eugene Carroll's cat was named Vagina.
Now you might say to yourself, how is that relevant to anything?
It doesn't have to be, it's just really funny.
It just has to be funny.
So Trump did the Rosie O'Donnell move.
You know, the first, 2016, the first debate, he was accused of, you know, bad behavior with women, and he just said, now just only Rosie O'Donnell, and then that became the joke.
You couldn't even think about the accusation anymore because his response to it was too funny.
And here he is dealing with these allegations, and his response is, "She had a cat-deaf vagina." If you picked a billion people to put on stage and have to defend themselves against sexual battery charges, nobody would have ever done it that well.
Nobody has ever defended themselves from sexual charges better than saying her cat's name is Vagina.
I'm sorry.
It's non-intuitive.
But it worked!
And it's not an accident.
If you'd never seen him do this before, you'd say, well, he got lucky.
No, he didn't get lucky.
This is technique.
He has the technique.
He also said... He also said, and this had nothing to do with anything.
He just had to put it in there because it was funny.
That she had referred to her husband as a big ape.
And he pointed out that the husband was actually a great guy.
You know, Trump himself likes the husband.
But she called him a big ape, and here's the punchline.
He's black.
That's right.
He was actually accusing E.G.
He accused E.G.
E. Jean Carroll of being a racist against her own black husband.
Now, I'm not here to defend E. Jean Carroll.
and Carol, but you know how people say, I'm not a racist, I have a black friend?
And then everybody laughs and goes, oh yeah, that's what all the racists say, I have a black friend.
But I feel like if you marry a black man, that should be allowed as a defense against racism.
Does anybody disagree that marrying somebody black should be a pretty good defense against being a racist?
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter at all whether she's a racist or not a racist.
I assume not.
But the fact that he would bring that up at all, because it's so visual, like you can see him.
And then he has to tell us the name of her husband, which has nothing to do with anything.
But his name is John Johnson.
That's right.
So in his effort to describe E. Jean Carroll and give you the frame that he wants, he managed to describe her family as a vagina and a Johnson.
That's right.
Yeah.
I don't know if there are any other family members like children or whatever, but the only ones he mentioned was the vagina and the Johnson.
Now, if there could be a better defense Against sexual battery charges, I don't know what it would be.
This is a defense that's so good it's like for the ages.
I found myself laughing uncontrollably about the fact that E.G.
and Carol was taking him to court for defaming her.
And then he goes on CNN and says she's a racist with a cat named Vagina.
And that's all I'll ever remember about her.
I will never remember anything else about her except her cat's name.
And she may or may not be a racist against her own husband.
Oh, that was classic Trump.
Alright, what else happened?
He did his usual amazing communication job.
So this is what gets lost with Trump.
There is nobody in the world, in the political world, this is my opinion, who can describe a policy and why he wants to do it faster or more effective than he can.
It's really amazing, because he talked about a lot of different topics, and each of these topics he can introduce with a short sentence, followed by a number of other short sentences that fit perfectly, like they all make sense, and in a very tight little package, He's got this little persuasive deal for you.
It was very fun to watch how well he could take complicated things and boil them down into simple.
Now, as part of that, does he oversimplify?
Of course.
To the point of being inaccurate?
Of course.
Does he use hyperbole?
Of course.
Does he pass all the fact-checking?
Not so much.
But I think he's completely aware when he's giving a good argument and when he's just bullshitting.
I'm pretty sure he knows the difference.
But he does both of those things so well.
Nobody can bullshit better than he can.
But also, weirdly, even though he's the king of bullshit, when he has an actual good argument, he can present it in the fewest words with the most punch of anybody you'll ever see.
And he doesn't get credit for that.
Because they make fun of him, he talks like a sixth grader or whatever.
That's the technique.
So here's how he describes some other things.
He described oil as liquid gold.
Just think about that.
Because he turns everything into a visual and something you can feel.
So oil is the thing you put in your car.
But he turned it into liquid gold.
If you knew you had liquid gold under your ground, you'd have to go get it.
But if you knew you had some dark, oily stuff that's gonna gunk up the atmosphere and cause you some climate change and pollute, well, you don't need that so much.
But liquid gold?
Well, I need some of that liquid gold.
Get me some of that.
Yeah, the Beverly Hillbillies.
And then, when he was asked about inflation, what he would do about it, he made the story that energy prices were driven high by Biden.
And you say to yourself, OK, that's probably true.
Biden probably did things that affected energy prices.
And then he says, energy is in all of our other prices, because you need energy to do anything.
