Episode 2125 Scott Adams: Trump Goes Savage, Ukraine Is Not A War, Depressed Men, Fake Boycott News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump goes wild
Ukraine is not a war
Depressed men
UFO update
Fake boycott news
Lots more
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 and possibly robots too.
We'll find out later.
If you'd like your experience, which will be really unparalleled today.
Does it seem a little dark?
I think I need to add some light.
You can upgrade your performance, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, or stein, a canteen joke, a flask, a vessel of any kind, filled 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.
Now go.
Ah, ah.
Ah.
Yeah.
What I need is just a little bit more light on this side.
Pardon my close-up.
There we go.
Perfect.
Question.
How many of you have ever tried magnesium supplements?
And if you did, did you find it?
A lot of you.
Wow, quite a few of you.
So, I tried magnesium supplements two nights ago, and let me tell you, I hoped it would loosen my muscles and help me sleep, all the things that it's supposed to do, and I'll be damned, the first night I took it, loosened my muscles, slept like a baby, had the best night's sleep I can remember, and I said to myself, that magnesium stuff is amazing!
So what do you think I did?
Well, of course I did it the second night, because the first night was so successful.
The second night, up all night, totally buzzed, and all my muscles are sore.
Absolute opposite.
Now, which one of those is real?
Should I take it again?
If I got the effect once, that was probably in my imagination, and then the second time, aggressively the opposite.
Aggressively the opposite.
How do you know if your supplements work?
Does anybody know if their supplements work?
How could you possibly tell?
Because you can't tell experientially.
And there's no science to back it.
I don't even know if the magnesium that I bought, because I got some special powdered kind that you put in water, it's supposed to be better.
I don't even know if it works.
Should I keep doing it?
Should I keep taking it?
You know, maybe creatine?
Yeah.
Well, at least creatine, you could see if it's working, couldn't you?
If you took creatine and did your same workout you always do, well, I guess you'd probably do harder, because that's what it lets you do.
You'd probably see a muscle difference in three weeks.
Am I right?
Three weeks and you'd know if it worked.
But how in the world will I ever know if magnesium is working?
I don't know what to do about it.
Because I feel like I need it, and on the other hand, I don't want to be that sucker who took an unnecessary mineral for decades.
Anyway, let me ask you a question.
Do you remember, and this is just me giving a prediction grade to myself on this, do you remember when there was the question of getting a vaccination passport?
Do you remember when that was like a big conversation?
Oh no, they want us to have a digital passport.
And I argued that you didn't have to worry about it becoming permanent.
Did it become permanent?
Do you have a digital passport?
Okay, so I'm just checking our predictions.
Because remember, those of you who fought me like weasels said, no, the vaccine passport is just their backdoor way of getting you to a digital passport.
And I said, probably not.
They're probably just trying to figure out if you're vaccinated.
And if they ever did a digital ID, that would be a separate process.
So I think I was right.
I think I would say my prediction was right, that that was not a slippery slope per se, but there might be a digital ID.
I think the odds of a digital ID are close to 100%.
Would you agree?
The odds of someday the government requiring a digital ID, probably 100%.
And I would say the loss of privacy, complete loss of privacy, or something like it, that's also 100%.
There are some things that I don't get into the philosophical argument about because there's not two ways it could go.
There's only one way digital ideas are going to go.
Someday, maybe not your generation, maybe you'll outlive it, but there will be digital ideas.
There's no doubt about it.
Just because we can, and it's just too sticky an idea, there'll be too many economic benefits.
The free market will sort of force you into it one way or another.
So I'm not saying I'm in favor of it.
I'm just saying there's nothing that would stop it.
Same with digital money.
Do you really think you're going to be paying for stuff?
Or let's say other people.
Do you think your grandkids are going to be paying for stuff with pieces of paper they carry around in their wallet?
Does anybody think that's the future?
There's not even a slight chance of that.
No.
No, digital money is not something that can be stopped.
It just can't be.
There's just no way that the future looks like today with pieces of paper for money.
All right.
And again, I'm not saying it's good or bad.
It just is.
It's just going to happen.
Allegedly, I saw just one report.
Maybe you can fact check me on this.
Is NASA giving a UFO update in the next 20 minutes?
In 20 minutes or so, NASA's going to give an update, right?
If anybody's watching that at the same time, or you've got another device, if they break any news, can you let me know in the comments?
Here's what I anticipate.
There are suspicious things that we don't know about.
Here's another video of a suspicious thing we don't understand.
Here's some reports of some pilots who saw some suspicious things we don't understand.
It's always going to be the same.
