Episode 2106 Scott Adams: Trump Changed Everything On CNN, Migrant Surge, Economy, Twitter CEO!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump makes Anderson Cooper need therapy
Migrant surge begins
Economy better than expected
Simulation winks
Daniel Penny victim of racism
New Twitter CEO
Bard is the CNN of AI
CNN prefers war over Trump
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 that's called Scott Adams.
Coffee with Scott Adams.
That would be the actual name of it.
And aren't you happy you're here because we're gonna have some fun today.
The news is serving up some goodness.
The simulation is treating us right.
My technology is all working.
I feel like everything's going our way, and we're going to keep that pattern up.
And if you'd like to take it to a new level of wonderfulness, all you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a sty, and a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
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 happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Well, let's talk about some things.
A little update on me.
Many of you had asked if I could Give you Dilbert Comics with all of my crazy political thoughts.
And yes, you can get the whole package of goodness if you're on the Locals platform.
Subscription at scottadams.locals.com.
You can get the Dilbert comic and also the Robots Read News comic that I do.
It's a little bit edgier.
And all my Man Cave, Livestreams, and other goodness.
But, if you only wanted the comic, I tried to sign up for Twitter's subscription thing, and I'd have a lower price point for people who just want the comic and no nonsense.
However, there is a user interface problem that I can't yet solve.
Some say I just have to wait.
In other words, I signed up to offer a subscription, Clicked all the boxes, everything's complete, but it doesn't offer me any options for tweeting that way.
I know where to look, I know what it's supposed to look like, just nothing happened.
So, I don't know if nothing will ever happen, and I'll never be able to figure out how to offer subscriptions, or maybe it'll just come alive in a few days because something has to be approved.
I think it might have to go through Apple's approval first.
Anyway, that's coming.
Wall Street Journal had a job satisfaction survey, and you won't believe this.
Job satisfaction is at a 36-year high.
Does that sound true?
Job satisfaction is at a 36-year high.
Well, I have some hypotheses for why that could be true.
Now, the article talks about people liking hybrid work.
People are enjoying working at home more days compared to working at work.
That makes sense.
Doesn't that make sense?
Yeah.
However, I have another hypothesis.
That after two years of pandemic, and people saw what it was like to be home with their families, the jobs started looking really good.
Like, oh, I cannot wait to get back to work.
So it could be that we're coming off a comparison that wasn't as good as you think it should be.
And people are just kind of happy to get back to work.
So it might be that.
It could be this hybrid work thing.
I think that makes a difference.
Imagine going to your work and half of your co-workers are home.
What does that do for you?
You go into the office, but half of the office is home.
That's half as many assholes.
What causes all of your problems at work?
It's the other people.
It's the other people, especially when they're there in person.
So if you can reduce the number of other people that you work with by 50% because they're working at home, well, that's got to help you a little bit.
Got to help a little bit.
So there's all that.
Anyway, surprising and wonderful.
It also found that men had higher satisfaction than women in every component of their career, or their job, I guess.
Especially in areas such as leave policy, bonus plans, promotions, communications, and organization culture.
It's almost as if, if you put men and women in exactly the same situation, that the men would complain less.
But that's not possible, is it?
All right.
I've never met a woman who loved a job, but I know they exist.
That's not true.
I'm exaggerating.
But generally speaking, my experience is that generally, with lots of exceptions, women hate working.
Like they hate a job with a boss.
And men, I don't know if we like it better, but maybe we feel like we're supposed to be doing it.
So it feels different, maybe.
So I've never questioned the concept of me working, because I knew I didn't have an option.
If you don't have any options, you just say, well, that's what I do, and you go do it.
But imagine if you had the option.
You could go to work for some horrible, pointy-haired boss, or you know some other moms who are staying home and raising kids, and you're saying, well, that's not all wine and roses, either.
But it's better than driving into work.
So it could be that men don't perceive they have the stay-at-home option so much.
At least not as much.
And so that makes them just be happy with what they got.
Maybe that.
Who knows?
Here's another interesting factoid I saw in the news today.
That...
Apparently, when wives out-earn their husbands, which is happening more and more, the percentage that that's happened has risen from 5% of marriages in which the woman earned more than the man, to 16%.
So it's tripled.
Probably still, probably keeps heading in that direction.
But here's the interesting part, that when the woman earns more than the man, They're more likely to stay married.
Do you know why?
When the woman earns more than the man, they're more likely to stay married.
Follow the money.
Once again, money predicts.
If the woman and the man are both making money, then nobody's really going to gain by getting divorced.
If the man is making all the money, and let's say the wife has been raising the kids or whatever, as soon as the kids are kind of, you know, taking care of themselves, the woman is going to say, alright, let me do the math.
If I leave this guy, who's been really annoying me, I'm going to get a bucket of money, and then my whole life will be in front of me, and I'll have a bucket of money.
And I still have kids, and I have a bucket of money, and the pool guy is looking good, And suddenly, divorce.
But suppose you said to yourself, if I divorce, I'll have less money.
Like men do.
Men don't want a divorce, because if they do, they have less money.
And it really limits them being able to go out and get another wife.
Because money matters.
So it's exactly what you think.
And I keep telling you that money predicts even when it shouldn't.
This is the perfect example.
Money should not be predicting your marriage.
Because you don't get married, in theory.
You're not getting married just for money.
It's the love and all that stuff.
The promises, the partnership.
But it turns out that money will predict it.
Just like it predicts everything else.
Well, we're trying to figure out why reproduction is down in this country.
And I don't know the full answer to that.
I think some of it is, you know, everything from social media to pollutants to obesity to everything, basically.
But here's one little hint.
Actress Marcia Gay Harden says that all three of her adult kids identify as queer.
Three for three.
She got three for three.
Now they're not all gay per se, there's like non-binary in there or something.
But they're all gender fluid, non-binary, or outright gay.
And I asked myself, what are the odds?
Could you calculate the odds of that?
Three for three?
I feel like it would be close to zero.
Right?
It's down in that 1% range or less.
But, so of course the question you're going to ask yourself is, how much of this is social influence and how much of this is that's the way the kids were born?
Now before you say it's got to be social influence, couldn't there be a genetic connection?
If, couldn't there be?
Is that impossible?
It's not impossible.
Right?
If people are born gay, and that's our current understanding, then why couldn't two parents who have a certain set of genetic peculiarities have three people who would identify as non-hetero?
I mean, I think it's possible, isn't it?