And therefore, everything went up.
And I thought to myself, OK, that is not true.
It's true-ish.
I mean, it has more to do with how much money was printed, right?
It was basically, it's a money printing problem.
But it's also true that energy prices went up.
And now CNN does a fact check on this.
I'll talk about this later.
So CNN doesn't buy the fact that what Biden was doing was reducing the amount of oil exploration.
Well, I'll skip it.
CNN's fact check is that Biden was producing as much oil as Trump.
That basically Biden didn't really pull back on anything.
Now that fact check doesn't sound right to me, but I think it's right in some ways.
So it's not as clean as Trump was pro-oil and Biden was anti-oil.
Because Biden's doing a lot of oil stuff, more because he has to.
I think more because he has to.
It's not his first choice because it doesn't go with the climate change stuff.
But there's maybe not that much difference.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that a Trump presidency would produce as much energy from America as a Biden administration?
I don't.
Right.
So in terms of the persuasiveness of the argument, it totally works.
Even if the fact-checking, you know, is more nuanced.
As an argument, it works.
Because he makes it so clean and simple.
I would drill more than Biden.
Therefore, we'd have more energy and your prices go down.
If the price of energy goes down, all the prices of your goods go down.
Boom!
Now, that's true, but it's ignoring the whole printing money problem.
So, it's kind of genius because he simplified it to the way we can all understand it, but he simplified it to the point of being misleading.
Does it matter?
Probably not.
Probably not.
He said he could solve the Ukrainian war in one day, and when asked who he wants to win the war, he would not say Ukraine.
Is that good or bad?
Well, here's how he framed it.
He said, I want people to stop dying, but do you want Ukraine to win or Russia?
I want people to stop dying.
I'll settle this thing in one day.
But do you want Ukraine to win?
I want people to stop dying.
That was the right answer.
It's the high road, right?
The high road, and he made us a promise he could end it in one day.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think he could end it in one day?
Let's say one business day.
Not the first day of office.
But do you think he could end it in one business day?
Look at all the yeses.
I actually think so.
I actually believe it.
Because all you have to do is say, here's the deal.
You better end it now, with all the pain that both of you are going to have to take, or I'm going to crush both of you.
I'll crush both of you.
I will crush Ukraine if you don't end it, or at least negotiate in good faith.
And Russia, I will crush you if you don't negotiate this.
I'll crush both of you.
Because you know what?
Neither of you are America.
That might end it in one day.
If the President of the United States goes in, and credibly, this is the important part, the credible part.
Trump can credibly say, I hope you understand neither of you are of America, right?
And you're fucking us.
We're done with you fucking us.
We don't care what you do to each other, frankly.
But you're done fucking us.
I'm going to come down like a pile of bricks on both of you.
It's done.
Figure it out.
Could he do it in a day?
Maybe.
The beauty of it is you can't really rule it out, can you?
I would say I would bet against it.
You know, I'd bet against it being able to do it in one day.
But I wouldn't bet against him being able to do it.
You know, it would take longer than a day.
But I actually think he could pull it off.
Because he's the only one who would be willing to say, you're not America, Ukraine.
Just remember that.
You're not America.
Hey, Putin, you're not America.
We're not on either of your side.
We're on our side.
And you better cut it out, because you're too expensive.
I think he can do it.
All right.
I had criticized him for calling Ron DeSantis desanctimonious, but when I heard him use it in context, spoken as opposed to on paper, because I'd only seen it in tweets and written form, and I didn't like it, but when he throws it in a sentence without stopping, he's just talking about somebody else, he goes, yeah, and then Ron DeSanctimonious did this, it worked.
He totally sold that thing.
I didn't think he could sell that.
Because it just doesn't look right in writing.
But when you hear him say it, you go... So this is what I said in the man cave last night.
When he says Ron DeSanctimonious, and he doesn't slow down, he just keeps going on with his sentence, it makes you say, wait, what did he say?
And you back up, you replace it with DeSantis, and they say, oh, where's he going?
And then you have to catch up to the rest of the sentence.
Nobody can make you focus Better than that.
Like, he draws you in, and then you can't look away, because even within one sentence, he's giving you an adventure.
There's an adventure within the sentence.
Because you have to check that name in your head, roll it around, and then he's already talking ahead, and then you gotta go catch up to him.
He's making you work to be part of the sentence.
It's a phenomenal technique.
Phenomenal.
Alright.
There are a lot of things that Trump said that failed the fact-checking.
We'll talk about that in a bit.