Don't you wish one day they'd just say, well, I know we weren't planning to do this, but I'll open up my suitcase and here's Misorba, the alien that we just captured.
Here he is.
Here he is.
Everybody take a look.
Captured alien.
Right here.
All right.
All right.
Put him back in the bag.
Sorry.
We got to take him back to Area 52 or whatever it is.
Don't you just want to see one day they actually come through with some real alien stuff?
Give us some alien stuff!
But you know why we won't see it today?
There's a very good reason you'll not see a UFO news breaking big situation.
Why?
Why will it not happen today?
Because there's no story they're trying to divert you from.
As soon as there's a big story that's bad for Democrats, oh, there's going to be a UFO story.
Let me tell you, there's going to be the UFO story of all UFO stories.
They're going to produce, actually, a family of UFOs with, like, children, and the UFOs will have their own pet.
There's going to be, like, the full spaceship.
You're going to get a tour of it.
Yeah, that'll be the day that we find proof that Joe Biden was taking bribes.
Full UFO.
We're just waiting.
Not really, but it feels like that.
Wall Street Journal is reporting on the ongoing decoupling of business from China.
A couple of facts I thought were interesting.
Did you know that 31% of global manufacturing happens in China?
Nearly a third of all manufacturing relevant to the entire world happens in China.
Now, I knew it was a lot, but when you hear the actual number, it's kind of scary.
You thought it was 32%.
Well, you fool.
You fool.
A lot of people thought it was 32%.
Fools.
It's 31%.
My God, how could you be so off?
But the news is talking about the difficulty of companies finding alternatives.
So the situation is, there's no company that really loves being in China because of the risk.
You have the risk of data privacy, the risk of going to jail, I suppose, the risk of war, the risk of boycotts, all that stuff.
So there's no company who wants to be in China.
They just don't have options.
So even Musk is saying that decoupling from China doesn't make sense.
But I would like to add this nuance to it.
Decoupling is not yes or no.
Who thought that?
It's not, you know, binary.
We decouple or we don't decouple.
It's very obvious that some things you can decouple and some things you can't.
Tesla is probably a perfect example of something that can't be decoupled.
Because there really isn't any place else to get the stuff done that they need to get done.
So, I don't mind that so much.
I don't mind that so much.
People, I think business needs to do what business needs to do and they need to look for alternatives which do not exist.
So apparently Vietnam is already full.
Everybody who thought they were going to move their manufacturing to Vietnam, good luck.
All the buildings are rented.
Basically the industrial capacity just filled up immediately because people were looking for alternatives.
Now that's going to be the same thing.
For India, etc.
They're all probably just smashed.
But I'll say it for the millionth time.
We should have a long-term plan to convert the cartels into something like a manufacturing base.
Because the alternative is they're going to go away.
And I think somebody like a Trump Somebody like Ramaswamy.
Somebody who's going to be tough on the drug business.
I think they could just say, here's your two choices.
Work with us productively to turn you into a legal business of some form where you can be useful.
And basically we'll let you repatriate into something like a useful citizen in Mexico.
And we'll all win.
There is a way everybody wins.
It just would take somebody like a real maverick personality to get all those people to actually move in the same direction.
I do think it's possible though.
So, what else?
So I guess Trump went after Kayleigh McEnany today, which disturbed a lot of people because Kayleigh McEnany is super popular.
Is there anybody who doesn't like Kayleigh McEnany?
Who's, let's say, people who like anybody on the right?
She's probably the most popular person in politics on the right.
Name one person who's more popular than her.
It's weird.
So anyway, once again, Trump does something that you wouldn't do, but may I remind you that you didn't become president.
So let me just point this out.
It needs to be said.
Trump does a lot of things you wouldn't do.
It made him President of the United States.
Now he's doing more things you definitely wouldn't do.
Looks like a terrible idea.
The net result will probably be President of the United States again.
So you have to be really humble when you criticize Trump for doing something you wouldn't do.
Do you get that?
It's hard for me to be humble.
I mean, it's really hard work.
I have to put all of my energy into it.
Be humble!
Be humble!
Can't do it.
But I can do it in this case a little bit.
My first reaction is the same as Dave Rubin.
I saw him tweeting on it.
My first reaction is the same as yours, probably.
Well, that's a terrible idea.
That's like the worst idea I've ever seen.
Publicly going after Kayleigh McEnany, who was a loyal supporter of his administration, just because she might be a little bit too pro-DeSantis, or even just balanced.
Maybe her new job requires her to be balanced, and that's not a good look.
Well, here's the argument for why it might be a good idea that looks like a bad idea to every one of us.
You ready for this?
