Episode 2114 Scott Adams: Trump vs DeSantis Strategy, Tim Scott Joins The Race, Kari Lake Might Win
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tim Scott enters the race
DeSantis strategy not working against Trump
AI risk is overblown
Kari Lake might win
The left targets Musk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm pretty sure that science has never discovered a more awesome time or situation.
And you lucked into it.
Wow.
I guess your day's starting well, but it could be even better.
And all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
No Bud Light.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Don't forget the ah at the end.
Go.
Ah.
All right, let's start out with, did you all see the meme which put Joe Biden's face on Dylan Mulvaney?
Well, you're going to see it now.
So there are some things that AI will be good for.
So in case you were thinking, AI, what good is AI?
There you go.
That's what it's good for.
2024 election is going to be so much fun.
Oh, my God.
It's going to be meme versus meme.
All right.
So in other news, there's a report of three boats have been sunk in Europe by orcas.
Is there a difference between an orca and a whale?
Why does the story say orcas?
There is a difference?
Ah, okay.
An orca is not a whale.
It's a killer whale?
Why can't I just call it a whale?
Because it's an orca, I guess.
Well, alright, so these orcas have sung three boats, but that's not the amazing part.
The amazing part is that they've been spotted teaching other orcas how to do it.
That's right.
The war is on.
Turns out that the animals have decided to turn on the humans, and they're just going to kill us after all.
And it turns out that the animals have a navy.
It's all orcas.
And the orcas are trading.
I don't know if NATO is trading them or what, But somebody's training these orcas to attack naval vessels.
Keep an eye on that.
Keep an eye on that.
Did you see a video, not too long ago, where Joe Rogan was showing a video of a rat that learned to use tools?
It went and got a stick to click the rat trap so it could get the cheese without getting hurt.
Because it knew what the rat trap was, and it knew that if it used a tool it could spring it.
It actually used a tool, a stick.
Now we see these whales learning to attack boats.
Put it all together, people.
Put it all together.
It's not just AI that's getting smarter.
Somehow the creatures, the creatures are starting to gang up.
See, it's a total head fake.
We're all looking at the robots and the AI.
It's like, oh, look over there.
It's the robots.
We're afraid of the robots and the AI.
Meanwhile, the orcas and the rats apparently have conspired to take over everything with their tool making and such.
All right, we'll keep an eye on that.
Here's a story I told in the man cave last night, but you're going to have to hear it.
Because it's important.
It's about the simulation.
Have you ever had this situation where you worried yourself into the exact problem that you were trying to prevent?
Does anybody have that?
That's like a real thing, right?
There's something that's never happened to you before, and then because you're thinking of it, you just think yourself into the problem.
Well, yesterday I went to take a ride in my e-bike, and Uncharacteristically, I thought to myself, you know what?
I'd hate to fall off my e-bike.
Because I'm at that age now where if you get a serious sporting injury, you know, maybe you don't come back.
It's kind of the end of your sporting life if you have a bad one.
And so I thought to myself about falling off my e-bike.
And you know, it's not like I've never thought of it.
It's just I've never dwelled on it before.
So the first time I dwell on it, Take my e-bike up, and I'm going on this path that's too small for automobiles, and it looks like the path is going to come to an end, and I need to turn around.
But the path had narrowed to the point where turning around without getting off your bike was going to be kind of a challenge, and there was gravel on each side of the narrow path.
And I said to myself, I calculated, all right, To do a very low-speed turn, you know, you can't do it if it's too narrow.
You'll fall off.
And I thought, I better go off my bike and just, you know, walk it around.
And then I thought to myself, no.
No, dammit.
I'm no bicycle pussy.
I'm not afraid of my bike.
I'm not going to talk myself into being afraid of a bicycle, dammit.
I'm going to just make this turn.
So as I was flying through the air, On my way to the hard pavement below.
Because as you see, the turn didn't work out.
It was one of those situations where I really should have listened to that little voice in my head that said, well, that looks like really dangerous.
You're not going to make it.
So as I was departing from the bicycle itself, and more airborne than actually bike-born, time stood still.
