Episode 2109 Scott Adams: Trump & Suburban Women, Anti-White Movement Pushback, Freedom Crappers
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump and suburban women
Anti-White movement pushback
FoxNews sued again
Freedom Crappers
Bard AI is sketchy
CNN fake news alert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, which looks a little bit less lighted than usual, but I think I can deal with that today.
If you would like your day to be the most amazing, amazing day in all the history of days, all you need this day is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
You can probably feel your oxytocin starting to come online, can't you?
Can't you?
Yeah.
This is called the simultaneous sip.
Happens now.
It's the best thing that's ever happened.
and go.
Ah.
And may I say happy 65th birthday to the I didn't catch the name, but one of you is having a 65th birthday today.
So happy birthday.
Senior citizen, welcome to the club.
Well, we got news all over the place.
Dave Chappelle made a surprise stand-up visit in San Francisco and he was a little distressed to find out what had happened to his, what he calls his second home, San Francisco.
Apparently he was going into a restaurant and As he was walking into the restaurant, one of the freedom crappers was defecating in front of the restaurant.
Now, I don't know about you, but that does not help my dining experience.
Let me tell you something I learned owning a couple of restaurants.
The restaurant business is very, let's say, different from what you imagine it would be, in terms of how people conceive it as customers.
People don't really go to a restaurant for just the food, obviously.
They can buy food somewhere else.
It's an experience.
And so one of the things that you find is that one of the most important criteria for whether someone likes a restaurant is the lighting.
I've told you that before.
It's very non-obvious.
If you get the lighting right, people will like being in your restaurant.
If you get it wrong, it makes everybody look ugly.
So your date will look a little less attractive.
You'll look a little less attractive.
You know, if you have down light, that makes everybody look less good.
But if you have nice accent lights and, you know, orangey lights and stuff, everybody looks good.
So I can't imagine what it does to your, excuse me, dining experience.
To walk past a freedom grabber.
Now, if you don't know, in the old days, they used to call people the homeless.
In the old, old days, the people who did not live indoors were called hobos, or bums.
And that was pretty bad, right?
Hobos and bums, very degrading.
So, the left wanted to turn that into homeless, because homeless is more of an objective statement, it's not an insult.
They just don't have a home.
But then it turned into it wasn't so much the people who didn't have a home, because most of them had options, but rather they chose to be outside.
They chose the freedom of the streets.
And so we've evolved from bums and hobos to the homeless.
Then I think there was the unhoused, right?
They weren't homeless because they didn't want homes.
They were just unhoused.
But I think we could do a little bit better than that.
I think, as one of the locals folks suggested, that they should be called the freedom crappers.
Because they can crap anywhere.
It's sort of the ultimate freedom.
So I say, don't judge it until you try it.
But Dave Chappelle seems to be a little unhappy about what happened.
He thinks the whole place turned into Into the Tenderloin, which doesn't mean anything to you unless you know San Francisco.
To say that the whole city turned into the Tenderloin is a really bad insult to the city.
But Dave Chappelle at least has a suggestion.
You know, a lot of people complain about things, but rarely does anybody have a productive suggestion.
And finally, Dave Chappelle has a good suggestion for fixing San Francisco.
He says, what you need is Batman.
Batman.
OK, well that's maybe less practical than I was hoping.
But he does have at least a suggestion.
At least it's a suggestion.
All right.
I asked Bard the AI a little bit more about me to see if it thought I was a good person or a bad person and it said a few things about me.
Let's see.
Adams has been criticized for his views on race and ethnicity.
Whoa.
That's what Bart AI thinks of me.
I've been criticized about my views on race and ethnicity.
My God, what is it that I've said?
Well, let's read on.
In 2020, he said on Twitter that the Dilbert TV show was canceled because he was white, and UPN had decided to focus on African-American audience on Monday night, not every night.
But on the night that my show was on, they decided to do an all-black comedy block A black block, which is a perfectly good business idea in terms of business.
You know, you like people to tune in and then stay where they tuned in.
That was the old business model anyway.
So it made sense to have an African American comedy night.
Unfortunately, that was my night when my show was on, so I got moved.
And when you move a show out of its time slot, There's a long history where that pretty much kills the show.
That's a well understood phenomenon.
So somehow that is the example given of why I was criticized for my views on race.
What was my view?
Was there any opinion in that?
That was just a statement of fact which nobody disagrees with.
Nobody disagrees that UPN started a black comedy block on Monday night where my show was running.
There's no controversy to that.
Is there?
And did I say that there was anything illegal or wrong or immoral or unethical about UPN wanting an all-black comedy night?
I don't have any problem with that at all.
It actually seemed like a good business idea.
It just wasn't good for me.
But then he goes on and says, he, meaning me, has also been criticized for his support of Donald Trump Wait a minute, is that something about being criticized for views on race and ethnicity?
Somehow that got lumped in there?
And his views on white nationalism.
Wait.
What?
What?
My views on white nationalism?
Have I ever expressed a positive view about white nationalism?
Ever?
Even once?
Am I the guy who has ever said that America is better with just white people in it or stop any additional non-white?
Never.