And I want to remind you, it's not going to be my job to defend Trump for everything he does.
But I do think explaining him is useful.
Would you agree?
If you don't take it as defending, I'm going to just talk about everybody's pros and cons.
Because in terms of support, I'm just going to support whoever is the toughest on fentanyl.
I'm a single-issue voter.
But let me talk about everybody.
All right?
So here's the argument for Trump going hard at McElhinney when nobody in the world thinks that's a good idea.
It goes like this.
He creates a pattern in which if you do what he wants, he will praise you and help you and, you know, you're definitely on his good side.
But you're not just on his good side.
You're really on his good side.
He might, you know, promote your book.
You know, if you have a book, he's going to tweet it.
But if you're against him, you're really against him.
So he doesn't do the nuanced thing.
It's like, oh, you're a good person, but we disagree on the policies.
You're either a superstar or you're dead.
Right?
So the Trump world, there are superstars, people who support him, and then you're just dead to me.
Nothing in between.
That is super, super good persuasion.
I've even described the most persuasive person I ever worked with who did exactly the same thing.
She became the model for the Alice character in the Dilbert comic.
And what she did at work, because I worked with her, she was a real person, still is a real person, if somebody helped her out, let's say she asked somebody in a different department to do something, and they actually did it, she would buy them flowers.
Like, come to work with flowers.
Just for doing their job.
Just for doing something she wanted.
She would then take the opportunity to talk to that person's boss, that was usually not her own boss, but a different boss, to tell them what a superstar he had.
Or she.
Oh my god, your employee?
This one employee?
That's your best employee.
Man, have you thought about a promotion or a raise?
Man, that one employee is just killing it.
Now that's what you would get if you did what she asked you to do for her benefit, for her job.
What would happen if you didn't?
If you didn't, she would actually try to get you fired.
There was nothing in between.
You were either helping her, which made you a superstar, or she would actually go to your boss and say, you know, you should consider replacing this person.
Because every time I ask for something, they can't get it done.
Now remember, this wasn't a manager.
This was just a rank-and-file engineer.
And this one engineer had insane power over the entire structure because everybody knew there was only one person in the game who could either make their career or end it.
And it was a co-worker.
It wasn't a boss.
It was a co-worker.
And she carved out that special control In a way that was very impressive to me.
And she became the model for the Alice character.
A strong-willed engineer who is a woman who just isn't going to take any shit from anybody ever.
That was her.
So Trump uses that same model.
There's nothing in between.
So if you're thinking of being in between, you better get off the fence.
Because the fence is a dangerous place to be in the world of Trump.
You just better be on his side.
Now here's a question for you.
You know, I've gone from more, let's say, complete Trump support to being completely willing to think he would be the best choice if he gets the nomination.
But my first choice would be somebody younger.
It's time for somebody younger.
Do you think I'm going to be targeted?
Do you think Trump will come after me?
Probably not.
Probably not.
Because here's what I probably won't do.
What I probably won't do is come up with some bogus attack on Trump that doesn't make sense.
If I did that, I'd probably get attacked.
But I'm just going to talk about what he does well, and what other people do well, and what the other side does well.
We'll just see who does well.
If somebody does poorly, we'll call that out as well.
All right.
I saw a tweet by Mehdi Yacoubi.
About the high rate of depression in men.
This data is mind-blowing, but completely believable.
So I'm going to tell you things that will make your head explode, but in my opinion, it looks about right, unfortunately.
40% of all men show depressive symptoms.
40% of all men.
44% of all men had thoughts of suicide in the prior two weeks, with younger men showing the highest rates.
44% of all men thought about killing themselves in the last two weeks.
44% of all men thought about killing themselves in the last two weeks.
That's almost impossible to hold in your head, isn't it?
There are some statistics that are so upsetting that it's just hard to hold it in your head.
It just hurts.
How about 40% of all men say they trust one or more quote, men's rights, anti-feminist, or pro-violence voices from the quote, manosphere.
So that would be like a, you know, Andrew Tate sort of person.
So 40% of men are drawn to something like an Andrew Tate.
And nearly half of younger men say they trust such voices.
Do you know why they trust those voices?
Why do they trust people like Andrew Tate?
Because he's not lying to them.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not a fan of Andrew Tate.
I hate him personally.
But for personal reasons.
It is, however, true that what makes him popular is that he says things that are true that you're not supposed to say out loud.
And men recognize that it's true.
So, half of all young men Are finding some honesty and apparently they're drawn to it.
They're drawn to honesty.
Men aged 18 to 23 have the least optimism for their futures and the lowest levels of social support.
I wonder if that was always the case.
I feel like 18 to 23 year olds are always lost.