Have you ever had that experience where you know something bad is going to happen, and it's only going to be a quarter of a second.
But that quarter of a second seems to just stop in time in your memory.
So as I'm flying through the air, I have to do triage on which part of my body I want to sacrifice.
I'm thinking arm?
No.
Don't want a broken arm.
Leg?
Knee?
No.
No.
Bad news.
Head?
Got a helmet.
But still, you don't want to land on your head.
Hands, got to protect the hands, right?
Because I work with my hands.
So I'm running through all my body parts.
I'm like, no, no, no, no.
And I came up with one body part that I thought I could, I could get by with.
And it was this fat part of my back.
Toward the top, just past the shoulder blade where there's like a little bit of muscle here, a little bit of padding.
I managed to spin in the air just fast enough to tuck and roll, hitting that back part of my back first.
And I gotta say it was quite a crash.
But I managed to pop up uninjured.
Now that's not even the weird part.
Here's the part I didn't tell you last night in the man cave.
So have you had this situation where There's something that never happens and then it's everywhere.
And you don't know, did you cause that?
Or was it always just there and you didn't notice it?
So today I'm looking through the news to get my little news stories for the show.
And there's a story about Simon Cowell, who happens to be just about my age, like pretty close, and how he got seriously injured falling off his e-bike.
Now, I've only fallen off my e-bike once.
Just once.
And there's like a major story about a guy my age falling off an e-bike?
What are the odds of that?
Did I make that happen?
See, this is why I believe I live in a simulation.
One explanation is, ah, it's just a coincidence.
The other explanation is, well, stories about bike accidents were always out there.
You just didn't notice until you were primed for it.
Or, number three, I caused it to happen.
Not only did I cause the accident, but I caused the news story about the topic.
So that's how I experience life, like I just caused it.
I don't know if it's true, but I also don't know anything else is true.
Well, enough about me.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the bar exam for lawyers is going to be made easier so that more black people can become lawyers.
So.
That's actually in the news.
That's a real story.
Now, of course, in the story, they don't say black people.
You know, they have to wink at you.
Well, it's to make it fair for everybody.
You know, but you know, you know what they're talking about.
So what do you think about that?
Well, I'll tell you, if I were currently a black lawyer and I had passed the hard bar exam, I would not feel good about being presumably thrown in with the people who did not pass the hard bar exam.
I've got a feeling that people are going to be like, I don't know, did you pass the real bar exam or the new fake bar exam?
The easy one.
I'm not sure.
So I feel like We are not considering the side effects of some of our decisions.
As I've said before, historically I've always supported efforts to increase inclusion and equity, not equity but equality of opportunity and all that, including even Affirmative action, historically.
But at some point, am I wrong that at some point it gives you more downside than upside?
Am I wrong about that?
That at some point, you could argue whether we're there or not, but at some point you need to stop doing it before you've reached total equality.
If you keep pushing it all the way to everybody's equal all the time, there's no way that's good for everybody.
It's just going to be such a fight.
But, you know, in the early days when the disparities are gigantic, yeah, maybe you have to do something a little more aggressive.
But at the moment, I think we need to rethink this stuff.
Alright, I saw another tweet from somebody who's joining my opinion that our worry about AI is bullshit, at least the current version, and it's not nearly as useful for a lot of things as you think it will be.
So here's what AI will be good for.
Really, really good at complex searches, so it's a better search engine.
Really good at summarizing articles, which I would just call the search engine.
So I saw somebody say, oh, it's really good at summarizing the pros and cons of all these articles about some topic, to which I say, you mean a search engine?
It's just a really good search engine.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's really, really good.
But it's also unreliable, so you've got that.
But when it works, it works pretty awesome.
And then, you know, it's going to be good for helping people who are already programmers code.
And, you know, lawyers will be able to research case law and stuff like that.
So there'll be a number of professions in which, if you're already an expert in that profession, your writer, researcher, lawyer, whatever, is really going to help.
But it doesn't look like it's coming anywhere near taking jobs.
It looks like it's just going to make people work differently.