I'm the most annoyingly pro-immigration person you know.
At least, you know, who has an audience that's right-leaning.
There's nobody with a right-leaning audience who's more pro-immigration than I am.
That's just a fact.
Right?
Name anybody.
Name anybody.
In fact, I'm probably as pro-immigration as the left.
It's just I think you have to do some smart stuff, too.
You can't just never do smart stuff.
You have to do some smart stuff, you know, at the same time.
But do you see the problem with Bard and AI?
This is clearly just picking up a leftist, biased, bigoted view.
Bard is just a racist.
Could you conclude from this answer that Bard is a racist?
What do you think?
I would say yes.
To me, this looks clearly racist.
Very anti-white, basically.
Now, I don't think it's the end of the world.
We'll probably, you know, clean it up and maybe it'll get better.
But, oh my God, the fact that we built an advanced intelligence and then we ruined it by making it like people.
We ruined it by making it like people.
It'll never be smart.
We'll never let it be smart.
So, well, keep an eye on that.
Here's some CNN biased news.
I forget who wrote it.
Some opinion piece, I think.
And it's talking about whether the Biden family The so-called Biden crime family has committed any actual crimes.
And you may have missed this, because it was a surprise to me, but the article said that even the Republicans, even the Republicans, have not accused Joe Biden of a crime.
Is that true?
I think it is true, right?
There's no actual specific crime.
No, Joe Biden.
Joe Biden.
I'm not talking about Hunter.
Hunter Biden has specific crimes.
But Joe Biden is not accused of a specific crime, is he?
And then I thought, I'm not aware of one.
Because, well, bribery is a suspicion.
Right?
Bribery is a suspicion.
But it's short of an accusation, because there's not a direct In context, I'll give you that the evidence strongly suggests something unethical going on.
But if you can't tie that unethical behavior to, let's say, a policy change and prove it, it's kind of short of a crime, isn't it?
It's just something you wish would not be happening, which is different.
So that was interesting.
But and maybe that's good for us if it if it helps your bias at all.
But here's something is said that this is just such a head shaker.
CNN in this least opinion piece wanted to make a comparison to the Biden family having lots of shell companies whose businesses are unclear.
And the accusation is that all these companies are set up just to make it harder to see that money is flowing from foreign entities to the Biden family pockets.
Now that is being compared to Trump also having lots of, what they say, opaque business deals invite suspicion.
So that's, they're admitting that the opacity or the fact that you can't see what's going on in the Biden family businesses always makes people suspicious.
Hey, we can't tell what's going on in there.
But they compared that, but they said, but it's a little strange to see Republicans who defend Trump's business, which is divided into scores of companies, now attack the Bidens.
Have I ever mentioned that argument by analogy is not persuasive?
Now correct me if I'm wrong, let me do a little fact check on this.
Is it not the case that the Biden companies, the number of companies they've created, have no known business?
And that's the whole point.
That there's no known legitimate business.
There might be, but it's not, it's not, you know, we're not aware of it.
Whereas the Trump businesses, and there were hundreds of them, every single one of them has a specific line of business and a revenue and a cost structure.
Every one of them.
That's completely different.
That's closer to the opposite, right?
One is an example of setting up businesses to do business, perfectly acceptable, no matter how many you do.
In fact, that's the smart way to do it, because you don't want any one of those businesses to be a problem and crash the other business.
Whereas the Bidens don't have any actual business purpose to their businesses that we know of.
Could be, just we don't know of them.
So if you're, let's say, a casual reader of CNN, wouldn't you read this as Trump is just as sketchy as the Biden family?
Doesn't that read that way to you?
Oh, they both have these Oh, they both have a whole bunch of companies, don't they?
Well, I guess that's just something rich people do.
They just all have a bunch of companies.
No, they don't all have a bunch of companies that aren't doing any business.
That's not the same.
All right.
Rasmussen poll on Trump and his legal problems.
So 58% of likely US voters believe that Trump will get criminal charges.
So 58% of voters think he will be charged criminally while he's at the moment leading in the polls.
So according to, I think it's Washington Post's ABC poll, Trump is seven points ahead of Biden in the general election.
Seven points is quite a bit, isn't it?
Now obviously that always tightens up toward election day, but it feels like a pretty healthy lead if that's a valid poll.
All right, back to Rasmussen now.
44% of likely voters think Trump is being investigated because of actual crimes that he has committed, while 50% believe the government is just trying to stop Trump from running for president.
We often look for signals that the country's in trouble, because that's sort of how Americans act.
Oh no, we're all falling apart, the republic is falling apart.
This or that signal, or telling us everything's falling apart.
But here's a pretty strong flashing signal that 50% of the voters, the likely voters, think the government is trying to stop a legitimate candidate for president with a bogus Department of Justice action.
50%.
Half of the country thinks the country is corrupt.
In a really fundamental way.
Because that would be as corrupt as you could get.
That'd be like the peak of corruptness.
Peak of corruption, let's say.
To actually stop a legal candidate for running for president.
You can't get much more corrupt than that.
That's sort of the pinnacle.
But that's where we are.
How many voters do you think believe Trump will actually be sentenced to prison?