I don't know if that's different.
65% of men aged 18 to 23 Say that, quote, no one really knows me well.
Two-thirds of all men don't have a friend.
Just hold that in your head for a minute.
Two-thirds of all men, I'm sorry, between 18 and 23, say that no one really knows me well.
They don't have any friends.
Is that because of the digital world?
Like what causes that?
Or has it always been true?
We just didn't know.
So I'm going to leave you with this one thought.
Imagine if men actually were not trained to lie about their opinions and feelings.
Do you know how big of a problem that is?
That men have been trained to lie about their opinions and their feelings.
Just lie about everything.
Because nobody wants to hear a man complain about themselves.
Nobody wants to hear a man complain about themselves.
We're very tolerant of women and children complaining.
Because we think, oh, if I know what's wrong, maybe I can fix it.
So men are very, very accepting of other people's problems, because we feel, sometimes we feel that's our role in life, is to go solve those problems.
So of course we need to know about them.
Then we go solve them.
But who solves men's problems?
Nobody.
Nobody gives a shit.
So if men complained, what good would it do?
Nobody's gonna come solve their problem.
It just makes them look weak, and adds to their problems.
So when men complain, it makes their problems worse.
Because nobody's going to help, but they'll think you're a wimp.
If women complain, men say, well that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, or a kid complains, you go solve that problem.
Help them out.
So, I don't know where the breaking point is, but men, the category of men, is completely broken.
Would you agree?
Yeah, the whole category of men is just broken.
Now, maybe that's true of everybody.
Maybe it's true of women.
I just don't have as much of a window into that world.
But yeah, the life of men is just completely shit.
All right, here's a question.
Geraldo is pushing the idea that The Democrats should offer, I guess Biden, a pardon or some kind of clemency for Trump for anything he may have done or didn't do, and in return for him not running for president.
What do you think of Geraldo's plan?
That Trump gets a full pardon for anything imagined or actual, and in return he agrees to not run for president.
Now Geraldo is Trump's friend.
Imagine if it wasn't his friend.
So we can assume that Trump might be tough on Geraldo for making such a suggestion.
I would say that's not something that's going to happen, but it would be funny for Biden to offer it.
I hate to say it.
If it were reversed, I would probably recommend that Trump offered it, Because it makes the other side look guilty.
Am I right?
You offer pardons to people because you assume they're guilty.
You don't give a pardon to somebody who's not guilty.
What would be the point of that?
So if Biden were to offer Trump full pardons for everything, even if Trump rejected the deal, it would send the signal that he's guilty.
So in terms of a persuasion play, it's pretty good.
But I don't know why Geraldo is recommending a persuasion play for the Democrats.
I'm not sure what that's about.
Especially since it's not going to happen.
All it would be is a persuasion play.
Alright, I'm going to call out the Daily Caller for fake news today.
They reported that Target and Bud Light have lost a whopping $28 billion combined amid marketing decisions about transgender stuff.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think Target and Light have lost $28 billion?
On paper?
Do you think they lost it on paper?
No, nothing like that has happened.
Nope.
Nothing like that has happened.
There are no losses.
Do you know what percent of Anheuser-Busch, let's see if you're up to date on this news, if you're reading the news about the boycotts, there's one number you need to know to understand the Anheuser-Busch Bud Light situation.
Just one number.
What percentage of Anheuser-Busch's total sales was Bud Light at its height, at its best day?
What percentage of total sales?
Tell me in the comments.
I want to show you if you understand the news.
I'm going to read out some of your answers.
They go from 1% to 25%.
So this isn't one of those joke ones where I go 25.
So forget about the 25.
That's not where I'm going with this one.
Yeah, the answer is 1%.
Now, so of the total land house of Bush, only 1% was Bud Light.
And how much did the Bud Light go down in sales?
Not at 25%, something like that, 27%.
So it's 0.27%, right?
It's maybe a quarter of 1% is the full risk.
Now in the context of that 1% going down a little bit further than 1%, the other business of Anheuser-Busch was stronger.
So Anheuser-Busch's profits went up.
They just didn't go up just not quite as much as they could have if there had been no boycott.
Anheuser-Busch basically didn't even bat an eye.
There's like no difference at all.
Now their stock is temporarily down.
How much did that cost Budweiser or Anheuser-Busch that their stock went down?
They don't own that stock.
They don't own the stock.
The investors own the stock.
You and I, I own the stock.
Because I own that.
Well, no, I don't.
I own an index fund, but if it had been in there, I would own it.
It's a foreign company, right?
So I don't own that in my Fortune 500.
So, right?
It's a German company?