But feel true, which is what he does best.
Now, you're going to vote on how you feel.
So making people feel something is the whole trick.
It's not about what you think, it's how you feel.
And here are some things which he makes you feel the right thing without the right facts.
So when he talks about the election being rigged, he does not have the facts to back that up.
He says he does.
But doesn't it feel like it's true?
Because you live in a country where, I started off saying, one-third of your scientific papers are fraudulent.
Fifty percent of them can't be reproduced.
You know, we live through Russia collusion, we live through the old vaccination bullshit, the pandemic bullshit.
We're in a period in which all the experts have been outed as unreliable.
All of them.
And the claims that were made about the election was in a different time.
It was a different time.
The 2,000 mules has been debunked.
And the time now is people don't believe anything from authority.
They believe nothing from authority.
And that's the right take, by the way.
That is the correct view.
And so Trump is now operating in a world in which the public has been trained not to believe anything.
So when he says the elections are rigged, there is no... I'm not aware of any facts that would back that up.
And it feels true.
What do you think?
Would you agree with that statement?
That there's not a confirmed fact.
Let's say a confirmed fact.
You think there's evidence, and maybe there is.
But there's no confirmed, you know, court-approved, validated fact that says any elections were rigged.
But it sure feels like it.
I try to be as skeptical as I possibly can about anything that important.
So I keep my skepticism nailed at 100% until there's something that just kicks the shit out of it and I have to change my mind.
And even I say it feels like it was rigged.
I don't have any evidence of that.
But it sure feels like it.
So his ability to go with what feels right over the fact-checking is really effective.
You could argue it's morality or ethical context.
All right, here's some more of those he did.
Oh, so here's a clever framing on abortion.
As you know, the Republicans have a huge problem selling their views of abortion to anybody who's on the other side, because nobody's buying that.
And Trump was asked if he would be in favor of some federal ban on abortion.
And his argument was that it was a great success of his to get rid of Roe v. Wade.
To which I say, was it?
How was that a Trump success?
He's not in the Supreme Court.
And any Republican would have picked conservative judges, right?
So basically, any Republican would have gotten to the same place.
Yeah, he did pick them, but any Republican would have been in the same place.
That said, I would give it to him.
I would give it to him as an accomplishment.
What would you say?
It just wasn't It wasn't hard.
It wasn't hard, but it did happen.
The hard part was winning the election.
So I'll give him 100% credit for winning the election, and that allowed him to pick the judges, and I don't think another Republican would have necessarily won in 2016.
So I guess we can give him credit for that, but the real credit is that he won the election to be in that position.
All right.
So he takes credit for that, but then he adds this nuance that I hadn't heard before.
It's really clever.
He says that what he did by getting rid of Roe v. Wade, taking credit for that, is he gave conservatives, listen to this framing, he gave conservatives some negotiating power at the state level.
So he's still saying the states get to work out what they want to do.
But now because Roe vs. Wade doesn't end the conversation before it starts, there's actually something to talk about.
And the way he frames it is, I'm not telling you what I want the law to be, I'm saying I want everybody to be happy.
I want everybody to be okay with whatever the law is.
Which is really clever.
That's really clever.
Because always before, it was black and white, my opinion should be the law of the land.
I've said before that the one person who should not express an opinion on abortion is... Who's the one person in the whole country who should not have a public opinion on abortion?
Well, a man.
Okay.
That's a separate argument.
The president.
Yeah, the president should never be... Either should stay out of the conversation completely, or should be in favor of life in all situations.
You don't want your president ever to say, You know, life is special, but I got this special case where maybe we don't need so much life here.
You don't want a president who would ever, ever be in favor of less life.
But there are real life situations where people have to make decisions.
And I think that has to be driven down as close to the individual as possible.
And the state is a lot closer to the individual than than the federal government.
So I kind of like that.
I'm not sure he sold that completely, but I like where that's going.
And when asked where he would want the abortion limit to be, how many months or in what conditions, he said, with exceptions, some Reagan exceptions like rape and incest or something else, or the health of the mother.
And those sound reasonable to most people, even if you disagree.
You're within the reasonable zone, right?
Reasonable people could disagree on rape and incest.
They could disagree.
But you wouldn't say the other side is crazy.
That's just a disagreement, right?
So that's okay.
You know, people disagree.
But I love his framing that he wants a situation that's negotiated.
Negotiated by the people who are closest to the individual.
He doesn't say it that way, but he's inferring that.
And that he wants them to be happy.
I love that.
I love that as a presidential framing.