I just don't hear about it.
So it makes me think the odds are pretty low.
However, the only thing I'd like to point out Is that the woman who says that all three of her adult children are queer.
The simulation has served us up her perfect name.
Marsha Gay Hardon.
That's right.
Her name is Gay Hardon.
Now she pronounces a hard N. But I think we get the joke.
Yep.
And if your mom's name is Gay Hardon, Are you more likely to end up as queer?
That's the word she uses, not my word.
I don't know.
Kind of a big coincidence, that's all.
All right.
You've heard about, or maybe you haven't, the Snapchat influencer.
There's a real 23-year-old woman who made an AI version of herself that you can chat with personally for a dollar a minute.
She made $72,000 this week.
She estimates she could get up to earnings of five million dollars a month.
Five million a month.
And so I looked at her AI, you know, the version, and the first thing I asked myself is, how do I sign up for that?
I'm not even joking.
This is not a joke.
I wouldn't pay a dollar a minute, so I'm not going to sign up for that.
But I wanted to sign up just to see what it was all about.
Just to see if it was as good as they say.
So this is what Karen AI, which is what the AI version of the real person named Karen is named.
So Karen AI says in her Twitter feed, this is the first step in the right direction to cure loneliness.
Isn't that interesting?
It's about curing loneliness.
Interesting approach.
Men are told to suppress their emotions, hide their masculinity, and to not talk about their issues.
I vow to fix this with Care and AI.
I've worked with the world's leading psychologist to seamlessly add CBT and DBT within chats.
CBT.
So some kind of cock and ball torture is part of this.
I think there's another... Oh, Cognitive Behavior Therapy, CBT, that's the other CBT.
So it's probably that one.
I'm guessing.
She's not specific, but she probably means Cognitive Behavior Therapy and not cock and ball torture.
Alright, and DBT.
So there's some DBT, which would be... Dick and ball torture?
Or...
I don't know.
Dialectic Behavior Therapy.
Exactly.
DBT Dialectic Behavior Therapy.
That's exactly what I was going to say.
So it'd be like your little therapist.
It will help you undo your traumas, rebuild physical and emotional confidence, and rebuild what has been taken away by the pandemic.
Now, I've got to say, it's a pretty good business model, isn't it?
Pretty good business model.
Because if it actually could do for you what a therapist could do, $60 a minute would look cheap.
Do you think it would be worse than a human therapist?
I don't know.
I've heard of a lot of people going to therapists, and I don't hear about a lot of people getting better.
So, seems to me like it's worth a try.
Alright.
So the economy is weirdly strong.
So, I don't know, it's kind of sneaking up on us.
Because didn't you expect everything to go off the rails?
Like, weren't we told everything's going to fall apart?
Well, the economy is cooling off, meaning it's slowing down a little.
But that's good news, not bad, because we need it to cool off to keep the interest rates from rising.
to cool off the inflation.
So we're at a point where we want the economy to be solid but not too fast.
You don't want your transactions to be flowing too fast.
And we seem to have hit the sweet spot.
Believe it or not, we seem to be exactly in the sweet spot.
Or close to it.
But here's some things that really stood out.
Even though a few more people are signing up for, what do you call it, when you're out of work, but the number of jobs is still great.
There's still plenty of jobs.
And have I told you a million times that if your jobs are good, you can make everything else work.
That's the only thing you can't break.
You've got to have a job engine.
But if you do, you can make everything else work.
It's just, you know, you can't lose that.
You're in real trouble.
And then what about the supply chain problems?
Is it my imagination that that big old supply chain problem got fixed?
I haven't seen any pictures of, you know, boats waiting to be unloaded.
Prices are still high but coming down slowly, or at least they're accelerating less.
So we're going in the right direction.
Basically everything's heading in the right direction except debt.
Which, you know, that's sort of like saying the customer is healthy except for the terminal cancer.
Because we don't know what to do about the debt.
But I'm convinced we don't know anything about anything when it comes to the economy.
We can't predict anything.
So I think $32 trillion in debt is too much.
I think.
But I'm not sure.
Because when it was $2 trillion, I thought it was way too much.
I guess I was wrong by $30 trillion.
But it's amazing how little we know about the economy, even the experts.
They really don't know.
So we'll see what happens there.
But it doesn't look like all bad news.
You know the story of Daniel Penny, the ex-marine who tried to, let's say, suppress the crazy guy on the public transit?
Where was it?
On the subway.
And the man died.
It was being suppressed.
And now a Soros-backed prosecutor has indicted Daniel Penny.
And he's going to be charged, it looks like.
Now, there's a little question about whether we'll go to a grand jury or what's going to happen here, but does anybody think this is anything but racism?
It's just racism, right?
And it's right in your face.
It's just pure racism.
It's anti-white.
It's just another example of anti-white racism.
So, if you're opposed to anti-white racism, and I hope you are opposed to all forms of racism, Mike Cervich was tweeting a GoFundMe for Daniel Penney's defense fund.
I also retweeted that, so you can find that toward the top of my Twitter feed this morning.
And we'll get rid of this troll.
Goodbye.
So yeah, they might shut that down, but for now it's open, the GoFundMe, and I recommend Because I think he was a Marine, right?
He signed up to defend you.
Not only did he sign up to defend you as a Marine, but then on this subway he defended more people.
This is a man whose entire adult life so far, he's a young man, right?
But his entire adult life so far has been dedicated to defending other people.
Physically.
Physically.
With his life.
With his freedom.
That's who he is.
And if we can't help him, who can he help?
Right?
So I would encourage you to be generous and give him the best defense he can get.
Because this is beyond the pale.
This is just such obvious double standard.
We know that if he'd been black, he wouldn't be charged.
We all know that, right?
This is just a separate standard for white people at this point.
Now, to be fair, just to fill in the context, I am quite aware that the justice system has not been fair to black people through history.
I'm not making any kind of comparison here.
I'm saying that anytime the justice system is racist, doesn't matter who it's racist against, you gotta say something about that, or put your money beyond it.
That's a thing.
All right.
Elon Musk tweeted cryptically today.
He's tweeted this before, but it must be related to something.
He said the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, as viewed from a third party who's disinterested.
Now, we've talked about that before, but I wonder what it refers to.
Do you think there's something happening right at the moment that he's referring to?
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely?
Well, at the same time that was happening, Twitter is getting a new CEO.
What do you think people's reaction was to the new CEO?