Or is it another?
What is the nationality?
It's Belgian?
Belgian, all right.
Why is it Belgian?
That's so weird.
All right, there's a reason that Belgian is funny that you don't know on the YouTube link, but the people on Locals know that there's a back story with a Belgian.
It has to do with a comic that's upcoming.
Anyway, well, I'll tell you since I've been so bad.
In the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see by subscription now, Dave the Engineer will be asked to be the head of DEI.
And he's going to add diversity by hiring a Belgian, which will be not the right answer.
So that's upcoming.
There'll be a comic on that coming up.
Anyway, so here's what will likely happen.
Anheuser-Busch, their stock probably went down.
And do you know what's going to happen next?
It will float back up.
The stock price follows profits.
In the long run, always.
That's just a rule.
So if your company has a certain level of profitability, your value of your company's stock is going to only trade within a narrow range.
And that's not going to change unless your profitability changes wildly at the same time.
So Anheuser-Busch's profitability stayed exactly the same, but their stock took a dump.
What is going to happen next?
Only one thing.
If the profits stay where they are, or even increase as they have been, the stock will drift back to where it was.
There's nothing else that can happen.
Because the free market will just guarantee it.
In the short run, people will make investment decisions with emotion.
So the emotion drives the stock down.
Oh, I don't want to be associated with that company.
But in the long run, other people will say, well, that looks cheap, and I don't care about that issue at all.
So in the long run, people will bid it back up.
Now, I did see that there P.E.
ratio looked a little high.
If you're not an investor, a P.E.
ratio is the profits to earnings ratio.
If it's above 15, then typically it's not the best idea to buy that stock, unless it's a real fast-growing company.
If it's a normal company, like Anheuser-Busch, a price-earnings ratio of 15, that's about... it's telling you that the stock price is where it belongs.
Anheuser-Busch, I believe, is at 22.
So it's actually still an expensive stock.
So some part of why the stock might have gone down is because it was going to go down anyway.
And it just gave people a little more visibility on it, so it happened faster.
I'm seeing 17 and 14.
Oh, is it 17 now?
I literally just looked it up.
I mean, right before I came on, I looked it up and it was 22.
Or was it?
Maybe I looked at it.
Oh, I might have been looking at a different company.
Never mind.
I looked at two different companies.
Never mind.
But anyway, the point stays the same.
That $17 would tell you the stock is about where it belongs.
$17, $15.
That's pretty close.
At $22, it would tell you it's overpriced.
And at $8, it would tell you it's a bargain, if everything else was going well.
All right.
And I believe that The Daily Caller is feeding a narrative by reporting it this way.
The narrative is, these boycotts are working, people on the right are finally getting their power.
And a little bit of that's true.
That's certainly true.
But when you say that your combined impact was $28 billion in losses, nothing like that happened.
The actual number was closer to zero, but reported as $28 billion.
Now, do you think there's any reason that Target's stock price would go down?
Can you think of anything that's happening at the same time that would make Target's price go down unrelated to any trans stuff?
Yes.
It's what basically wiped out Ulta the other day.
Didn't wipe it out, but their stock price took a big crap because of retail theft.
So, Target has the same problem.
Massive retail theft.
Investing, having an investment in any retailer that doesn't have a solution to retail theft is just a bad idea.
Now, I don't give you investment advice, right?
Don't take my investment advice.
Because there are lots of variables that might, you know, change things.
But one variable that's really worrying is they have no solution to retail theft.
And that would wipe them out of business.
So, Target has an existential threat with no solution.
As do all retail stores right now.
An existential threat, no solution.
I don't know why you'd own that stock.
And I was an idiot for buying some Ulta because I thought it would do well after the pandemic.
And instead the shoplifting just took them out.
Yeah, it's not theft, it's borrowing.
All right, here's potentially good news.
Brian Rummel reports that there's a kind of a metal called vanadium, which is fairly common.
And apparently it can be used for a new kind of battery that can store large amounts of energy almost indefinitely.
And it's the 22nd most abundant element in Earth.
Now, this is like many stories that we've heard lately.
Oh, there's a new element and a new way of making a battery.
If you look at any one of these stories, the odds of them being the big thing are small.
Right?
Any one story.
But there are a bunch of them.
There are a bunch of startups making a new battery and new discoveries.
So the odds of major, major improvements in battery are close to 100%.
Probably 100%.
You just don't know which specific companies will be the winners.
It isn't expandable.
Well, I think that everything around batteries is likely to improve, and probably a lot, and not in very long.
And then Brian points out that if you connect these batteries to a Stirling engine, you've got unlimited free energy.