And so when I said I'm not worried about AI becoming an existential threat in its current form, the pushback I got was, Scott, oh wow.
If I may give you some condescending opinion about this.
Whoa.
Wow.
Boomer.
Boomer, let me explain to you.
No, we're not worried about the current version of AI, Boomer.
No, Boomer.
We're worried about where it's obviously going.
Yes, maybe version 1.0 is not going to destroy the world, but obviously, as it gets smarter and smarter, the risk increases.
And Boomer, Boomer, please.
Please, Boomer.
Maybe you shouldn't even talk about things you don't know about.
Please.
To which I say, Your genius idea that a rabbit can evolve into a truck is not persuading me.
Oh yeah, bad microchips do evolve into better microchips.
That's a thing.
Bad smartphones do evolve into better smartphones.
Totally.
Bad cars evolve into better cars.
Yep.
But not once in the history of the whole fucking universe has a rabbit turned into a truck.
And that's what's happening with AI.
Because the large language model is never going to be smart.
It's just going to be really good at organizing information.
And what it takes for AI to become smart has not been invented.
Right?
It hasn't been invented.
Nobody knows how that could happen.
Because we don't even have a concept of what it would take to make it as smart.
All we have is this old model, which just makes your search engine and your organization of data really, really cool.
And it can talk to you better.
So it's like Siri Plus.
It's like a better Siri, basically.
So I would like to submit that The AI that you're worried about is the one that hasn't been invented and nobody knows how to invent it.
Should you be worried about things that haven't been invented and nobody knows even the first part of how to make it?
That would be everything.
You know?
I'm worried about the pen.
Because what if it evolves into a laser that shoots out of every hole?
Because, you know, right now it's innocent.
Right now there's not much danger, unless it pokes you.
But what if it evolved into a laser shooting pen?
That's what the conversation about AI is like.
No, it does not evolve into a laser shooting pen.
There might be lasers that could evolve, but a pen doesn't become a laser.
Alright, enough of that.
All right.
As you know, the reason that ESG and DEI and CEI and all those racist things that are being pushed upon organizations, the main reason that they have to fold to those things is not because they think it's right, necessarily.
Some probably do.
But because there are all these ratings agencies that will destroy the reputation of your company if you're not doing all the noble and good things.
And I thought to myself, well, why are there not alternative ratings agencies?
And why are there not ratings agencies to rate the other rating agencies?
Because wouldn't you like to know, oh, this agency says Tesla is not woke enough.
But wouldn't you like to know that there's a rating agency that rates all the rating agencies and says this rating agency is bullshit?
What's wrong with that?
Because my understanding is that it doesn't take much to be a ratings agency.
You just have to say you are one.
And then see if you can convince people you are one.
Right?
It's not like it's a government, you know, licensed role.
So why not have like hundreds of them?
Until they're all useless.
You know the problem with the old search engine before AI?
Is that if I googled anything, the problem wasn't that I would get no results.
The problem is I'd get too many, and they'd all be all over the place.
It'd be like going to the library and looking through books.
It would just take forever.
So I feel like one way that this ratings agency thing might go is there might be so many different agencies that they all become useless.
If you wanted to know what was the rating, you'd look up the agencies to see what they rated Tesla, and one would be an A, and one would be like a D+.
And then what do you do?
What do you do?
So I feel like one direction that all this rating agency stuff could go is more of it until it dies under its own weight.
That could be one direction.
Because what I don't think is going to happen is you'll just have a few ratings agencies and everybody will just agree that they're the ones.
Maybe, but I feel like there's no barrier to entry, so there should be lots of them.
Then we see that one of the ratings agencies, there's a gay advocacy group, they just stripped Anheuser-Busch of their good rating because they didn't like how Anheuser-Busch basically caved to the pressure about Dylan Mulvaney.
So now you can't make the right happy because they didn't like how that was treated.
But now the left is unhappy because they changed their minds because of the pressure from the right.
Do you think the big companies are learning that social advocacy is a bad idea?
How many times does a big company need to just get kneecapped before they say, how about we just stay out of all of this?
How about you do you?
We'll just make money.
We'll just try to be a company for a change.