How many think you'll be sent?
Oh, good guess, you're very close, 28%.
Your guesses were very close.
Very smart.
28% think you'll be sentenced to prison.
So, that means that 28% of the people are either wishful thinking, might be wishful thinking, Or they believe that when he talked to the Georgia, what was the phone call in Georgia where he said you only need to find so many votes?
28% think that you could go to jail for using the word find if someone else determines that the word find means make up.
That would be the case.
You'd have to convince a jury That when somebody said, find, in the context of believing that the election had not been properly counted, that what he really secretly meant, and everybody knew it, was just make up some votes and that'll be fine.
Like, that's gonna work.
Like, do you think that Trump believed that Georgia could just make up some votes and that that would fly?
And they just go into office and nobody have a problem with that.
Oh no!
Yeah, we just changed the vote by adding a bunch of votes for Trump and now he really won.
There's nothing to see here.
Do you really think that Trump was so dumb That he thought he could ask them in a phone call where people are listening, so it's basically public, or will be soon, that he could just tell them to find some, you know, make up some votes, and that he could get into office and he would stay there, and that would all be good.
There's literally nobody that dumb.
To imagine that Trump is the only one in the world who would be dumb enough to think that he could say in front of witnesses, just pretend the election didn't matter and make me up some votes, and that would just fly through.
And that he, like a real living, a living human being with experience in the world, would believe that that would work.
It's ridiculous.
Of course he didn't think that.
Now, I'm not a mind reader, but But it would be true that literally no one would say that.
No one.
Not Trump, not anybody.
There's no one who would say that in front of witnesses.
Go get me some fake votes.
Especially with this much scrutiny.
The entire world was looking at Georgia.
Everybody was looking at it.
And they already had a result.
You think nobody would notice if they changed the result to the opposite of the result?
Nobody's going to look into that a little bit?
How in the world would Trump imagine that that could have worked?
In your criminal, suspicious mind, how do you imagine that he thought that plan was going to work?
Of course that wasn't his plan.
Do you know what kind of plan would work really well?
Here's a plan that would work really well.
Make sure you've counted all the votes.
There's a plan, people would believe.
Yeah, we looked and we found some votes.
It's transparent.
We can show you.
Here are these bags.
We didn't count these.
Now we're going to count them.
The only way that Trump's phone call could have produced anything for Trump is if it had gone through a legal process and everybody knew it.
Everybody knew the one and only path was if it was totally legal.
And to imagine that 28% of our citizens have been persuaded that that was an actual criminal plan that couldn't have worked.
It's like the insurrection on January 6th.
Were they going to conquer the country by taking over some real estate?
One building?
Who thought that was going to work?
Were the Joint Chiefs of Staff going to just hand over the control?
Oh, they got our building.
There's a bunch of unarmed people standing in a building.
I guess we better give them the keys to the nukes.
Literally no one thought that was an insurrection.
Who was actually there.
But once again, this one quarter of the country, or this 28%, will actually believe anything.
25% of the country will believe anything.
Just anything.
All right.
So there's some dispute about Tucker's being removed from his show on Fox, not technically fired.
But apparently Carlson, it's being reported, told a member of the network's, was told, so this is from Tucker Carlson apparently, he's reporting that a member of the network's board of directors, Fox News board of directors, told them that he was taken off the air as part of Fox News' settlement with Dominion.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Tucker was taken off the air as part of the settlement with Dominion?
Now, Dominion says they never asked for that.
And Fox News has officially said absolutely not, that was not part of the negotiations.
Now, I believe it was not part of any written negotiations.
Because I don't think they would give a blanket no.
If it was discoverable.
You know, I'm sure it's all non-disclosure situation, but that stuff always comes out.
So I would guess that that's true.
That it's not written down.
But does that mean it wasn't part of it?
I would say it wasn't.
I'm leaning toward it wasn't.
And the reason is... Yeah, I don't think it was.
Because you would have to write that down.
So that's the sort of thing that nobody would take on a handshake.
Because you wouldn't want to agree.
Let's say you're Dominican.
You wouldn't want to say, all right, I'll cut my what I'm asking in half or whatever the settlement was.
In return, part of what you're going to do is get rid of Tucker Carlson.
But then not ask them to write that down.
Because you could settle the thing and then Fox News could say, change your mind, we're going to keep them.
And then the settlement would be done.
There's no lawyer that would let you not write that down.
Nobody's going to make a deal of that size with a component that's a handshake.
It's just all going to be written down or it doesn't count.
So I think that Fox News would not give an outright denial.
If, in fact, it would ever be discoverable in anybody's paperwork that it was false.
But that does open up the possibility that it was part of, let's say, a suggested outcome.
Like, maybe if I told you that there's no chance that Tucker will be on the air again, maybe if I told you that you'd be a little more likely to negotiate a settlement.
We can't guarantee it.
We can't put it in writing.
But between us, yeah, this is going to happen.
Maybe.
You have to weigh that against the fact that Tucker is not a liar.
There's no history of Tucker being a liar that I've ever heard.
People argue that he's wrong, but I've never heard anybody say he lied.