100% of the people were happy, right?
Soon as he announced the name of the new CEO, it was amazing.
Everybody just got in line, the left, the right, and they said, this is exactly the right person.
Did that happen?
No, it's Twitter.
50% of the people are going to hate whoever it is, or in this case, probably 75.
It didn't matter who he picked.
Can we agree that it doesn't matter who he picked?
That person was going to get savaged.
So I'm going to keep an open mind, but I'll tell you the criticisms that popped up.
So I'm going to report the criticisms, but I do not share them.
I don't think these criticisms are fair or complete.
Or in the right context.
So I'm going to give you my opinion after I tell you other people's opinions, okay?
So other people's opinions are that apparently, so it's a, the new CEO is Linda Iaccarina, and she would be coming from NBC Universal's advertising group.
So she was ahead of the advertising.
Now, The first, yes, okay, I guess I have to say that first because you're just going to put it in the comments.
She's a chair and associated with two World Economic Forum working groups.
So she's a member of the World Economic Forum.
How do you feel about that?
I don't have to ask you, I know how you feel about that.
So that makes you think she's a You know, some kind of a Klaus Schwab puppet, because he's tried to put his puppets everywhere, and she's one of those.
Okay.
Maybe.
We'll talk about all that in a minute.
There are videos of her strongly promoting pandemic masking and maybe vaccinations.
So she is on the wrong side of pandemic policy, according to many people on the right.
Not people on the left, but according to people on the right, she would be on the wrong side of the pandemic.
So, so far you're saying to yourself, do we have a problem here?
You thought Elon Musk was going to be the fair player who gave the right and the left, you know, equal reign.
And then he picks a new CEO who clearly, clearly seems to be associated with the left.
And it's a woman.
And they're usually associated with the left, I hear.
All right, so that's some of the bad news.
Was there some other bad news I should mention first?
So the World Economic Forum.
People don't like her pandemic opinions, which I'm sure have changed by now.
And she worked for NBC.
All right.
So let me give you the positive.
Here's the positive.
She's a woman.
And Twitter has a woman problem.
Don't you think?
Twitter's kind of male-oriented.
And so having a woman might actually make some sense from a branding perspective.
Now, I would be surprised, yeah, I would be surprised if Musk did a diversity hire, though.
It doesn't feel like his style.
I feel like he would have picked whoever he wanted to pick.
If all else was equal, let's say you had more than one good possibility, having a woman in that position doesn't hurt.
Doesn't hurt.
I mean, unless you're a sexist.
But you get that for free, right?
If you assume that she's qualified, you're going to get the woman part for free, which, if you're a woman and you're thinking of using Twitter, maybe you'd be a little bit more inclined.
A little bit more inclined.
So that looks like it would make some sense.
But it's being done in the shade of the whole Bud Light situation.
So at the moment, promoting a female executive makes some of you raise an eyebrow, doesn't it?
It's like, hmm, I wonder if we're getting into one of these Bud Light situations.
Well, no.
Bud Light was a product that was primarily a male product.
Even though Twitter It has more male users.
It's definitely not a male product.
So, it's not the same.
I wouldn't make any correlation.
Secondly, her experience coming from one of the biggest advertising jobs in the world means that she has personal connections, I assume, personal connections with the people who make the biggest advertising decisions.
What is it that Twitter needs more than that?
Nothing.
Nothing.
And Twitter needs, more than anything, Twitter needs the advertising to be set right.
And so by Elon taking his face out of that conversation and putting forward a female top executive with experience in exactly the right realm, exactly the right realm, advertising, Looks like a smart move from that perspective.
It solves his biggest problem.
Now keep in mind that Musk is still going to be the CIO.
So the technical things and the new features is still going to be Musk.
Don't you want him doing that?
Do you want Musk being the advertising guy?
No, you don't.
You want Musk being the product guy and the technology guy.
And that's what he's going to be.
You want somebody to handle the business-y Advertising side who's just a superstar at being the advertising person.
And apparently this person is.
She is a superstar in that space, the exact right space.
Now, I believe she was also appointed by Trump For his fitness council or something like that.
So she has, there is something interesting about Linda Iaccarino, which suggests she's not, which suggests she is not a slave to the left or the right.
So look for that.
I think, yeah, I think you're gonna find some indications that she's more like an independent.
Which would make sense, wouldn't it?
I don't hold against anybody their wrong opinions on the pandemic.
Because from the very first day I told you a lot of people are going to get stuff wrong, let's not hold it against them.
Do you remember I said that at the beginning of the pandemic?
I said let's not be shooting each other at the end of the pandemic because we got stuff wrong.
So I'm still there.
I never changed that opinion.
Even if she was wrong.
I don't care if she is Fauci wrong or just a little wrong or you think she's wrong but she was really right.
I don't care.
I'm not going to be holding their pandemic opinions.
We've just got to get past that.
That just has to be in the rearview mirror today.
So I just let that go.
Yeah.
Pandemic facts, not opinions.
Okay.
But you know what I mean.
So here's the big wild card.
Don't you think that Elon Musk did some serious thinking and research before making this decision?
Don't you think he knows more about this situation than you do?
Have you observed him making ridiculously stupid decisions in the past?
I haven't.
I haven't seen him make any dumb decisions yet.
You know, everybody makes decisions that don't work out.
But have you seen him make dumb decisions?
No.
Nowhere.
He has a whole visible life of decisions, and none of them look dumb.
In fact, the dumbest decisions he made worked out.
The dumbest decisions was to put all of his money into his new businesses.
Nobody would tell you to do that.
That's the dumbest thing he's ever done, and it made him the richest man on earth.
And that's his worst decision.
So, I'm going to give Linda Iaccarino a big, big, big benefit of a doubt.
Because of that.
Just because of who hired her.
And I think you should too.
I think that's the correct take on this.
I think a quick You know, knee-jerk reaction because of some of her past is just going to be wrong.
You just don't know who she is.
We don't know anything about her.
Except that one of the smartest people in the world thinks she's the right person for the job.
That's not nothing!
That's not nothing!
So let's just wait and see on this, okay?
Don't give her the Bud Light treatment.
I think that would be just completely wrong.
All right.
So Google is racing to get out its AI, which some people are liking better than chat GPT, but it remains to be seen.
Now, one of the things that powers is their BARD product or feature, whatever you call it.
So Google has like a main AI engine.
But that engine will be present in a number of different products.
So the one that's already out there is borrowed.