How about that?
So, anyway.
Have you noticed that when Democrats want to get re-elected, there's something that they often do?
Tell me what it is.
What do Democrats do, and I'm not talking about hoaxes, when they want to get re-elected?
Lie more?
Well, okay.
Act Republican?
They act Republican.
And here's the thing.
It's as if Democrats know That their own policies don't work.
Because when they need to get reelected, they just suddenly drift into Republican policies to try to make you not realize that they never were there.
So here's a good example of that.
Governor Newsom is trying to change the approval process for getting big projects approved in the state.
Now a big project would be A big energy project or a big dam.
So anything with water or energy.
You can't get anything approved in California because there's some process.
Let's see, the process is, what's it called?
There's a name for it.
The California Environmental Quality Act.
The law is known as CEQA.
So apparently the Democrat governor realizes that, I assume this came from Democrats, that Democrats passed a law that made it impossible to manage the state because you couldn't get anything done because you couldn't get it through this approval organization.
So Newsom is going to try to become Donald Trump by reducing red tape so he can get things done.
Now, How do you justify that?
I mean, he literally has to become Trump to save the state.
Does anybody not notice that?
Are we supposed to not notice that he has to adopt a baseline Republican policy to save the state?
Because he knows he's in trouble.
That's so embarrassing.
Now, that doesn't work the other way, does it?
It probably does, but I just don't know examples.
I'm probably being biased about this.
Does it work the other way that Republicans try to turn into Democrats when they're running for election?
Maybe they do.
Maybe they do a little bit.
Maybe they soften.
They probably soften on abortion a little bit in some cases.
Yeah, some do.
So I guess I'm going to modify my statement and say it works both ways.
All right, well, here's a little wild card.
Remember, the best way to predict the future, as Elon Musk reminded us even yesterday, is that the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, as determined by an external observer.
And I told you, if that rule is true, then one thing we should see before 2024 is evidence that the 2020 election was in fact rigged.
Now, I'm not predicting it based on evidence.
Right?
And I'm not saying it was rigged.
I'm not saying it was rigged.
And there's no evidence that I'm aware of.
But wouldn't it be the most entertaining?
What would be more entertaining than that?
To find out it actually was rigged.
Because it would be the cherry on the cake of all the other rigging and impropriety that we've seen.
Because every time I make this joke, people get quiet.
Do you know the joke I make about the election?
Well, we know that the following entities are thoroughly corrupt.
The FBI, the CIA, Congress, EGOS, the FDA, the CDC, Big Pharma.
We know they're all corrupt.
But aren't we lucky that all 50 states with separate voting systems work perfectly?
Everything else in the country was rigged.
Everything.
Everything that could be rigged was rigged, but boy are we lucky that the elections were not.
And when I say that, Democrats just fucking run away.
Because it's the one argument that you can't, you just can't say anything about that.
Because the rejoinder is, but there's no evidence.
To which I say, absolutely.
You're so right about that.
There is no evidence.
You were right.
No argument there.
And again, aren't we lucky that everything in the country is corrupted and we found out for sure, but that.
So good on you for calling it right and calling it the only thing that's not rigged.
It's the only thing.
All right, so that's why the most amusing outcub would be to find out that it was.
Now, Carrie Lake has apparently rested her case.
We don't know what the conclusion is yet, but the question was whether or not they had done real signature verification or fake signature verification.
Which one do you think they proved?
That real signature verification was done, or that fake verification was done?
Well it turns out, according to Carrie Lakeside, that they did tens of thousands, 70,000 signatures that were verified in two seconds.
Two seconds.
So one of the things that Carrie Lake proved is that the people doing the signature verification were way faster than you think.
Because just sort of commonsensically, I think, 70,000.
How long would that take?
Human beings to look at each one.
And then I think to myself, about two seconds.
That sounds about right.
Yeah, about two seconds.
So in order for Carey Lake to lose, and I don't mean legally, but let's say lose logically, you know, lose the logical argument.
The legal argument might have some, you know, legal Loophole that I don't know about.
But in terms of making her case that there was in fact not really any signature verification, I feel like she's gonna land that.