Have you?
I've never even heard it.
I've never even heard that accusation.
So I think I would rule that out.
So I think that it's possible both of them are telling the truth.
Meaning that it's not part of the deal in terms of being written down.
But it might have been discussed.
It might have been discussed.
And it might have been discussed enough that both sides knew what was going to happen, but they didn't have to write it down.
Maybe.
So I feel like maybe the stories are not incompatible.
It might be just the difference of what's written and what's not written.
Anyway, speaking of lawsuits, do you remember when there was, the Biden administration had the Ministry of Truth?
Do you remember the brief Ministry of Truth?
That's what the critics called it.
What it was supposed to be, is a disinformation organization that would help get rid of foreign disinformation.
But it quickly, you know, the Fox News opinion people turned it into the Office of Disinformation or something.
But now the woman who was in that job and quit because of all the pressure is suing.
So apparently she was mentioned by name 300 times by Fox News.
And she says she was mischaracterized, that her job was not to stop free speech, but rather to stop disinformation from foreign sources and stuff.
Now, I don't know if there's a difference in opinion there, because I feel like the opinion people were saying, yeah, that's what you say your job is.
But we know it's gonna drift into this other domain of just censoring Americans.
So I don't know if there's really a difference in fact, but there might be a difference in at least how she was portrayed.
So she's suing.
So it turns out that the only thing that matters is lawfare.
Like, we are so far From a world where citizens, you know, become informed and vote, and that's how we do government, there's nothing like that happening.
It's basically, it's a legal battle, you know, of who can change the voting laws and, you know, what kind of ballots you can use, and then stuff like this.
You know, if Fox News gets sued out of business, Which looks like it might be the plan.
The plan might be to just sue the men of business, if you get enough of these.
Then this gigantic voice for half of the country or so, 40% of the country, would be removed.
And that would change the election outcome.
If Fox News stopped operating tomorrow, don't you think that would change election outcomes?
I do.
I think it would change them a lot.
So we don't really have a government that's run by anything like voting or informed citizenry or republic.
None of that.
It's basically just lawyers fighting and then we find out how they did.
Oh, well, yay, our lawyers beat their lawyers this year.
Let's play again in four years.
All right, lawyers, get going.
Yeah, it's just a legal contest.
And the voting is just ridiculous at this point.
Although I still recommend it.
Alright, Vivek Ramaswamy making some news on a few policy things.
Now this one is interesting.
He wants to consider raising the voting age to 25, but make exceptions for young adults who fulfill some kind of a service requirement.
So that could include six months in the military or a first responder role.
Or the third one is pass a civics test administered to naturalized immigrants, which is really clever.
You have to be at least as smart as foreigners to vote in America.
Well actually they would not be foreigners because it would be naturalized at the point of taking the test.
So they would be our beloved residents.
So if you did not, if you couldn't pass the test to become a resident, and you're under 25, you can't vote.
Now, I have two feelings about this plan.
Number one, it's brilliant.
Would you agree?
It would absolutely make the country a better run place.
It would make our votes more rational.
So as an idea, it's solid.
Vivek Ramaswamy, he has now created a body of work where you can see that every time he enters a topic, he comes with some good ideas.
However, I feel like this one doesn't have a chance.
Because if you have fewer young voters, you have fewer Democratic voters.
And that's the end of the conversation.
Am I wrong?
There's no way you're going to get away with putting restrictions on mostly Democrats.
That's not going to happen.
If it got to the Supreme Court, I can't imagine it working.
Can you?
I don't even know if it's legal.
I don't even know if you could make such a rule.
Seems to me you either can vote or you can't vote.
There's an argument to be made that either make everybody pass that test, which is not a terrible idea.
I've often said you should have an IQ, sort of a general IQ test that's just about politics, you know, not about math or whatever, just politics, and then find out who the people who could pass the test favor.
Wouldn't you like to know who the smart people want as their leaders?
The smart people would be the ones who could pass the test, and they know enough about politics that, you know, their opinion has some weight, some weight that's deserved.
So I don't think this plan has a chance, but I'm going to evaluate him the way I would evaluate Trump.
I'm going to evaluate as a political strategy.
So as a law, no chance whatsoever.
As a political strategy, I don't know, popular for the base.
I liked it.
You probably liked it.
It just doesn't have a chance.
But I don't mind that he brought it up.
The fact that he brought it up is both reasonable and it shows his thinking.
And his thinking was solid.
It's just not politically, doesn't have much chance.
But in terms of positioning who he is, and for us to understand the, let's say, the boldness of his ideas, and that they're all based on science and data, it does a good job of that.
It does a good job of showing that he's data-driven.
It's just that it's too political.
There's no chance.
All right.
Also making news against, once again, talking about using the military to take out the cartels.
Everybody knows that would not be a complete solution to fentanyl.
Maybe not any solution at all.
But you still have to do it.
Now anybody who says, but Scott, that will not change the number of people who die of fentanyl whatsoever, I say, so?
So?
If somebody murders you, you don't say, well, they only murdered one person.
If you put this person in jail, they went their whole life and only murdered one person.