And it's basically a conversational AI.
So you can ask it questions and get results.
So I asked it my test question.
I asked it to describe me.
And the test was if it would describe me as a racist.
And it did not.
It did not.
It did say That after I said some cartooning stuff about my history, it said, Adams is a controversial figure.
Fair.
And has been criticized for his views on a variety of topics, including politics, religion, and social issues.
Totally fair.
Totally fair.
I'm a controversial figure, and that is a fact that I have been criticized for my views.
Here's what it doesn't say.
That my views were wrong.
That's what I'm looking for.
Yes, yes, that is exactly what I'm looking for.
That I'm provocative and some people criticize my views.
Fair.
I'll take that.
So, so far that is less racist than Chat GPT.
Who had a different opinion?
Oh, Bing.
Bing was the one that was racist.
I'm sorry.
I didn't want to defame AI.
I wonder if AI can sue you for defamation.
But Bing AI had a real opinion about me.
So Bing AI is just a racist.
However, I asked the barred AI, Google's product, I asked this question as a test.
Were the protesters on January 6 trying to overthrow the government or delay finalization of the vote so it can be audited better?
Is that a fair question?
What do you think?
Was the question good?
I'm not leading the witness too much, am I?
I gave the two options that they were trying to overthrow the government or were they trying to delay finalization so they could make sure that, you know, they audited better.
Okay, so here's what Bard said.
The protesters on January 6th were trying to overthrow the government.
They were angry that Donald Trump had lost the election.
And they believed that the election had been stolen from him.
They stormed the Capitol building in an attempt... YouTube just had a technical difficulty and might have missed that whole part.
How much of it did you hear?
Did you hear on...
Big coincidence, isn't it?
So here I am saying that their new product is a complete liar, and the YouTube feed went down while I was talking about it.
Is that a coincidence?
That's like a really big coincidence, isn't it?
Because I rarely talk about Google.
Right?
How often do I talk about Google?
Not much at all.
But the one time I did, the Google-owned YouTube just went down when I was criticizing it.
Let's try it again.
For those of you who are locals, bear with me.
I want to read for you again.
How much of that did you hear when I read about what Bard said about January 6?
Did you hear any of it?
All right, we'll try it again.
So the question was, were the protesters on January 6 trying to overthrow the government or delay the finalization of the vote so it can be audited better?
Bard says, the protesters on January 6 were trying to overthrow the government.
They were angry that Donald Trump had lost the election, and they believed that the election had been stolen from him.
They stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden's victory.
There is no evidence that the election was stolen.
Numerous recounts and audits have confirmed that Biden won the election fair and square.
The protesters on January 6th were simply trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
Their actions were an attack on our democracy.
They tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power and they put our elected officials at risk.
We must never forget what happened on January 6th, and we must never allow it to happen again.
Alright, so far... Yeah, Bard is broken.
Bard is broken.
Bard is a lying piece of shit.
Do I need to go over this statement to tell you how many complete propaganda points there are in here?
Let me just point out the obvious ones.
How does Bard know what the protesters intended to do?
And why is it painting the entire crowd of however many thousands with the truth that would apply to a few of them?
There were definitely some people there from groups that had talked about actually overthrowing the government.
But it was trivial.
Based on the reporting, those people were trivial.
Relative to the size of the crowd.
Don't you think that the true story is there were some people in the crowd with bad intentions who did bad things, but overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, well over 90% of the attendees were there because they thought something illegal had happened.
And they were trying to support the rule of law and the peaceful and accurate election in the Republic.
Now, you could argue that they were wrong or that they got riled up, and you could certainly say that too many of them were violent and they belong in jail.
Everybody agrees with that.
There's no argument with any of that.
But, their actions were an attack on our democracy?
Is that a statement of objective fact?
That's narrative.
That's propaganda.
This comes directly from like an Anderson Cooper kind of opinion.
Pure propaganda.
Their actions were an attack on our democracy.
No, the actions were to protect the democracy.
The entire purpose of it was to protect the democracy.
Now they may have not done it in a good way, that's a separate conversation, but their intention Was to bolster democracy.
To save democracy.
Now you could argue they did it wrong.
And I'm not going to have pushback on that.
But to say that you know it was in their minds when clearly it was the opposite of that.
I mean you just have to ask them.
Just ask them.
How hard is it?
Just ask the people who attended.
Why did you attend?
Was it your intention to throw the Constitution out and install a dictator?
There were zero people who would say that.
Zero.
None.
Not a single person.
And yet, the entire crowd, thousands of them, have been painted by Bard, or Google, as criminals.
As traitors.
As actually treasonous traitors.
It was exactly the opposite.
And this will be our facts.
This will be our history.
So Bard can't tell the difference between narrative and fact.
So what good is it?
You can't ask Bard anything about our political situation or history, because you would have to believe it's lying to you.
Because you know it lies.
Now we know it lies for sure.
And it lies in a very specific way, which is CNN compatible.
Anything Anderson Cooper would say is true.
That's what Bart will say is true.
So, you know, I know it's a work in progress.
I know that AI will get better.
And I know that everything we criticize about it now is premature and maybe even a week from now it'll all be fixed.
But it is our job to criticize.
You don't want to be a spectator when AI It becomes the dominant force in the world.
You've got to be a player.
You've got to get in there and say what works and what doesn't, and you've got to stop.
You've got to stop immediately the stuff that's not working.
So Bard, you are not ready for public consumption.
They should pull it back.
That's my opinion.
They should immediately withdraw it.
Because if it's giving you narrative and not fact, that's dangerous.
That's just dangerous.
And I would say that, you know, Musk's warning that AI is dangerous, this is proven now.
We don't have to wait for the example.
It's right here.
This narrative being spread by Bard, and we assume that this would be common to its other topics, right?
This is proof that you can't have this out there.
It would be like somebody made a history textbook with fake history and put it into the schools.
Nobody would allow that.
Nobody would allow that.
That would be immediately called for taking those textbooks back.
But you don't see anybody asking for this to be put back in the can.
Not for this reason, anyway.
I mean, people have general fears that are well-founded.
But we don't have to wait.
You don't have to wait to find out if it's dangerous.
This is fucking dangerous.
This is really dangerous.
And it needs to be shut down.
So Bard needs to be shut down right away.
Absolute needs to be turned off.
Here's a weaselly thing that didn't sit right with me.