Because the logs themselves apparently are undisputed and they say they were checked in two seconds.
Now obviously there's some pushback to that and I haven't heard it.
So don't assume just because you've heard one side of it That there's not another side.
Because so far, every time we've heard there's an election story, there is another side.
And it takes away all the fun.
So don't assume that this is a slam dunk.
But boy, the simulation is just screaming for it, isn't it?
The simulation seriously wants this to happen.
So we'll see.
We'll see.
If I were to predict it's going to happen, it would be based Entirely on the most entertaining outcome.
Not on any evidence.
Not on any evidence.
Because I don't believe anything on the internet.
Alright, here's another simulation alert.
As you know, Senator Tim Scott has announced he's going to run as a Republican.
And I'm going to make a prediction based on the same phenomenon.
That reality will be the most entertaining reality.
For me.
So this will be just personal.
I believe that Tim Scott will end up being Trump's VP choice.
Here's why.
Because it will drive me crazy to hear that the ticket is Trump Scott.
And I will be plagued forever, until the election, because people will think it's very funny to point out that Scott is my name as well.
And people will say, well it's about time you were running on the ticket.
And then they will laugh, and it will be funny.
So, for that reason alone, I'm going to predict that Trump will pick Tim Scott as his running mate.
Because it's just the weirdest, it's the weirdest most simulation-like outcome.
It's just the weirdest.
Now, on top of that, Tim Scott's kind of perfect.
Because you want a vice president who's serious and substantial, Doesn't have scandals.
There's no negatives that are coming with it.
But it's not as fascinating as the top of the ticket.
Perfect.
Tim Scott is a solid person who you wouldn't mind having as your president.
Yeah, I suppose your mileage might differ if you're a Democrat.
But you can imagine him being president, and you can imagine yourself being comfortable with that.
So that's a perfect fit.
Not as much wattage as the president.
Takes care of some of the biggest weakness that Trump has.
What's Trump's biggest weakness?
Go.
What's his biggest weakness?
Yeah, racism.
So if he runs with a black vice president, They'll still call him a racist.
They'll call him an Uncle Tom.
But the attacks won't have the same feeling.
It will also set up Tim Scott as an obvious person who runs for president after being a vice president.
And if you're black and you just want a black president, which we saw with Obama, what do you get, 96% of black vote or something?
There might be some people who say, you know what?
That's the shortest path to the next black president.
So maybe they like that.
Maybe.
So I think it would be a... To me, he seems like the most obvious choice.
What do you think of that?
You got really quiet when I said that.
Is there any negative to that?
Tim Scott as vice president for Trump?
Is there any negative to that?
It almost feels too obvious, doesn't it?
It feels like it's just really obvious.
Yeah.
Maybe.
I could see Kristi Noem being a choice as well, but Tim Scott is more obvious.
All right.
Do you know the Triggernometry podcast?
It's a pretty big deal.
It's made a lot of news with some big interviews.
Apparently they're British based and their bank just shut them down with no explanation.
No explanation.
They just decided to unbank them.
And they just said, yeah, I'm sorry, we can't be your bank anymore.
It's called the Tide Business, is the name of the bank.
Tide Bank or something?
Tide Business Bank.
I never heard of that bank.
But do you think that's good for Tide's business?
I hope not.
Now maybe there's some reason we don't know about But as Eric Weinstein was pointing out, we do have a problem with choke points.
Banks are a choke point.
So the bad people don't have to go after everybody, they just go after your bank.
And you saw what happened to me with the choke point, right?
Just go after the publisher?
You could take me out of business with just one choke point.
That's what happened.
So choke points are a big problem in politics right now, if that's what happened.
But we'll keep an eye on trigonometry.
Wishing him well.
All right.
What do you think of the DeSantis versus Trump strategy of saying that the other one was wrong on the pandemic?
Do you think that's going to work?
So apparently both Trump and DeSantis are going to exaggerate what they did and maybe exaggerate the other direction, what the other person did.
So they both seem to have a claim that the other one got it wrong.
And I try to follow the argument.