Now, the Stirling engine is something that creates electricity whenever there's a difference in temperature in two things that are somewhat near together.
So you could dig a hole, And it will be a different temperature at the bottom of the hole than it would be above ground.
And you just connect them with some wires and you can make permanent free electricity.
Now a sterling engine doesn't create a ton of electricity from that differential.
The greater the differential, the more the electricity.
But you could do stuff like put mirrors and ways to capture and accentuate the heat above the ground while Well, below the ground stays 56 degrees.
So, the engines are noisy?
Yeah, maybe.
So, if you want to look up a Stirling engine, it's a real fun rabbit hole.
I've spent lots of time looking at them.
So, is Stirling spelled S-T-I-R-L-I-N-G?
Stirling.
Named after the inventor.
Alright, so that's happening.
Maybe.
Here's a story about There was a fertility doctor who was accused of using his own sperm to impregnate several patients.
So that was the story.
Dr. Morris Wartman, he was using his own sperm on his patients.
Well, the story is that he died in a private plane crash, and the story says it was a homemade plane.
Or it wasn't a factory-produced plane.
So some people build their own planes from kits.
So it was an experimental aircraft.
And it went down when, quote, the preliminary findings indicate that, quote, the wings of the aircraft became detached from the fuselage.
Now, I'm no expert on building airplanes from a kit.
No expert at all.
But, I was married to a pilot, and so I learned some things by osmosis, just being around it.
One of the things that a pilot does before every flight, with his small planes, is they walk around and check the bolts.
Did you know that?
That's every time.
Every time you fly.
No exceptions.
You walk around your own plane, if you're the pilot, and you literally check all the bolts.
Make sure nothing came loose.
Now, we assume that maybe that didn't happen.
I don't know.
Maybe it didn't happen.
Didn't do the check.
But I would say in the business of building an airplane, there's almost nothing more important than attaching the wings to the fuselage.
You could think of a lot of things that could go wrong in the construction of your experimental aircraft, but nothing would be quite at the level of, hey Bob, did you remember to attach the wings to the fuselage, or are they just kind of stuck together temporarily?
Well, I didn't know I had to attach them.
I thought they were tearaway.
So, it was up there, and I'm trying to imagine the Like what was going through their heads.
Imagine being up in the air and your wings fall off.
And now you're just a fuselage.
You're just a fuselage.
And you're like, well, looking at my options.
Not so good.
It's like the knight in Monty Python.
Loses his arms and legs.
So that was probably a bad day.
But I have a special fear of dying in a way that looks like my own fault and knowing it before it happens.
So while the entire thing is a tragedy, you know, there were deaths, there were two people who died.
So that's a tragedy, we can't lose sight of that.
But from the time that the wings fell off to the time that they hit the ground, they not only had to be You know, experiencing the terror of the situation itself.
But whoever was in charge of building this thing is thinking, I knew I should have attached those.
I thought about it.
I thought, attach the wings.
And then I just got, I got distracted.
Yeah, it would feel very bad as you're plunging to your death.
Now, let me give you a story of small aircraft danger.
So when my ex-wife was learning to fly, one of her flights was with an instructor who had been a military pilot.
So the military pilots have, you know, real good training for emergency everything.
So they get up in the air, and they're, you know, maximum height, and they lose their engine.
They just lose their engine.
And they're like, I don't know, a mile in the air with no engine.
And it's not going to come back.
So the, I don't know if the, I imagine the instructor wasn't flying until the problem happened.
I think he took over when the problem happened.
But they weren't too far from the airport.
So they had just taken off from a small airport, so there was plenty of time to glide back to the airport, because they had just taken off.
And for the small planes, they do learn how to glide them back, so it wouldn't be that much of a problem.
Scary as hell, but for an experienced pilot who is right above the airport, and it's a small airport so they can just tell everybody to chill for like 20 minutes, you can just tell everybody to chill, And then you just do your landing.
Except the pilot says, the guy who owns the plane, who was the head of the flight school, he's going to be really pissed if we don't get this home.
Because if you leave your broken airplane at another airport, it's just harder to get it fixed.
So he's like, I think we should glide to the other airport, 12 miles away.
And my ex-wife said, all right.
He glided 12 miles to the other airport, the home airport.
Landed perfectly.
No problem at all.
Wasn't even hard.
He was a very good pilot.
He just glided 12 miles, took it in.
First try.
Yeah, that's pretty baller.
Now, if you ever have a chance to be the spouse of somebody who is learning to fly a small aircraft, Good luck.
Good luck.
Because I heard that kind of story more than once.
That wasn't the one time something bad happened in the air.
Wasn't the one time.