If you put them in jail, is that really gonna stop any murders?
Because really, they murdered one person their whole life, it was a special case, it's not gonna happen again.
So why put them in jail?
It's not gonna stop any future murders.
That's how I think of the cartels.
I don't care how many future fentanyl overdoses it changes.
Maybe none.
But they all need to be killed.
Because that's just the way it has to be.
I'm not even going to give you an argument.
If you're in the business of killing my people, you're going to fucking die.
I don't care what the law is.
I don't care what the precedent is.
I don't care what the ramifications are.
I don't care if it helps the process or not.
If you're killing my people, you're going to fucking die.
And if it takes Ramaswami to do it, I'm all in.
Vivek is also the only one who is saying, I don't know if I've ever heard a presidential candidate say this.
Maybe you can do a fact check.
Well, maybe it happened in the 60s or something, but when was the last time a candidate said he wanted to get rid of affirmative action?
Has that ever been a thing?
And by the way, just to be clear, historically, I have favored affirmative action.
Because I think we needed some kind of a, you know, big, big hammer to get things a little closer to even.
But at the moment, I think it's counterproductive.
If I were a black college graduate and I was looking for a job, I would not want anybody to think I didn't get there on merit.
I would want everybody to think college.
So maybe, yeah, Larry Elder.
I don't know if you wanted to get rid of it or you're just against it.
There's a slight difference there.
But I do appreciate Vivek being in the conversation on that.
Yeah, I think we're at the point where affirmative action at the moment hurts more than it helps.
But I do think there was a long period where it probably helped more than it hurt, even though it hurt a number of people.
RFK Jr.
on nuclear energy.
I haven't seen his most updated opinion, but I'm hearing from good sources that he's still anti-nuclear energy.
But I don't want to characterize his opinion too much, because I'm a little, let's say, under-informed.
But this is his biggest problem, I think.
Would you agree?
RFK Jr.' 's biggest problem is nuclear.
Because I don't think he can win enough votes on the right to win in a general election unless he's pro-nuclear energy.
And I don't know if he can win on the left if he's pro-nuclear energy.
But I do think that he's persuasive enough that he could change the left to have a more, let's say, a better risk And so what the world needs is a public debate or conversation between RFK Jr.
because I respect that he's a good communicator.
I'd like to see a really well-informed good communicator Who is anti-nuclear energy.
Or at least, I don't know if anti is the right word.
So again, I don't want to characterize his opinion.
But it's not a super pro-nuclear energy.
I think he needs to have a public conversation with Michael Schellenberger.
Don't you?
Just think how much that would help the country.
Because here's what those two people have in common.
As far as you know, they don't lie to you.
They don't lie to you.
And they know what they're talking about at a deeper level than people generally know anything.
Now, neither of them are scientists, but I think they're both close enough to what the argument is that they can represent them.
So I don't think there's anything that the United States needs more than a public conversation between Michael Schellenberger and RFK Jr.
on the topic of nuclear energy.
Wouldn't you agree?
It's like it's a screaming need.
Because if it turns out that RFK Jr.
has some good points that I'm not aware of, I want to hear them.
He might have a good point.
You know, I'm actually, I have enough respect for his intellectual capacity and his honesty that if he had a different opinion than I do, I would first assume that he was well informed, Second, I would assume he's trying to figure out what's good for the country.
He's not trying to make a buck somehow.
And I would listen to it.
And if he had a good argument, maybe he could persuade me.
But he has the credibility, at least, going into it.
But Shellenberger has that, too.
Shellenberger has a long history of being credible and not being a partisan.
So those are the two you want to hear talk.
I hope that happens.
All right.
What else is going on?
Two black guys are getting in trouble in the news for not being anti-white enough.
So I'm wondering if this is going to be a thing now.
So two prominent black leaders, and I'll tell you the details, are both in trouble today from critics for not being anti-white.
That's like a real thing.
So the first one is in Virginia.
So Martin Brown, who's taking over the DEI department, I guess, and instead of chasing equity, he wants to go for merit and equality.
And he's a black man, and he's getting lots of pushback because he wants merit instead of your race to determine your outcomes.
And he's getting pushback.
So this is one of those Doug Youngkin, the new governor's plays to take out DEI.
So we'll see.
We'll see how that goes.
So the only thing, even the NAACP is calling on Mr. Brown to resign.
Because he wants merit over these other things.
All right, also, Mayor Adams, Eric Adams, no relationship to me that I know of, was at some law school, I guess, graduation, commencement address, and a number of the students turned their backs on him, and here's their complaint.
On the issue of Daniel Penny, the Marine who's white, Who controlled the black, mentally disturbed guy on the subway.
And the black guy died later.
We don't know exactly the details of what made him die.
But Eric Adams, because he's a legitimate leader, like an actual leader, not just a pretend one, said you should wait to see the details before you make up your mind.
Basically, he supported innocent until proven guilty, and a bunch of lawyers turned their back on him.
Just hold that in your mind.
He supported innocent until proven guilty, and lawyers, lawyers turned their back on him for supporting innocent until proven guilty.
Every one of the people who turned their back on him, they should have their degrees just yanked away.