So I'm like, OK, on this date, DeSantis was a little bit pro-lockdown, but on this date, he was anti-lockdown.
But Trump, He was pro-vaccination, but then not mandatory, but then he wasn't against lockdown.
And then what about masks?
What did they say about masks?
You know, so I think it's too complicated.
Now, if it's too complicated, voters will just retreat to their bias and back their candidate.
So I don't think, I don't think it has much punch.
What do you think?
I think that both of them are going to be looking at suboptimal performances, because everybody was suboptimal in the pandemic.
You could argue that DeSantis was one of the better ones, but apparently even New York State had a lower death rate.
Did you know that?
That's Trump's claim.
I don't know if it's true.
So Trump is claiming that Even New York State did better on death rates than Florida did.
But, Florida made a conscious choice to protect the elderly and let everybody else live their life.
So, was that a mistake?
Was it a mistake to let people live free knowing, of course, that the death rate would be higher?
I wouldn't call it a mistake.
I'd call it a choice.
So, I don't know.
I think neither of them are going to get traction.
I think that we're over the pandemic.
We understand that nobody was perfect.
And they both, I thought they both did the best they could under great uncertainty.
So, you know, I told you before, at the beginning of the pandemic, I told you that I was going to be an easy grader for all the leaders who got it wrong.
Because there'd be a lot of people guessing, and they would be getting it wrong.
So from the very start, I said, let's be a little bit generous on this one.
On this one, people are genuinely guessing.
So you don't want to throw your good leaders under the bus, because they guess wrong.
Now you could argue there are things that were more objectively true and they got wrong, but nobody was going to get everything right.
That wasn't a thing.
So I tend to not care so much about what they got wrong.
You know, they were in the ballpark.
I think both Trump and DeSantis were in the ballpark of my preference.
Meaning they were struggling to understand as best they could, make the best decisions they could.
They were well-meaning.
I don't know.
I have nothing to complain about, honestly.
Even though it was suboptimal.
All right.
Larry Elder has a book, As Goes California, My Mission to Rescue the Golden State and Save the Nation.
Now available.
That feels like an important read.
Because I think he's right on this, you know, as goes California.
Because California does, it is sort of the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the country.
It's like, well, we're doing this this year.
Just wait two years.
You're going to be doing it too.
Whatever it is.
All right.
I saw Lawrence Jones refer to DeSantis as Trump-lite.
What do you think of that framing?
DeSantis is Trump-lite.
Now, this is similar to Bill Maher saying that DeSantis is the tribute band.
But here's what I like about calling DeSantis Trump-lite, because it reminds you of Bud Light.
And Bud Light is now carrying some bad vibes with it.
So I'm not sure.
The first time I said it, when the first time I just said that DeSantis is Trump-lite, quoting Lawrence Jones, Did you immediately think of Bud Light, or no?
Did Bud Light come into your mind, or no?
Because it did.
Some of you, yes.
Some of you, no.
It's kind of an interesting framing, isn't it?
Because it's as good as Tribute Band.
Although Tribute Band is really visual, and you can almost hear it.
And nobody's ever liked the Tribute Band better, so that's good.
But people do like light beer better.
There are people who genuinely like light beer, so.
But I do like the fact that it associates it with something that the base is already biased against.
All right, so CNN and maybe some others from the left are going after Musk.
So there's a big opinion piece.
I'm not even going to tell you who wrote it, because the opinion pieces on CNN are just such hack jobs.
I mean, they're just so unprofessional and poorly written that I'm not even going to tell you who it was, because it doesn't matter.
It's sort of trying to put together a laundry list of reasons why you shouldn't trust or like Musk.
So here's our laundry list of reasons.
Now remember, the laundry list persuasion means that you don't have anything.
The reason you put them in a list is that individually none of them would bother you.
But if you see him in a list, you're like, whoa, that's a lot of smoke there.
Must be some fire there.
All right, so here's their beginning of their little list bullshit propaganda against Musk.
That he apparently agreed to Turkey's request to censor a bunch of critics of the government.
And I guess the choices were that, you know, to not have Twitter in Turkey during the election, which would have been bad.