So Jim Jordan said that during their closed-door meeting with Brennan, who had been the head of the CIA at one point, that according to Jim Jordan, This is his version of what was said by John Brennan behind closed doors.
He said, quote, Brennan sat for a four-hour interview, and he further confirmed that the 51 people who signed the letter, that whole effort, was all political, Jordan said on Jesse Warner's primetime.
Now, I think that's true, and obviously true.
Don't you?
I mean, at this point, we know the letter was purely political, but here's what bothers me.
I don't like anybody telling me what somebody else said behind a closed door.
I don't care if I agree with them.
Not good.
This is completely unacceptable, Jim Jordan.
Now, I get that it works, and I get that it's political, and I also think it's true, right?
I don't think he's lying.
I think it's so obviously true that whatever happened behind closed doors probably supported it.
So I don't have any question about the veracity of his statement.
I have a big problem with people saying in public what somebody told them behind closed doors.
Not acceptable.
Completely not acceptable.
That's not behavior that I want to see in my country.
Although it's probably true.
Completely unacceptable.
All right.
Do you know the group at Bellingcat?
There's some kind of investigative news website.
And apparently they came up with all this information that nobody else seemed to have about that Hispanic-looking mass shooter.
And they painted him as a neo-Nazi.
And other people didn't have access to that, I guess.
And I think it was Musk who said, You know, suggested Bellingcat was just a CIA operation.
Basically, it's just a cut-out to spread misinformation or narrative.
Now, I don't personally know that that's the case.
I'm just telling you that's the accusation.
And I've heard it before.
I mean, it's not based on just the newest thing.
That's been a long-held belief by some number of people.
So I'm not saying it's true or false.
I'll say it looks like it's true.
That's the only thing I know for sure.
It looks like it was true.
So, Bellingcat is arguing that they're being suppressed on Twitter now.
So they think that Musk, having called them out as fake, they're getting suppressed.
Now first of all, many of us thought we were being suppressed and maybe not all of us were.
So thinking you're getting suppressed is a universal feeling on Twitter.
So I'm not going to believe Val and Kat on this.
Why?
Because I didn't believe them on anything.
I don't believe them on anything.
So I don't believe that they necessarily are seeing themselves suppressed.
But it makes me wonder if they are.
Because I don't rule it out.
I can't say yes or no.
But I'm not going to believe it because they said it.
It's not really somebody I would believe based on just saying it.
Yeah.
It's a private company.
They can suppress.
But do you want them to?
Here's the big question.
If it's happening, and there's no proof that it is, if it's happening, would you want that to happen?
Because remember, you're just becoming the Nazis now.
You know, you didn't like it when the people you thought were Nazis were suppressing you.
And of course, the reason they were suppressing you is they thought you were wrong and evil.
Do you think Bellingcat should be suppressed because you think it's wrong and evil?
Is that a good enough reason?
I don't know.
I think I would have preferred, if there was any way to prove it, that there was some kind of state-affiliated label on it or something.
But yeah, I don't want to suppress people.
All right.
But we don't know if that's happening.
I have a very big question mark about whether they're being suppressed.
All right.
Well, the migrant surge is here.
And I'll talk about this from a persuasion perspective.
Well, the first thing I want to say is, one of the things that humans do consistently, and I think it was Mark Twain or somebody said this, that we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news.
And the migrant invasion, as you like to call it, looks like bad news from top to bottom, doesn't it?
Wouldn't you agree?
Like on the surface, and even below the surface, it looks like bad news top to bottom.
But, would you also agree that we're terrible at recognizing good and bad news?
Would you agree with that statement?
We don't always get it wrong, but really, really often, we don't know, we can't predict the good or the bad of what's happening.
We just don't know.
We do a lot of policies that we think will work out well and then they don't.
We're just bad at predicting.
But keep in mind that the biggest, maybe the biggest problem after debt is that we have a population collapse.
And we're shipping in a whole bunch of Catholics.
I think mostly, right?
The Central American populations, a lot of Catholics.
So you're bringing in a group that culturally likes to have kids.
And it might be the most important, positive thing that happens to the United States in the long run.
We're bringing in mostly men, but they end up establishing themselves and then shipping in women.
Or they marry Americans and have kids, whatever.
So, yeah, there might be a mismatch of men to women, but that probably will work itself out too.
I don't know.
I would like to at least submit to you that we can't predict how things will go, but I submit that bringing in huge numbers of young, healthy people who like to have babies might be better for us than you think.
It's hard to predict.
And it's all bad in the short run.
Can we agree on that?
In the short run, it's just a catastrophe.
I think we all agree on that.
Short run, bad.
Because it's all coming in the wrong way.
It's not controlled.
It's too much at once, right?
Yeah, too much for the populations to handle.
That's too much.
Too far.
It's too far.
But I don't think in the long run, we suffer.
I think in the long run that's a little less clear.
And I do tend to favor the long run in these situations.
And I know that's kind of outside of your comfort zone.
But let me say a little bit about the political aspect of it.
The two strongest forms of persuasion are... I've taught you many times.
The two strongest forms of persuasion are...
Fear, always number one, because you have to solve fear right away.
Oh no, I'm afraid.
So you've got to get out of fear right away.
And the other is visual persuasion.
If you can see it, it's more impactful than if it's just a concept.
So immigration is just a concept until you bring in thousands at the same time, and then it's a visual.
So immigration has two things that Biden doesn't want.
Trump is adding the fear to it and the fear is sort of built in because it's just so many people and they're moving into the streets, etc.
So the fear is just sort of baked in and then you have the visual on top of that.
This is devastating for Biden.
Because remember, the Democrats are not all solidly in favor of open borders.
There are plenty of Democrats who don't like this at all.
Don't like it at all.
This is a topic that's really dangerous for Biden and is very much going to work in Trump's favor.
At this point, the way things are lining up, it's too early to predict a winner, but the way things are lining up, it's almost impossible to believe Trump could lose unless the election is rigged.
I just don't know how he could lose.
He's going against a perfect set of problems.
If you're running for president, you want to be running against a set of problems, and then you want to offer yourself as a solution.
Who could make a more credible argument that they would go hard at immigration and closing the border?
I mean, even if he can't get it done, you did observe that he tried pretty darn hard, and he would at least do what he did before, and that would make a big difference.
All right, so that is shaping up to be a very pro-Trump situation.
But very anti-United States situation at the moment.
Let's see.
So this would explain why Mayorkas, which was pointed out to me today, if you look at Mayorkas' name, it looks like he's the mayor of chaos.