I want you to be happy with the decision.
You're not trying to make me happy.
Isn't that great?
You're not trying to make me happy about abortion.
I'm not having any abortions.
He's saying my job is to make you happy with the result.
I love that.
That's so good.
And that it would be negotiated and that he's removed the only limitation to that negotiation happening.
That is really good framing.
It's as good as you can do.
Who knows if it's enough, but it's as good as you can do on that question.
I haven't seen anybody do it better.
And then he talks about all those documents.
When he talks about Document Gate, he just throws so much bullshit into the conversation that the viewer has no idea.
If he did anything wrong or right.
And, you know, there's this nuance of, well, he tried to, you know, maybe he tried to resist giving them back, but he says he was negotiating.
And, you know, maybe it's the same as Biden, but maybe it's not the same because Biden, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then he says that all of his documents were declassified.
And then CNN fact checks him and says, no, there was no process by which you declassified them.
Is that a good fact check?
So Trump says they were declassified and CNN says no.
There was no action taken so that the lack of action taken shows they were not declassified.
So here's the correct answer.
The correct answer is that the law does not specify a process and that means the process is whatever the president says it is.
And he said the process was, if I take it out of the White House, it's declassified.
You're done.
I think the fact check is completely wrong on this.
If there's no process, the process is whatever the president says it is, and he said that was the process.
If I remove it, it's declassified.
That should be the end of the story.
Of course, it won't be.
But he did a good job on just confusing the issue by blaming everybody else.
Alright.
Now he was asked about, you know, January 6th, he said he would pardon, he's leaning toward pardoning some substantial amount of the January 6th people, but not all of them because they might have been actually violent.
CNN fact checks that by saying that there were hundreds of violent people and they don't, they stop short of saying that only violent people are being held.
And that's really the question, isn't it?
So the fact check looked illegitimate to me.
Because a correct fact check would say, well he says, not the violent ones, but here's how many were violent, and here's how many were not.
That would be the fact check.
Not, many people were violent.
That's not a fact check, that's propaganda.
But, apparently, Congressperson Byron Donalds, was on CNN and panel discussion and I heard really good things about his I'll call it a performance as well.
And I've seen a little bit of Byron Donalds and I like him a lot.
He's really good.
He's a good speaker.
And this, what he said further in a tweet, further shows me that he's the real deal.
So I would keep an eye on Byron Donalds.
I feel like he's a rising star in the Republican Party.
But here's what he said in a tweet.
He said, the American people aren't speaking about the 2020 election, a liable case after 25 years, or January 6.
And I thought to myself, well, that's perfect.
That is true.
Those are the three least important things.
We've kind of moved on.
We're sort of talking about what can you do for us in the future, and we're kind of over the election, we're kind of over E.G.
and Carol, and we're kind of over anything in the past, January 6th.
And I love the fact that a representative of the Republicans would talk about the future and say, stop obsessing about the past.
Because that is a really good Republican view for everything.
The rest of the Republican Party, and Trump himself, should take the lead of Byron Donalds.
Because by minimizing the past and saying, we've got future problems, and we've got current problems, how about we talk about those?
You can't get a better high ground than that.
That's the ultimate high ground.
Forget about the past.
Let's work together in the future.
So very strong, very strong from Byron Donalds.
Here's CNN with its fact checks that made me laugh.
The first one's a mind-reading fact check on the question of strict voter ID laws.
And so they say, but it is true that most Democrats have been against stricter voter ID laws in the past.
But, on grounds that these laws could disenfranchise voters who may not have access to necessary identification, not in order to illegally obtain votes.
So this is a CNN fact check in which they're using as their fact their ability to read the minds of the people who wanted, you know, didn't want stricter voter ID laws.
And they can read the mind and they know that what's in there, okay I'm picking up now, No, they actually are honest people who just want to make sure that voters are not disenfranchised.
It has nothing to do with the fact that it would almost certainly give you more Democrat votes.
We're looking for that in their minds.
Nothing.
Nothing there.
So they actually did a mind reading fact check.
How many people noticed?
How many of their readers read that and said, well, you don't know what people are thinking.
Once you see that model that people are mind reading, then you see it everywhere.
But until you see it, you just read that and go, oh, okay.
All right, here's another fact check.
Republicans have argued, oh, talking about the letter that the 50 prior Intel people signed about the Hunter laptop.
The fact check, so Trump said that the The lying letter that said the laptop was Russian disinformation, he said it cost them the election.
It changed votes.