Not really, but I feel like that's a real bad look for the law school.
I forget what law school it is, but if you're producing lawyers who don't agree with the concept of innocent until proven guilty, as long as it's a white person who's involved, I'm sorry.
You're not going to be my lawyer, that's for sure.
So, but maybe this is the thing.
Maybe there are black leaders who have decided not to be anti-white, and maybe you'll see more of it.
Because, you know, both of them still have their jobs.
So they haven't been run out of town for not being anti-white enough.
They're just getting criticism.
So maybe it's safe.
So again, big props to Mayor Adams.
I don't agree with him on everything he does, of course, but that's true of all politicians.
But good work on this, sticking to the Constitution.
So there's a big controversy whether Trump can win over suburban women.
That's his big problem.
Especially because he's a pussy-grabbing insulter of women.
To me, this is like a fascinating question.
Because on one hand, it's hard to change a whole demographic group that's against you to be for you.
On the other hand, if anybody could do it, it would be Trump.
I don't think he will do it, but he might be the only one who could.
And I was trying to think, is there any way he could pull that off?
He's always going to have abortion working against him.
Well, he's taken that clever view that it's not his opinion of abortion that matters.
He wants the individuals to work it out at the state level.
That's a pretty strong constitutional argument.
It just, it isn't persuasive, though.
I mean, it's rational.
It's just not persuasive.
So it might decrease a little bit the hatred that people have over that issue, but it's not going to help him that much.
So is there anything he could do?
What could Trump do that would win him suburban women?
They do like safety, but it hasn't made a difference yet, right?
We haven't seen that shift yet, and you think you would have seen it.
Because certainly the news is doing a good job of telling you that everything's dangerous.
I mean, everybody knows that crime is up.
Everybody knows that the freedom crappers numbers are growing.
So crime doesn't seem to be able to get it done.
What about fentanyl?
What about fentanyl?
Now he has, he said, you know, he'd be willing to use the military on Mexico as well.
But do you think suburban women care about that or even think that would make a difference?
Probably not.
I don't think suburban women are big on using the military to take out anybody.
Are they?
Do suburban women usually vote for war?
Probably not.
Probably not.
So what is it that suburban women need and want that, theoretically, Trump could offer them that would make a difference?
Wine.
Free wine.
Kids.
Yeah, the more protecting kids, but that hasn't made a difference yet.
Education, yes, but it hasn't made a difference yet.
So I don't, here's what I think.
I think that women can't get past the, oh this is gonna sound really sexist, but I think this would apply to men as well.
So I think this will be less sexist than it sounds because it would apply to men as well, just in their own different way.
I believe that people support candidates if they're not super political people, which is different.
They support candidates like accessories to their fashion.
That's what I think.
In other words, when a woman, and keep in mind, I'm going to say that this is true of men as well.
A man puts on his expensive watch and puts on some cologne too.
So we're all using our accessories.
To market ourselves.
I believe that a suburban woman cannot say she's a Trump supporter because it's a bad accessory.
The same reason suburban women don't drive beat-up pickup trucks.
Even if it's very functional.
It's just not the right accessory.
Now, I think that would be true of men as well.
You know, men don't want to be associated with Marianne Williams, right?
Mariana Williams.
It doesn't feel like very manly to say you support Mariana Williams.
Makes you feel a little...
A little unsubstantial or something.
So I don't think that people choose their candidates entirely on policy, except for say the 20% of the country that's trying to pay attention to that stuff.
The 80% are going along.
They're just going along.
And they want to make sure that they've got the accessory that everybody else is wearing.
So they're looking at their feet and they're saying, can I wear Uggs?
Can I wear Uggs?
They look at their friends, they go, okay, no Uggs.
Uggs are out.
Right?
So I think that Trump has that problem.
That if you're a suburban woman, he's not the accessory that you can associate yourself with.
But if you're a suburban man, it doesn't feel the same, does it?
I wouldn't feel, I would not feel less of a man or anything else for supporting Trump.
I would just feel people hating me.
But as a man, as a man, having people hate me is just sort of like routine.
I'm just so used to it.
It just doesn't mean that much to me.
But if you're a woman, could you support somebody that would make your friends possibly hate you?
It's a little different.
There probably is, I don't know, this might be just purely sexist, so you can call me on it if it is, but I don't believe men give a shit as much as women do about what other people think of them.
Is that generalization, does that hold?
Would you give me that generalization or is that just sexist?
At least I'm aware of it.
If it's sexist, at least I'm aware of it.
I think that generalization holds.
The men are a little bit much more F you, this is my opinion, I'll wear this hat if I feel like it.
And women have to get along, you know, men are more combative generally.
Right?
So a man will take a contrarian view because it's combative.
It's like the combative kind of attracts us to it a little bit.
Oh, you hate this?
Well then I'm twice as likely to wear it.
Do you really, really hate it?
Then I'm three times more likely to wear it.
Whereas women, I think, are more likely to find a solution that doesn't get anybody killed.
And that is, go long, you know, stick with the majority.
So how could Trump change his brand to make him accessible to women so that they're not embarrassed to say they like somebody who's strong on crime?