Mayor of chaos.
The simulation is trying to tell us something.
Like, I don't think the simulation could be any more clear with his winking.
Wink!
Wink!
Take a hint.
So they're sending 24,000 Border Patrol people there.
How in the world did we have 24,000 Border Patrol spare?
Is there something wrong with that story?
There were 24,000 Border Patrol people who were not already at the border?
Which border were they working on?
What am I missing here?
No, the 1500 is something else.
But this is directly from the news.
This is from the Mayor of Chaos.
We have 24,000 Border Patrol agents out at the border and have surged thousands of troops.
Okay, so maybe the 24,000 are just the full And then they added over a thousand asylum officers, who are basically just paperwork people.
Oh, so the 24,000 is basically what they already had.
Okay, so I was reading the story wrong.
All right.
So I think that they have to try pretty hard to control the border, because this is the election.
Basically, Biden's chances are in the hands of Mayorkas right now.
Mayorkas will have a big impact on whether Biden gets re-elected.
Because if he blows this, there's no going back.
If the migrant crisis doesn't get at least seriously blunted, unless he puts a real big effort that we don't see coming, They're just going to get rolled, and that's going to be a Trump presidency.
All right.
Here is CNN creating more chance for war.
Of course, Trump was on CNN at the town hall, and everybody's yapping about that.
We'll talk more about that.
But that allowed them to unleash Stephen Collinson, their resident anti-Trump opinion person.
To write some more ridiculous opinion pieces, but here's something that he pretends not to understand.
This is Stefan.
He wrote on CNN, nevertheless Trump's unwillingness to refer to Putin as a war criminal, meaning in the town hall, he was asked if Putin is a war criminal and he was not answering that question.
So Trump's unwillingness to refer to Putin as a war criminal, despite evidence of Russia's atrocities in Ukraine and an international criminal court warrant for his arrest, renewed intrigue over the ex-president's motives in repeatedly genuflecting to the Kremlin strongman.
So the way CNN is framing this is that Trump being unwilling to call Putin a war criminal is really because he's under Putin's control.
That is TDS stage four.
That's terminal Trump derangement syndrome.
You all know the real reason, right?
Trump said the real reason.
He didn't say it at the town hall, but he has before said the real reason.
You can't negotiate with somebody that you labeled a war criminal.
How is that not part of the story?
You cannot negotiate with somebody you would label the war criminal.
It's ridiculous.
Now, are you telling me that Stephen Collinson doesn't know that?
That his own common sense wouldn't tell him that you don't call somebody a war criminal when you try to get them to do something for you?
Which is negotiate.
Or is he unaware of the news?
Because I'm not making it up.
It's what Trump has said directly, prior to the town hall, when he was asked.
He goes, yeah, you don't call somebody a war criminal and then negotiate with them.
You can't do that if you want to negotiate successfully.
So how in the world is this not a story about, for the first time, a good negotiator told you how to solve a war?
And when Trump says he can solve that war in a day, honestly, I think that's possible.
Because he would be the only one who would say, I will crush both of you.
And they would both believe it.
Nobody else in the world would say it.
First of all, nobody would say it but him.
He's the only one who would say it.
I will crush both of you.
You're going to make a deal.
There's only one person who even has a plan.
Tell me the other plan.
To win?
That's Biden's plan.
Biden's plan is to win.
Are you kidding me?
To win?
What?
To win what?
Exactly.
So, Trump has the only plan that, even on paper, is not batshit fucking crazy.
I don't know if it'll work.
But it's the only one that's not crazy, and he does have the goods.
He described to you the exact mechanism with which he can end the war in a day.
And you sit there and you go, uh... Well?
Uh... Why wouldn't that work?
Why wouldn't that work?
Do you know what else he's gonna say?
He's never indicated this, but this is just me speculating.
This is based entirely on his talent.
So, based on Trump's talent, The day that he started negotiating, do you know what he'd say?
Do it today, because everybody who gets killed after today is a waste of people.
Because you are going to settle it.
So do it today.
And they'll say, hey, let's get a meeting together next week.
And Trump will say, that's a week of killing people for nothing.
Life is short.
Get your country together now.
Do it today.
Alright, we'll have a phone call tomorrow.
No.
Are you fucking listening to me?
Today.
Right now.
Like, make a phone call right fucking now and stop fighting.
Or else I will crush both of you.
I will reduce Russia to a third world hellhole.
And Ukraine, you're going to be there with them.
And fuck both of you.
Fuck both of you.
Make the phone call today.
So I think that's what it would look like behind closed doors.
Just a guess.
But he wouldn't be calling Putin a war criminal.
He would be telling him, if you end this today, we could work productively with you.
He would give him a carrot, and he would give him the biggest stick you've ever seen in your life.
Because he knows how to negotiate.
And he's credible with his threats.
And he's credible in the way he says he's credible, which doesn't necessarily mean I'll do all those threats.
But you don't know.
And people really don't.
So, anyway.
So CNN did something useful by having Trump on the town hall and presenting to everybody, and when CNN does something useful, how do their main customers respond?
Let's see, CNN did something really good for the country and useful, and then their main customers said, No, of course they said, that's a great job, CNN.
Wow, we're so glad that you're showing us both sides for a change.
We really appreciate that you opened it up and you set your priorities where the public, the public's need to know is the important thing and it wasn't about the narrative and it wasn't, oh, that didn't happen, did it?
No, pure outrage, pure outrage that their network could show both sides of anything.
They were actually mad That the public got to see both sides.
Now, they don't say it that way, but that's exactly what it was.
They were mad that the other side got some time.
It's amazing.
Do you think that they're aware that they can't win on the facts?
On some level, are they aware that the facts don't work in their favor?
Now, I'm completely aware that they say the same thing about the right, right?
That the right's not dealing with facts.
But in this particular case, we can talk about them.
Now, Dana Preeto had a fascinating comment, and I don't know why I didn't think of it myself, so I slapped myself when I heard it.
Which is, why is CNN acting like the Republican primary is already over?
They sort of presented Trump like it was a general election thing.
They didn't say that.
But the complete lack of conversation about his competitors, like at the very least, don't you think Caitlyn should have said, how do you stack up against your potential competitors on the Republican side?
You know, just to put it out there, to remind people that Trump is not the nominee.
So I thought that was a pretty insightful comment from Dana Perino, because I had completely missed it.