So yeah, that's scary stuff.
All right.
Well, apparently the doctor built that airplane by hand and he did a lot of bad things by hand.
I'm just going to leave it right there.
Trump said he would sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship, should he become president again.
Now you're going to say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, he can't do that.
It's in the Constitution.
The Constitution gives birthright citizenship.
If you're born here, you're a citizen, period.
And there's no way that the president can change that with just some executive order.
Or is there?
Or is there?
The executive orders, the way they work is they alter the interpretation of existing laws and constitutional stuff.
And apparently, there is not a terrible argument that the original 14th Amendment had a specific purpose, which was the children of slaves.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the idea was that the children of slaves would be guaranteed citizenship, which is weird that that was ever a question, which is amazing to me.
But, and then it got extended, you know, it got, you know, generalized and used for everybody after that.
But the argument would be that the executive order would do nothing but interpret the Constitution in a more original way.
More original interpretation.
Now, it might survive the challenge in the Supreme Court.
It might not.
But it's not a terrible idea.
Not a terrible idea, if that's what you want it to do.
In terms of, is it legal enough?
It might be.
It might be.
It'd be an interesting challenge.
I don't know who would win on that.
All right, I've got a question for you, because I see so many videos of people getting beaten up online.
Did you see the video of the Marines who were surrounded by the teenagers, and the teenagers were beating them up on the beach?
And the Marines were curled up in fetal positions, and they were just taking the beatings.
And you've probably seen a lot of, especially school beatings, where the student who's the victim will just curl up and just take the beating, and it just goes on and on, what seems like forever.
But they don't fight back.
Once they get in that fetal position, they just stay there.
Even when they're being punched in the head and kicked in the head, they just stay there.
And I have this question.
Is that your best strategy?
Because I can't imagine doing it.
Like my brain can't even process that.
If I got hit, I would lose all control.
I don't know how you work, but if somebody hits me with the intention of hurting me, and then they keep doing it, my entire consciousness would flip off.
I would turn into an animal.
I wouldn't care about any amount of hurt.
I would go into full attack mode.
I would go for the eyes, the throat, the balls.
I would look for a weapon, and I would look to end them as quickly as possible.
And I can't even imagine crawling up and letting somebody beat me.
But, as I watch them, I note they all survive.
It seems like they have a very high survival rate.
And so I wonder if the Marines were doing exactly the right thing.
Knowing that they could have hurt, you know, the Marines if they had gotten up, the people beating them were smaller.
Like, one-on-one, those Marines could have probably killed two or three teenagers before they got overwhelmed.
But they didn't.
They took the beating.
It makes me wonder if there's some training.
Is there any kind of official training that tells you how to deal with a crowd-beating situation?
Because I would go to my death.
Like, I wouldn't even hesitate.
I would say, alright, we're going to die now.
Somebody's going to die.
It could be me, it could be you, but somebody's dying.
There's definitely going to be some dying happening.
It might be you, it might be me, but we're not leaving here until somebody's dead.
dead.
That's how I would feel.
For a bear attack?
They're taught to be tortured and survive.
Yeah.
It would probably be me?
It probably would be.
I'm not saying, it depends who.
If it were teenagers, if teenagers attacked me, I would try to kill one of them.
So the others would pause.
And I'd probably pick the weakest one and just try to actually kill them as fast as possible.
Wouldn't you?
I think if you kill one, it just changes the dynamic.
So you got to kill one right away.
That's what I would have done.
All right.
But don't take my advice on that either.
Rasmussen has a poll of what Americans think about who's winning in Ukraine.
And only 17% of likely U.S.
voters believe Russia is winning.
17% think Russia is winning.
Does that seem low?
Does that seem like an opinion that people came to on their own?
Or does that seem like the media told them that Russia can't win?
I feel like the media is telling people that Ukraine is doing great, and the opinions are just being accepted by the public.
Because I can't even imagine That the public on their own just looked at the situation and only 17% of them thought that Russia is winning.
Does that sound right?
Well, let's see.
25% think Ukraine is winning.
So I guess most people think nobody's winning.
43% of voters believe it would be better for American interests if Ukraine keeps fighting until the Russian invasion is completely defeated.
Now that's scary.
43% think we're better off pushing the war as far as possible.
42% think it would be better to negotiate.
Now, I tweeted this and it got a good response.
The Ukraine situation is not a war anymore.
At one point it was a war.
At this point, it's not a war, in my opinion, because my definition of a war would be that at least one side has a reasonable expectation of winning, whatever that looks like.
You know, winning something.
But we don't have that.
We have two sides who are in a conflict.
Neither side can win.