Or to do what a dictator wanted him to do and censor on their behalf, which is bad.
So Musk had two choices.
One was to stay in business in Turkey and live to fight another day, because at least that's some free speech.
Or to go hard and say, no Turkey, you don't get Twitter.
There will be no Twitter for Turkey.
Sorry.
You don't get any.
How do you know what the right decision was?
You don't really know the right decision, do you?
You know what happened, but you don't know if he'd made the other decision, a better thing would have happened.
It's completely unknowable.
So the first complaint they have about Musk is that he tried to weigh, you know, the benefit of free speech, versus all the other variables, and realized that there was a no-win situation.
There was no good way.
So it was either going to be no Twitter in Turkey, which is bad, or to agree to censor, which is bad.
He just had two bad choices.
So if he picked one of the two bad choices, does that mean he sucks?
Or was it just an impossible situation?
And he picked one.
I don't know.
Was it a good choice or a bad choice?
I don't know.
Does it indicate that Elon Musk loves dictators?
No.
Does it indicate that, you know, Twitter was always going to go along with the dictator?
No.
Because one of the factors is that it was right before the election.
Right?
It could have gone a different way had there not been an election that was really Critical and on point at that moment.
So, it's easy to be the critic, but if you're going to be the critic, you have to say what you would have done that was the right answer.
What's the right answer?
You're saying he did the wrong thing.
Now you tell us what's the right answer.
Because there wasn't a right answer.
But yet, they can throw that on the laundry list, and oh yeah, well that one doesn't bother me so much.
But let's see what else is on the list.
Maybe when I see it all, I'll really be worried.
All right, next person on the list is that, that Moss said that George Soros hates humanity, and that gets very close to the line of anti-Semitic.
It wasn't anti-Semitic.
But it reminded them of things that are.
So now you've got two terrible things that Musk did.
He had a no-win situation in which he didn't win.
That's the first strike against him.
He didn't win in a no-win situation with Turkey.
And then secondly, he made a comment about an individual which reminded other people of anti-Semitism.
It wasn't anti-Semitism, because it was about one person whose actions seemed to suggest that interpretation, according to Musk, not according to me.
But, alright, so you've got two of the sketchiest things in the world, but there's two of them now.
If they could only come up with a third thing, then they'd have a proper little list then, wouldn't they?
See, what else?
Oh, so then the third thing is that when he reinstated thousands of Twitter accounts, they were often racist and anti-Semitic people, as researchers have documented.
So his problem was that he valued free speech over how offended you would be by it, which is how free speech works.
And he said explicitly, it's only free speech, like in a real way, if you allow the speech that you don't like.
So they managed to say they're supporting free speech, which necessarily supports speech you don't like.
And then he acted upon it by putting them back on Twitter.
So now they got these three terrible things.
He didn't win in a no-win situation in Turkey.
He said something about one individual which reminded somebody else of something else that was anti-Semitic.
And he reinstated people under the First Amendment principle.
And that's it.
That's their laundry list.
And here's the title of the piece.
What happened to Elon Musk?
What happened to him?
The title is what people are going to say.
And they're going to say, oh, how did he turn bad?
Well, I don't have time to read that article, but it looks like something sketchy is with that guy.
Oh, my God.
Now, is it obvious to you that they're just trying to take down his power?
Because his power is pretty awesome at the moment.
Yeah.
This is not even close to news.
And I realize it was an opinion piece.
But even as an opinion piece, it doesn't belong in a news entity.
Because it's not news.
And it's not really an opinion.
This is just a head job to take somebody's power down.
Is that why you need CNN?
To do hit pieces on people?
How useful is that?
Well, let's talk about Ukraine.
Do you remember when we first started, and one of the things that we definitely weren't going to do, or we're definitely not going to do, we might give Ukraine some help.
Oh yeah, give them some old weapons, maybe some ammunition that we weren't going to use.
Yeah, give them some MREs and maybe some helmets and stuff, whatever.
But we're definitely not going to give them any F-16s.
I mean, let's not be crazy.
We're definitely not going to give them any F-16s, because if we did that, we basically would be in a hot war with Russia.