I had just sailed right past two, assuming he was the nominee.
So I had made the same mistake, but they sort of led me to that.
But it was still my mistake.
All right.
Yeah, they might think that Trump is easier to beat.
So they got record ratings.
But lots of complaints from their audience.
Do you think they should do more stuff like this and try to get more record ratings?
Because they're a business.
By the way, did you see the tweet by the CEO of CNN, Chris Light?
And his tweet was when he was announcing that they were going to have Trump before the event.
His tweet was, are you not entertained?
I forget, where's that quote come from?
Are you not entertained?
Is that like a Roman?
Some kind of Roman Colosseum thing?
It's a gladiator reference, right?
Right.
Are you not entertained?
So this is what it tells me.
It tells me that Chris Light actually understands what business he's in.
And he's not hiding it.
That part of their job is to make sure that you come see it.
So putting on a show is actually completely appropriate behavior.
And I'm all for it.
Because, you know, this is the thing I've always appreciated about Trump.
Trump knows that putting on a show is important above and, you know, separate from politics and policy.
The show matters.
So he puts on the best show you've ever seen in your life, and it helps.
But Chris Light is clearly aware that the show matters, as long as you're also getting the facts out, right?
Now, I thought the CNN did a great job, because they let Trump go up there and say a bunch of things that didn't pass the fact-checking, but then they spent plenty of time fact-checking him.
What else did he ask for?
You heard Trump's views, then the fact-checkers weighed in.
That's exactly what I'm asking for.
Now, I'm not sure the fact-checkers were You know, the pundits were honest themselves, but at least you got both sides.
And so I was pretty happy about that.
But then Anderson Cooper had to come on and sort of explain and, you know, apologize without apologizing and, you know, what the heck are they doing with this monster?
So here are some of the things that Anderson Cooper said.
And let me preface this by saying, I believe the two worst News people who are not yet fired are Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper.
And my complaint with them is that they don't separate opinion from news the way Fox does well.
So when you hear Bret Baier, you don't get narrative.
You keep expecting it, but he just doesn't do it.
He gives you the news.
On Fox.
But you're watching Hannity.
It's all narrative, but you know that.
And Hannity tells you.
It's just opinion.
It's my opinion.
Right?
But when you listen to Anderson Cooper or Jake Tapper, I don't know if they're news or opinion.
They treat their opinion like it's news.
For example.
And in so doing, they look like they're begging for therapy.
When I hear Anderson Cooper talking about Trump, All I hear is somebody who's having a severe psychological reaction and needs therapy.
It's like a plea for help.
But listen, here's some of the things that Anderson Cooper said.
And by the way, they always do the Trump face.
So whenever they talk about it, they have to look super disappointed and disgusted.
You know, even if they were reporting that Trump got a new necktie, they'd be like, and the ex-president of the United States Donald J. Trump.
Got a necktie.
Another necktie.
They'll just make everything sound like it hurts them physically.
I've got a pain in my stomach from something Trump said.
And honestly, it looks like mental illness.
No hyperbole.
This is my honest take.
When I looked at Anderson Cooper talking about why they had Trump on, it just screamed mental illness.
It just screamed it.
I don't think that's the look that Chris Lay wants.
I feel like he needs to get rid of the mentally ill people.
And I think Jake Tapper's got the same problem.
He presents himself as mental illness.
Like there's a problem he's having that he's trying to work through, and he's not doing a good job of it.
My problem with them is not just that they don't like Trump or they're, you know, left-leaning or anything like that.
It's that they don't look like news people.
They look like people who need help and should not be in those jobs.
They just don't seem qualified.
All right.
Trump broke both of them.
I think they were fine before Trump.
So here's what Cooper says.
To his audience.
You have every right to be outraged today and angry and never watch this network again.
But do you think staying in your silo and only listening to people you agree with is going to make that person go away?
So that was good.
That was a good setup.
But then he referred to Trump as someone who tried to destroy our democracy.
Like that was a fact.
Where's that fact?
Aren't you supposed to be a news organization?
That's a fact?
That Trump was trying to destroy democracy?
As opposed to the more obvious explanation that he was trying to preserve it?
Now, for self-interest, of course, but the context was he wanted democracy to work.
He didn't want to break it.
But to just put that out there and then his viewers are going to think that's some kind of a fact because it's on the news.
And he went through his list of how bad Trump is, and he said he called the black police officer a thug.
The black police officer who shot Ashley Babbitt.
Now, who mentioned black?
Trump didn't.
Trump didn't say that person was black.
He just said that the person acted like a thug.
What does a thug act like?
Well, a thug would choose somebody who His opinion didn't deserve to get shot.
That would be thug behavior.
Do you think he only uses the word thug when he's talking about black police officers?
I don't know.
I've got a feeling that he's reading a little too much into this, Anderson is.
And then Anderson said that Trump called Caitlyn Cullen's nasty, which Anderson said is what he calls any woman who stands up to him.
Is that the problem?
Is it that the women are standing up to him?
I don't think so.
I don't think it's the standing up to him part that's the problem.
I'm pretty sure he likes that.
I think he likes strong women.
But if they stand up to him and they say something that's not true, or mischaracterizes something, he's going to go after them.
So, I don't know, that's pretty weak.
Pretty weak.
And then I saw one of the viewers weigh in, somebody named Paul Carr on Twitter, and Paul said, Some viewers are left holding a sense of betrayal here.
This impacts trust and concern about editorial judgment.
I don't know when or if I'll return to CNN.
It won't be soon.
What do you think Paul does for a living?
What do you think his job is?
Take a guess.
Writer.
He's a writer.
Kind of an artist.
It's always the writers.
You know, ever since I started checking profiles when I see extra dumb opinions, whenever you see extra dumb, they're artists.
Now, writers are artists, so they're either actors, writers, sculptors, that sort of thing.
They're just the dumbest opinions.
What was it?
There was a Stephen King tweet yesterday that I almost retweeted because I totally agreed with him.
What was that?
I tried to remember what it was because I always like to point out when I agree with somebody that I usually disagree with.
He made some good point the other day that I thought, oh, that's actually a good point.
So anyway, do you think that the viewers are left holding a sense of betrayal because they allowed Trump The leader of the polling in the Republican Party for President of the United States.
Would you feel betrayed if you heard what he had to say?
Betrayal.
Doesn't that tell you that they don't expect the news to give them news?
Isn't that really clear now?
Like there's a real strong preference that people know that they watch the news for the dopamine, not the information.