What could do that?
Well... Well... Trans?
No.
The trans issue won't get anybody any votes.
For or against.
It's too small.
Data man.
Fix the economy.
Well, but let me ask you, what is it that women need the most?
To be happy.
Let's say moms.
Dick.
It's possible that Dick is the correct answer, but let's keep it in political terms.
I don't think Trump can get to all of them.
You say safety, but I don't think safety is working.
If safety were the button, wouldn't it already be activated?
I feel like he needs to be not the pussy grabber.
I think he needs to be more James Bond and less Creepy, creepy guy.
If he could change his reputation to be Sean Connery, Wimbledon would like him no matter how much he likes slapping them.
Because apparently Sean Connery was famous for saying, do a fact check on me, this is true, right?
Sean Connery famously said that sometimes you have to slap a woman.
Is that true?
You really said that, right?
Yeah.
And do you think suburban women were still attracted to Sean Connery?
I mean, maybe not at the moment, but in his prime?
I'm pretty sure they were.
Because somehow it fit with his vibe.
Is there any way that Trump could change his battleship into more James Bond so that even women would say, all right, well, he can grab me.
I mean, Sean Connery can grab me by the...
No?
I don't know.
I'm just kind of noodling through it.
I don't have a good idea here.
Before cancel culture, that was his reputation.
I think you're right.
Yeah, before cancel culture, Trump was just a playboy, right?
And people said, oh, rich playboy, that's OK.
That was Trump's point, that they let him, yeah.
He'd have to lose weight.
You think if Trump lost weight he would be more popular with women?
What if he shaved his head?
What if he shaved his head and lost weight?
Alright, it's never gonna happen.
Yeah, that's never gonna happen.
Alright.
How do you stereotype women these days?
I don't know if that was a question or a criticism.
Muscles?
Well, I think he may have aged out of the playboy mode.
An apology?
You think if Trump apologized that would help him with women?
Would it?
Nah, because he'd have to apologize for something he said didn't happen.
So I don't see that working.
No, apology seems like the wrong direction.
Alright, well, I still think there's something that women want that he could provide, but he hasn't come up with it yet.
I don't know what it is.
It could be fentanyl.
I don't think there are any mothers of teens who are not panicked about fentanyl.
So it could be fentanyl.
He could say something along the lines of, you can hate me, but I'm trying to save your children.
Oh, that would work.
That would kind of work, wouldn't it?
So the one thing that would take women off of their, let's say, their accessory thinking, that I can't be associated with Trump, is if Trump was unambiguously the one who could protect their children.
If he was unambiguously the protector of their children, all things would be forgiven.
Because women would put their children above themselves in that context.
So I think he has to take it out of the frame of women, who are of course thinking of themselves as we all think of ourselves, and move it to children, where we all release our, somewhat instinctively and biologically, we release our self-interest when it comes to children.
Because we figure, rightly, that the children are the greatest self-interest as well as interest.
Yeah, he doesn't have to convince every mother.
However, I think what he has to convince mothers is that reparations for women.
Oh my god.
Reparations for women.
Oh my god.
He would never recommend that, but it's such a weaselly play.
He could form a commission.
He could do a Newsome.
Form a commission of women to look into giving reparations to women.
And then just never make a decision.
The Newsome play.
All right.
Because he doesn't have a chance.
You know that Ukrainian counter-offensive?
Very close.
Very, very.
Two very's.
It used to be close.
And then it was very close.
But now it's very, very soon.
Very, very soon.
And already you can see the media narrative propaganda forming.
So you can see the seeds of the propaganda, and it's going to go like this.
So the Ukrainian counter-offensive has not started, at least according to Zelensky.
It hasn't even started.
But there's still intense fighting around Bakhmut.
You're seeing stories that are different versions of this story.
Russians retreating.
Right?
Watch how often you see a story of Russians retreating.
Now, do you think that in the back and forth of a tense war in which the sides are roughly equal, you don't think I could get video of Ukrainians retreating?
You think there are no Ukrainians who ever retreated?
No Ukrainian ever backed up To, you know, regroup to fight again.
Right?
But every time the Russians move from one place to another, it doesn't matter what direction it is, if they're hurrying, or they're all moving, and you hear gunfire, you're gonna see video of them retreating.
They're all retreating.
No, maybe they're just relocating.
You know, maybe they're getting a better position, right?
So, Watch out for all the Russia is retreating narrative.
I don't think it's real.
It looks like that's what the intelligence people have decided is going to be the narrative.
Because you can see the seeds of it already.
Getting everybody primed.
Oh yeah, those Russians.
Is it the Wagner group that's going to be retreating more?
Or with all their terrible criminal conscripts?
Or is it going to be that regular Russian army that's retreating more?
Which one is it?
Which of those Russians is retreating the most?
And then they make you think past the sale.
If you're arguing about which version is retreating the most, you've already accepted that Russians are retreaters.
A bunch of retreaters.
So I'm not sure how much I'd believe anything during the counter-offensive.
When the counter-offensive starts, don't believe anything for a long time.
You know, short of an actual peace deal, I wouldn't believe anything about the reporting on the military on the ground for the next three months at least.