Because, you know, Russia's going to say, we don't care who's flying them.
Those are your F-16s.
We're in a war with you now.
So definitely we're not going to do that.
No F-16s.
So today's news is that Biden has approved F-16s, so the Ukrainians are now learning to fly those F-16s.
And I started to think that the Democrats, led by Biden, are doing the same thing to Putin that they do to the Republicans, which is they're just gaslighting the shit out of them, aren't they?
The same technique that they use domestically, which is just propaganda and bullshit and gaslighting and lying and, oh, we definitely won't do that before they do it, and blaming the other side of the thing they're doing.
It's like every trick they do domestically against the Republicans, they're doing against Putin.
And it's working, which of course is why they do it.
They're totally gaslighting Putin.
And they're doing a good job of it.
I don't think the Republicans are good at that.
I think the Republicans just say, OK, is there a reason for a war?
Yes, no, no, no, no reason for a war.
All right.
How about let's not have one?
Is there a reason for a war?
Oh, well, then let's just like win the war.
But the Republicans are all this mind games.
It's just like a complete propaganda mind game.
The whole thing.
So.
Anyway, don't believe anything that comes out of Ukraine.
It's all lies.
Damn lies.
Damn lies.
Anything else happening on this quiet Saturday?
Did I miss any stories?
Oh yeah, Putin banned Obama from traveling to Russia.
Why in the world would Obama travel to Russia?
Was that a thing?
Are you telling me that Obama was planning a trip to Russia?
Now?
Or was that just preemptive?
Does anybody know?
He wasn't actually going to go to Russia, right?
During the current situation?
It must have been just some generic thing.
He's just calling attention to Obama?
Yeah, that's probably smart.
We provoked this war.
That's true.
How many people think the United States is primarily responsible for the war in Ukraine?
Primarily responsible.
I do.
To me, that seems obvious.
The public information seems to support that narrative completely.
It looks like we did it.
And it looks like we didn't get any gain for it.
Did we gain anything?
Or is there anything we could gain?
I see no potential for winning.
Do you?
I think we screwed the pooch on this since 2014 and earlier.
I think we've just been getting this wrong the whole way.
Yeah, and earlier.
I mean, we've been doing nothing but trying to overthrow Putin and threatening his borders.
What the hell is he supposed to do?
Yeah.
I'd love to know the secret backstory with Putin.
I feel as if There's something that we don't know about Putin or maybe what we did.
Maybe it's something we don't know about the United States.
But there's something about the whole Putin story that got us to this place that didn't make sense.
And the only way to explain it I can think of is that the military-industrial complex is just doing whatever it takes to have more war.
Follow the money is the only thing that's completely working.
Everything else looks like it doesn't make sense.
But if you follow the money, everything suddenly is perfectly ordered.
You can see the whole field.
There's no questions left.
Yes, he considers Ukraine part of Russia.
But there are genuine genuine reasons why he needs Ukraine as a buffer.
All right.
Michelle... ...
What if Russia is the most valuable threat?
Yeah.
They're the most valuable threat.
That's an interesting way to put it.
What is Scott Barnes just saying?
John, are you...
So somebody...
Who's Scott Barnes?
Are you referring to me incorrectly and also not understanding any of my positions while criticizing me?
Or is there a person named Scott Barnes that you're speaking of?
Were you drinking this morning?
All right, so something about Robert Barnes, I guess.
All right.
Some mentalities passed down from the sources to the suns, maybe.
be.
Google it, Scott.
Google what?
That never helps.
All right.
So was that a comment about me?
Did somebody think I was changing my opinion?
I'm just trying to see if somebody was drunkenly criticizing me or not.
Yeah, how can you drink all day if you don't start in the morning?
That's a good point.
All right.
Yeah, I don't think I changed my opinion, so you must have been talking about Barnes.
I don't know.
Barnes is an idiot, so I don't talk about him.
All right, here's John.
Scott, you're taking exactly the position of the people you criticize for being a R.T.
Stooges on Russia.
I'm taking exactly the position of the... No, I'm not.