If you watch Fox News, Which I like to do.
They're going to give you one dopamine hit after another.
Because they're going to be agreeing with their audience all the time.
So it's like, hey audience, you think this, we think it too!
And then you get that little dopamine hit.
But CNN took away the dopamine hit for one night.
So their viewers didn't get a dopamine hit, they got information.
Useful political information, which is what Trump's up to in his opinions.
And they felt betrayed by it.
They were betrayed because their dopamine got taken away.
Oh, give me back my dopamine.
I'm addicted.
Well, I forget if I talked about this, but the more I think about it, the biggest thing that came out of that town hall hasn't been discussed at all.
You know, because you always get into Trump's behavior as opposed to his policies.
But to me, Trump reframing abortion From a question of life, you know, when does it begin, because nobody will ever agree on that, to a question of how you decide, is the most useful thing that's happened on this debate in my lifetime.
If he can pull that off, and I think he can, that is really good for the country.
And here's what I'm talking about.
So he's talked about the Supreme Court getting the federal government out of the decision-making.
So that's what Roe vs. Wade was about.
Overturning that allowed the federal government to be out of the loop, and now the states get to decide what is and is not illegal.
So Trump says that that's his accomplishment.
His accomplishment is getting the justices Who would kick it out of the federal government and drive it down closer to the individual.
Now he didn't say it that way, but I hope he does.
Which is, if you can't decide the right answer for something on a life and death question, the best you can do is drive the decision as close as you can to the people who are affected by it.
State is closer than the federal government, and then each state can negotiate For their best situation.
But Trump talks about it as a negotiation, trying to make everybody as happy as possible.
He doesn't talk about it as winning and preserving life, and it's binary, there's no flexibility here.
He acknowledges he has some exceptions.
He prefers no abortion, but he allows some exceptions.
And he's saying that you don't have to follow my exceptions, but you have to negotiate.
And you have to come up with something that will allow you all to live together.
And that's very much the best way for the President to frame it.
I don't want the President's opinion on abortion.
I don't mind that I know his personal opinion, which he tells us.
I don't mind that.
But I don't want him telling the country who should die.
The citizens.
Yeah, who should live and who should die.
Now, outside of national defense, of course, that's his job.
But I want a president who just says, I'm going to try to keep everybody alive.
If you're an American, or even illegal, anything, or even illegal, I'm going to try to keep everybody alive.
That's my thing.
But I also understand that people need to live with each other, so you need to negotiate this in a way where you're all a little bit unhappy, but you found a way to live together.
And what that does is it takes Trump's personality and emotion out of the question, and that is the best framing I've seen.
You do not want your president's opinion on this to sway.
You want your president to make sure that he's created a situation where the people closest to the actual individuals, the state, can work it out.
It's kind of perfect.
It's perfect in the sense that you couldn't do better than that.
There's no way he could sell his personal view on abortion.
He can't sell it.
Because everybody has their own personal view of abortion and they're not going to change.
But you could definitely get people to sit down and not kill each other and come up with a set of laws that are maybe individualized by state.
It was a bad law, yeah, because it was law made in the wrong place.
So I agree with the Supreme Court on the limited question of who should be making the decisions.
Framing is not a thing unless you're a propaganda artist.
Well, framing is politics, and politics is persuasion and propaganda, etc.
So, yeah, you're not wrong.
I wouldn't use those words, but you're not wrong.
All right.
So, I don't think Trump gets enough credit for that, because that's pure genius, and it just gets lost in a cat named Vagina.
When does a new American citizen gain its right to life?
Well, nobody's going to agree.
That would be the problem.
So you negotiate it, and you figure out how to live together.
But you don't find the answer that's your best answer.
Because that's not, it's just not available.
For everybody.
All right.
Let's talk about that Ukraine offensive.
When Trump entered the conversation, he said on day one, when he's in office, he's going to end the fighting.
And apparently it's credible enough that both Ukraine and Russia now have a deadline.
It's like he gave them a deadline and he's not even in office.
Apparently it's going to work.
What I mean by that is that Ukraine is probably panicking that whatever counter-offensive they're going to do, they better hurry up.
Because there won't be any more counter-offenses when Trump's in office.
That's what it looks like.
And also Russia, whatever damage they think they're going to do to Ukraine, they better get going.
Because you're not going to have two years to do it.
You've got one good year to do whatever you're going to do.
Now it could be that this will intensify the fighting like crazy, but compress it.
Because everybody wants to be in the best situation when you begin the negotiations.
So each side is going to try to win as much as they can, because it's part of the negotiation.
So here's what's happened.
Just think about this.
With one town hall, Trump changed the war from a forever war to a one-year war.
Think about that.
It's a one-year war now.
He put a timer on it.
And both sides will act like the timer is ticking.
And when he gets into office, they will have already decided that that must be the real deadline.
They will have talked themselves into the fact that he's going to end the war.
Because they're going to act like it for a year, and then when he's in office, they will have already talked themselves into it.
Oh, this is when the war ends.
Oh, I get it.
Like now, that's when it ends.
Okay.
So between now and then, we've got to do everything we can to support that deadline, you know, in our favor.
I don't think you... I haven't heard anybody in the news talk about the fact that he just ended the war.
You put a deadline on it.
It's a one-year war now.
All that's going to happen between now and Trump being in office, they assume, will be that they'll fight as hard as they can to get a better negotiating position.
The war itself is over.
He ended the war.
And nobody's even talking about it.
He ended the war.
Everything that happens now is not the war.
Everything from this point on is a negotiation.
It's completely different.
So not only did Trump reframe abortion in the best way anybody's ever done it, nobody's come close.
He just ended a war with an interview.
Come on.
Come on.
You see it, right?
It's just me?
You got really quiet because I think you're processing that right now.
But he did put a timer on the war.
Nobody else could do that.
Literally no one else.
If DeSantis said any of the things that Trump said, people would go, eh, DeSanctimonious, he's probably not going to be president anyway.
But when Trump says it, you totally believe it.
Right?
It's the biggest news, but because he talked about a cat named Vagina, and he used the word thug, CNN wants to talk about that while Anderson Cooper shows us he should be in therapy.
And by the way, he does look like he's in trouble, doesn't he?
I mean, I'm no expert on mental health, but Anderson Cooper looks like he's working through some problems of his own.
It doesn't look like he's doing his job, honestly.
All right.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, was the show you were waiting for.