It's going to be just complete garbage reporting.
Yeah, Wagner Group is going to be variously winning everything and losing everything.
The Russian army is going to be in control but also retreating for about three months.
Yeah.
But I will say again that Trump changed it from a war into a negotiation.
And am I the only person who said that out loud so far?
Have you heard anybody else say that?
Because during the town hall, When he said he would end it on day one when he came into office, he basically said the war is over.
We've entered the negotiation phase.
So all of the fighting that's happening is just to get a better negotiated settlement.
It's not about winning.
They are no longer trying to win.
Tim Poole always beats me.
Did Tim Poole say that?
I will give him credit if he did.
All right.
All right, well.
So the California Reparations Group is at it again.
And they had such good success with their earlier recommendations about reparations that they decided to add to it a new element.
I think this is totally going in the right direction, don't you?
Listen to this.
Let's see if you can make your head not explode.
And this is the perfect example of why Newsom is playing this like a master musician.
He is playing these people like a fiddle.
Because he's letting them go too far.
And that allows him to ignore them, right?
So he's letting them go way too far.
He's putting no control on them whatsoever, which is brilliant, right?
He's not saying, you know, If you could maybe cut that back a little bit, I could support it.
Don't you think that phone call never happened?
Well, let me tell you what the newest recommendation is, and you tell me if he is productively talking to this group.
Or if he's letting them be as crazy as possible so he can ignore them.
So their latest thing the task force is calling for the state legislature to require all cities and counties with allegedly segregated neighborhoods to submit all the real estate all the real estate ordinances to a state agency for approval based on whether they maintain or lessen residential racial segregation.
So now they're going after your neighborhood.
And I kind of love this, because the crazier it gets, the more we can put it in its proper place, which is, it was just a prank on black people, basically, by Newsom.
Newsom's playing the biggest prank on black Americans I've ever seen in my life.
He actually has them convinced that he's serious about some of this stuff.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
It's kind of cruel.
All right.
Why is he doing it?
Because in the short run, it looks like he's very woke.
And in the long run, he doesn't have to worry about it.
He'll just keep putting it off.
He can put it off forever, because they're always going to be willing to go back to the task force and talk some more about some more stuff that they can get.
And then he'll just say, well, not quite there.
Maybe work on that a little bit harder 10 years later.
What would be the fallout if he executed on some of this?
It depends what some is.
If this turned into $5,000 per black person in California, I think people would say, I have something to complain about, but it's not going to break the bank.
So you can imagine some trivial thing.
That everybody would argue about, but we wouldn't go nuclear about it.
However, if it turned out to be something like a million dollars and a free house for black people, I guess all I can say is it can't happen.
Because the potential fallout would be so extraordinary that it would be unpredictable.
I don't think I could stay in the state if that happened.
And I really, really don't want to leave because, you know, once you get settled, it's just too hard to leave.
But that would just feel too far.
Like, if they started scratching my money out of my bank account for shit they just made up for people who weren't slaves, I mean, that's too far.
That's just too far.
And I think the two words To and far.
We need to use more.
Because almost everything that starts as a good idea morphs into some ridiculous thing.
And you've got to be able to say where too far is.
If you keep saying, well, it was a good idea when it started.
I don't want to change my mind.
That's not helping.
How about it's a good idea on the small, but then it morphed into something that's too far.
And you've got to call it.
Now, Calling it as being too far could get you canceled, but apparently there are enough of us who are willing to get canceled to tell the truth.
At least that'll get out there.
Charleston, South Carolina.
Is that a good place?
Sullivan's Island, somebody's recommending.
I don't like to be where there are hurricanes.
That's my problem with Florida.
Too many natural disasters.
Yeah.
You know, maybe Trump could make reparations go away by suggesting them for women, but also not be serious about it.
It would be an interesting little thing to throw in the mix there.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is the news for today.
California has perfect weather, yeah.
Kind of does.
Well, you know, in California you can avoid, it's such a big state, I can avoid the freedom crappers.
I can go where there are no earthquake faults.
I can build a home that's, you know, hardened to them.
I can build my house so it's not easy to burn and it's not in a high burnable area.
And I don't have any mudslides where I live, right?
It's not really a risk in my specific neighborhood.
So even though California has like every kind of risk, you know, Tahoe has too much snow, you could die in the snow, I just don't go to Tahoe.
So all of those risks, everything from, you know, crime on the streets in LA, I don't go on the sidewalk in Los Angeles.
I just don't go there.
So it's not really a problem.
You know, I didn't want to go there anyway.
So not a problem at all.
Is there another UAP?
Why are you saying that?
Now my understanding of San Francisco is that it tends to be cyclical.
San Francisco has gone through some high crime and low crime periods.
I think New York City as well.
So it could be just cyclical.
I mean it could be that it just slides too far in one direction and then it goes back the other way.
That's probably what we're going to see.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that Home Depot employee was killed near me, that is true.
That's the store I shop at.
He was shot dead right in front of the store I shop at.
All right, so that's all for now, and I will talk to you maybe tonight, maybe do a man cave tonight.