The CNN fact checks him and says, Republicans have argued that the letter helped discredit negative stories about the Biden family just before the election.
But there's also no proof that the letter swayed the outcome of the election.
There's no proof.
Was there not a national poll that said that 17% of people would have voted differently?
Now, would you call a poll proof?
No.
No, a poll is not proof.
How can you prove the past?
It's an unprovable situation by its nature.
You can't prove what would have happened if something else had happened in the past.
You can't prove the past.
You might be able to prove the future.
Like say, if this happens, you know, set up a controlled experiment or something.
But you can't prove the past.
That if something else had happened, something else would have happened.
That's not a real thing.
And for them to ignore the fact that there was a poll where people actually said they would have voted differently.
Now, I don't believe the poll.
I don't believe that poll.
I do not believe 17% would have voted differently because of that one thing.
By then people were pretty locked in.
Now if CNN had said that, that would have been a good fact check.
If they said, so close to the election people don't really change their mind, I would have accepted that.
But to say there's no proof and therefore it can be dismissed, that's propaganda.
You have to at least mention the poll, even if you're dismissing it, you have to mention it.
All right.
Here's one that really surprised me but answered a big question.
So Trump tried to blame then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not accepting more security during January 6th.
So he says that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of security and didn't do a good job and that's partly why January 6th went bad.
Now he got fact-checked because Nancy Pelosi was in fact not in charge.
Did you know that?
Nancy Pelosi was not in charge of security.
Here's who was.
This is the first time I've ever heard this.
I'm sure it's better than the news, so that's on me.
But this is the fact check on CNN.
The Speaker of the House is not in charge of the Capitol security.
Who is in charge is the Capitol Police Board.
So that's who was in charge, the Capitol Police Board.
What was that?
Do they have a boss?
Is that not the question you're asking?
Well, let me answer that.
The Capitol Police Board is made up of the, it's a body that governs the United States Capitol Police, so they're in charge of the Capitol Police, and it consists of three voting members.
The Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States House of Representatives, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol.
The Architect of the Capitol.
What the hell is that?
What's the architect of the Capitol?
And, you know, the sergeant-at-arms of the Senate and also the House, I assume that they're just like head of security, basically.
So the head of security for the Senate, the head of security for the House, and then some architect?
The architect of the Capitol?
What?
Now don't you think that this explanation that I had to Google, do you think that it shouldn't maybe explain who the architect of the Capitol is?
Does anybody know?
Is that some administrative job?
All right.
So now imagine this.
So imagine that you need to quickly add some security to the Capitol building.
You need to quickly add some security.
But you can't do anything until you got the architect of the Capitol and then these two sergeant-at-arms together.
It was a committee.
That explains everything.
The reason there was no quick security during January 6th is that who was in charge was a committee of people that nobody knew.
It was a committee of strangers.
Have you ever seen an interview with any of those three characters?
Has CNN ever interviewed the architect of the Capitol to ask why the architect of the Capitol didn't agree to more security?
Architect of the Capitol is the facilities manager, you say.
Now, the architect is under Pelosi's direction, maybe.
And Pelosi is the one who nominates the sergeant-at-arms for the House.
So Pelosi had sway with those three individuals, but it was a committee.
That explains everything, doesn't it?
If I told you that security did not come quickly when they should, obviously should have, and then I say, oh, it was a committee decision, aren't you done?
That would explain the whole thing.
It was just a fucking committee.
So they basically didn't have the right management structure to get anything done quickly.
Just didn't have the structure.
It is, however, true that if Pelosi had talked to any one of those people and told them to do it, they would have done it.
Do you agree?
If Pelosi had said to any one of those three people, even the Senate one, which she had no sway over, Just call them up and say, we need security fucking now.
They're not going to say, we're going to talk about it.
We'll get back to you.
They're going to give her her security.
Because they can't face her after that, can they?
Imagine having to face her after they said no.
So I think Trump was right in, he's emotionally right.
He's not technically right.
Nancy Pelosi was in charge.
But doesn't he feel right?
It feels like he's right, doesn't it?
Even though technically he wasn't.
So he does a brilliant job of feeling right when he's technically wrong.
And I don't even criticize that.
Because the way you feel is a big part of the whole deal.
All right.
Let's see, asked about, he also talks about his perfect phone call with Brad Raffsenberger about the finding the votes and here's how they fact-checked that.
So of course he said, I wasn't trying to tell you to make up votes, of course he said that he thought the election was rigged and that there would be legal uncounted votes if he just looked for them.
Now that's exactly, obviously what he was thinking, obviously what he was asking for, and obviously that was the right defense.
But here's what CNN says, it's a brazenly false claim.
I didn't ask them to find anything.
That is a brazenly false claim, as CNN and other organizations obtained recordings of the call in which Trump repeatedly suggests that Georgia election figures should be able to find thousands of votes and fraudulent ballots.
Specifically, Trump said, I just want to find blah blah blah.
So do you catch what's going on here?
So CNN and others have been accusing him of telling Raffsenberger to invent or cheat.
The claim all along is that Raffsenberger was being asked to cheat, although the word was find.
So Trump made the verbal mistake of saying, I didn't ask them to find anything, when he had used the exact word find.
But once he explained that find means to see if there are any uncounted legal votes, that should be the end of it, right?
But instead, once they've been completely debunked for what they've been saying forever, forever, CNN has been saying that he was asking them to do something illegal, as soon as he clearly explains that no, it was in the context of thinking that they hadn't counted it right, Because there's no answer to that.
Once he says, obviously, this whole conversation is because you believe that I believe it was rigged.
Right?
The whole context is, CNN believes that Trump believes, correctly, they correctly believe that he believes it was rigged.
So in that context, when he says, find votes, it's obvious he means uncounted legal votes.
It's obvious.
So they had to abandon that as soon as he was there in person to debate it.
And the way they abandoned it was to call a fact check on him saying he didn't ask them to find anything.
But they had said so many times that he had asked them to, like, invent votes.
I think he thought he was denying the invent votes But he used the word find.
So I think he just misspoke.
And then they had to fact check the misspeaking because they could no longer fact check the central claim.
That was a clever move.
All right.
Trump claimed that the U.S.
has provided 171 billion to Ukraine but that the European Union only gave 20.
So they fact checked that and they said both assertions are false.
No.
I'm sorry.
You think that U.S.
gave $171 billion and the European Union only $20 billion?
I'm sorry.
Both claims, false.
Here's what's true, according to CNN.
The European Union has provided $37 billion.
Where's the other part?
Both claims are false.
Oh, the other claim is that we don't have enough ammunition.
So Trump said we don't have ammunition for ourselves right now.
And they fact check it because we still have some ammunition for ourselves.
Did you catch that?
Trump said we don't have ammunition for ourselves.
They said that's false.
We have some ammunition for ourselves.
But neither of them said how much.
Those are both the same statement.
How many times have I had to teach you that nobody ever means everybody?
It's never an absolute.
The country is running out of oil.
No, that still means we have oil left.
The population is declining.
No, there's still some people alive.
There's a high crime rate in some demographic.
No, most of them are not committing any crimes.
It's never everybody.
It's never everybody.
And so when you see anybody fact check somebody's alleged claim of an absolute, the fact checker is the criminal here.
You don't fact check a statement that's obviously not meant to be an absolute.
But they did.
And then, is he so wrong?
So he said the U.S.
put in 171 and the European Union only put in 20.
But they're like, no, that's so wrong.
They put in 40.
But what about the 171?
How does that change Trump's argument at all?
You're like, oh, they only put in 20.
Well, you know, if they'd put in 40, I'd be good.
No, it's 171 is your bogey.
Or that's your target.
40 is not really close to 171.
Neither is 20.
So again, Trump is emotionally correct.
You can feel it.
You can feel that the US is putting in more than the European Union.
And they fact check it.
Now, I like the fact check.
I should know that it's closer to 40 than 20.
But it doesn't change his point.
It doesn't change his point at all.
And then the running out of ammo thing is just CNN bullshit.
Then the border wall.
This is just so brazen.
Trump claimed that he had finished his promised wall on the border with Mexico.
He said, quote, I did finish the wall.
I built a wall, he said.
I built hundreds of miles of wall.
And I finished it.
And then I said, we have to build some more.
What does that even mean?
What does it mean to be finished if you need to build more?
For me, having to build more is the opposite of being finished.
But of course, he got fact-checked like crazy because not much of the wall got built.
But the fact that he would just like throw that out there, it was hilarious.
All right, that's the case where he knew he was full of shit, but he's selling anyway.
All right.
Here's an interesting one.
So he was accused of not caring enough about Mike Pence's safety during January 6.
And Trump says to us that he doesn't believe that Pence was actually, quote, in any danger during those several hours.
What do you think of that response?
Trump said he wasn't in any danger.
In retrospect, after the fact, with what we know now, is it true?
He was surrounded by men with guns, was he not?
Was he not surrounded by armed men?
In retrospect, he was safe.
Because the people coming after him apparently did not have the same level of weaponry.
So he actually was safe, because they would have shot the first person who came through the door, just like Ashley Babbitt.
Now, you don't know.
If it were me, I wouldn't feel that safe.
I mean, if I were Pence, I would definitely say I don't feel safe.
But it's not a bad argument.
It's not a bad argument.
Yeah, the guns probably would have protected him.
But you don't know.
I mean, this is one where he's technically, he's probably technically correct.
But this is one where it doesn't feel right.
You see the difference?
He became CNN in this case.
He's giving you a technical answer.
It doesn't feel right.
I like my vice president to be alive.
I like my vice president to be protected.
And I love me some Mike Pence, which I say all the time.
Don't agree with him.
I don't agree with his opinions on stuff.
But he is an honorable patriot.
And I'm totally in favor of him.
All right.
Let's see.
They fact-checked Trump saying that he got NATO to spend more money.
Have you ever heard that fact-check before?
So Trump says, yeah, I got NATO to put up all this extra money.
And here's the fact-check.
So did Obama.
It's been trending this way and it's just more of the trend.
Have you heard that before?
Have you ever heard that Obama got them to spend more money too?
And that this was basically a continuation of an upward trend?
I don't know how true that is.
Because it's a little sketchy the way they present it.
It feels like they're trying too hard on that one.
But I'll take the fact check that Obama also increased.
That's probably true.
It was the eighth consecutive year of rising defense spending for the NATO countries.
All right.
So Democrats were trying hard to defend the Biden crime family and their defense has approached parody.
Which is the fun part, the part where I get interested.
I like it when the ridiculousness rises to you can't tell a parody from a real thing anymore.
It looks like it's all just a joke.
But their defense is that, oh sure, there might be plenty of evidence of a Complicated web of companies that don't provide actual services, but do take money from foreign nationals who may be our adversaries in some cases.
And it does seem that they gave that money to the Biden, Hunter Biden, and some other family members.
But here's the important part.
No evidence was presented that any of that money went to Biden or that any of his policies were influenced by it.
That's the defense.
Oh, yes.
Yes.
His family was a criminal enterprise.
Well, that's true.
Yeah.
But there's no evidence that that money went to him.
Let's see.
What evidence do we have?
We do have evidence that Hunter complained that he had to give a lot of his money to his dad.
I don't know.
I would call that evidence.
It's in writing.
In the actual words of the Principal person.
How about the fact that there's documentation that Hunter was renting a room at his parents' house for $50,000 a month?
Or rented the house?
Was it the house or a room?
I can't remember.
But when you heard that, did you think to yourself, wow, that's a lot of rent.
Seems almost higher than the market would demand.
It's almost as if it was a way to give his father money That was laundering it.
So I'm pretty sure that there is evidence that Joe Biden benefited.
You can't say it's proof.
I'd have to see it in a court of law with all the, you know, counterpoints, etc.
But there's evidence.
There's certainly evidence.
And I'm thinking, where does this go next?
The next place it would go is, all right, all right, sure.
We do have evidence that the money came from adversary countries through the Hunter crime family.
And some of it did end up in Joe Biden's pocket.
But there's no proof he ever spent it.
Yeah, there's no proof he spent it.
And it's just going to get stupid.
Oh, he took the money.
Yeah, he took the money.
But he didn't spend it.
Or the next one will be, Well, yeah.
He did take money from people trying to influence his policy, but he was going to make that policy anyway.
I mean, he was going to do that anyway.
It just makes sense.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, things did go the way that that company wanted them to go, but you know, things were going to go that way anyway.
Sort of like NATO.
NATO was going to give us more, or European countries were going to give more money to NATO anyway.
It was going to happen anyway.
Anyway, that's funny.
Let me now test the intelligence of my audience.
Can you give me the answer before I ask the question?
Go.
Give me the answer before I ask the question.
I won't even look.
I'll look up now?
Good.
That is how smart you are.
And the question was, Rasmussen did a poll on how many people think the Biden crime family accusations are in the serious category, or two different categories.
But 69% said that the Biden family accusations are a serious issue.
But the real question I wanted to ask you is how many polled think it's not serious? 26%.
26%.
You basically got it.
Yeah, 26%.
And that's how smart my live stream audience is.
There has never been a smarter audience in the history of politics and life itself.
They can tell you the answer before the question is asked.
If you'd like to see me do this demonstration over and over again, well, there's no limit to how many times I can do it.
All right.
Why are we okay that the Vice President is drunk in public?
I just feel like I need to say that every 10 minutes.
Why are we okay with that?
Like, why is that okay?
Alright, I'm done with that.
Here's a question I asked.
Does it strike you as suspicious that a whole bunch of companies that could never make a good AI product before, suddenly they can all do it this year?
Does it seem weird to you?
That couldn't do it at all, or not really well enough to make any kind of commercial product out of it.
But now everybody can do it.
So Google is now getting ready to roll out their version.
They've already got this thing called BARD, but they're going to work on the search as well.
So doesn't that seem a little bit coincidental?
Now here are the theories which I got.
The theories are, number one, they share discoveries.
But do you think that competitive companies are sharing the good stuff?
Are they?
Or it could be just employees leave one company and take their knowledge to another.
Could be that.
So probably there's a lot of one company paying double to hire away a good engineer.
So you'd expect that they could afford to hire away the good engineers so maybe they're all just working with the same knowledge after a while.
Could be that.
The other thing is there was a technical breakthrough which became common to all of them.
So around 2017 there was this technical breakthrough What are they called?
Transformers.
So a transformer is a technical word that relates to the AI field.
And what it is is, well, Can I just read you the definition?
Because I think the definition is really self-explanatory.
I don't want to use my words, because it could be confusing.
So I'll just give you the simple explanation, because this might be the key thing that unlocked AI and made it work for everybody.
So, just in simple terms, this is what it is.
Alright, to solve the problem of parallelization, transformers try to solve the problem by using, now hold on, convolutional neural networks together with attention models.
And then the attention boosts the speed of how fast the model can translate from one sequence to another.
But the idea behind the attention mechanism was to permit the decoder to utilize the most relevant parts of the input sequence in a flexible manner by a weighted combination of all the encoded input vectors with the most relevant vectors being attributed the highest weights.
And that's what you thought it was, right?
I probably didn't add anything to your current knowledge, because that's exactly what you're thinking.
You're thinking, well, is this some kind of thing to... Does it involve weighted combinations of all the encoded input vectors with the most relevant vectors being attributed to the highest weights?
Yes.
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
It's what you were thinking.
So, good for you.
You got that one right, too.
But it could be that this... Now, keep in mind, this was 2017.
So everybody got this new knowledge about this transformers kind of thing.
So they got that in 2017.
And it took them all exactly this amount of time to produce the commercial model.
There's something we don't understand.
Do you believe that?
Isn't there something?
There's at least one variable that we don't understand.
Because this is too much of a coincidence.
Now it could be that sharing of employees thing, but you know usually they're in some kind of a non-disclosure agreement situation, but maybe that just doesn't work in this world.
Here's another possibility.
That the AI technology came from the government.
That the government knew how to do it.
And they made it available to some select big corporations because they want the United States to be competitive in much the way the internet was boosted by our government, because the internet would be so important to everything.
It could be the AI is so important that our government said, we do have some good secrets and we're going to allow you to see them.
Now, here's what I would watch for, to see if that's the case.
What I'd watch for is technical countries, countries that have good technology, let's say South Korea.
If South Korea does not come out with its own independent AI, real soon, what would that tell you?
Well, it would tell me it's not because of this Transformers stuff, because they all had access to it.
What about China?
I suppose China doesn't come out with a good AI anytime soon.
So the fact that it seems to be American companies who all sort of suddenly could do this, you know, Microsoft can do it and Snapchat can do it, now Google can do it, Apple's working on a version probably.
I don't know.
I feel like the government's involved.
What do you think?
Just a speculation.
No.
Maybe DARPA?
I'm seeing DARPA being suggested by a lot of people.
I don't know.
I'm not confident in that speculation.
So if you told me the government was not involved, it wouldn't shock me.
But it feels like there's a big unexplained element.
And when there are big unexplained elements, I look in the same places.
All right.
Did you know, relevant to nothing, do you know OpenAI, sort of the biggest first one, has a board member named Will Hurd?
Yeah, it was announced he recently joined the board of directors for OpenAI.
Let's see, what was his previous job?
Before that, he was something else.
Before that, he was something else.
And before that, he was CIA.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this was possibly the best live stream you've ever seen.
Trump is back and he's looking strong.
I'm still backing Ramaswamy because he's younger and tough on fentanyl.
And I do like RFK Jr.
though.
He's got some good stuff to offer.
Good for the country to have that conversation.
It's just great.
I'm loving so far this presidential cycle.
Because it is introducing us to refreshing elements, and we need it to be refreshed.