I think they both know that.
So this is a negotiation.
It's a violent negotiation.
And as soon as you see it like that, it does change how you feel about it.
Because the whole of who's going to win, who's going to take over more territory, appears to be settled.
It appears to be settled.
There might be some minor border changes from now, but basically Ukraine's going to be there, and basically Russia will still exist too, when it's all done.
So I think that all it is is a negotiation, that they're trying to get the best position, hurt the other one as much as possible, so that when there's finally a Republican president, Who can end it, whether it's Trump or someone else, that they'll negotiate their best deal they can get.
And then somebody said to me online, Scott, Scott, Scott, how could Trump or anybody else cause them to negotiate?
How could anybody force them to do it?
To which I say, easily.
Easily.
You just threaten both of them with extraordinary pain.
It's the way you get anything done.
You say, look, we're going to turn off both of you.
We're going to shut down the Russian economy if you keep fighting, and we're going to starve Ukraine of resources.
So if you both want to go down, you're now both our enemies.
So we will now be the enemy of both Ukraine and Russia, but it's to the death.
So if that's what you want, go ahead.
But, or you could just negotiate.
Or you could negotiate.
You could either have the United States enter the war against both of you, because we're not going to put up with it anymore.
Or negotiate.
And then suddenly, what makes sense?
Half squat.
What's a half squat?
Yeah, the attacking of Moscow, I think, is good strategy.
Because the Moscow people need to be awakened to the fact that, you know, that the danger could come to their doorstep if things get out of control.
So I think that's good negotiating.
I don't, of course, I'm not in favor of attacking any residential areas.
You're fatalistic today?
Or am I realistic?
Fatalistic in the sense that I think the war will end in a negotiated way.
That's sort of the opposite of fatalistic.
Andrew, never give Scott Adams any real power.
You don't think I have real power?
It's a little too late for that.
But good luck.
So there's more rumors that Purgosian, the head of the Wagner Group, might want to take over Russia and take over Putin.
And when asked about it, Purgosian said, his army isn't that powerful.
Just hold that in your brain.
When Purgosian was asked, do you intend to try to take over the whole country?
He said, my army isn't that powerful.
That's a yes.
That is a yes.
He does want to take over the country.
But he's also being very clear that it could not be done by militarily beating the Russian military.
However, That wouldn't be the way you do it.
That wouldn't be the smart way to even do it.
The smart way is to become more of a symbol of success than Putin is.
So if Putin can look like a failure at the same time Pugosian's looking stronger, he could possibly bribe some inner circle people to join his team.
If I were Purgosian, here's how I would take Putin out.
Okay, I can't get anywhere near his inner circle, because he's got, you know, he's got his loyal guards all around.
So you find the head of his loyal guards, you say, hey, Igor, I know you're loyal to this guy, but he's going down.
And if you'll allow me to give you a billion dollars, Just stand out of the way and stand down.
You'll be in good shape after I take over.
I don't know.
I think you bribe some people, you murder some people, you threaten some people, you use PR, and maybe you find a way to poison Putin.
You know?
I feel like there are a variety of ways that Purgosian might be entertaining.
I'm seeing somebody who believes that something that Andrew Tate said.
If you believe anything that Andrew Tate said about that situation, you need to check your assumptions.
All right.
Try the same technique on the mob of teenagers, bribery.
Oh, let me give you a Hypnosis tip in case a crowd threatens you.
You ready for this?
Let's say multiple people surround you.
Not the biggest crowd in the world, but let's say it's a crowd of five people.
So let's say five people against you.
And, you know, first they're talking, but you know they're surrounding you and they're going to beat the crap out of you.
Here's what I would try.
I don't know that this would work, but here's what I would try.
Which one of you is in charge?
That's what I'd say.
Which one of you is in charge?
Do you know why?
It changes their frame.
If their frame is, we're going to beat the shit out of you, and you change it to who's in charge, suddenly you've created some infighting.
Because they hadn't thought of it that way.
Well, I don't know, who's in charge?
And you say, I just want to talk to who's in charge.
And then if they won't tell you who's in charge, you pick one.
You pick the big one.
You say, you look like you're in charge.
Am I right?
And what you say is, you can beat me up, there's nothing I can do about it, but I'd like to talk to who's in charge.
It would just change the frame.
Now, I don't know if that would save you, but it's the first thing I'd try.
Try changing the frame to a conversation of you with whoever's in charge.
Just try.
It's better than whatever you were going to do.
I'm seeing somebody challenge me to be as man enough as Andrew Tate.
If only I could be like your role model, Andrew Tate.
If only.
If only I could be more like him.
My life would be complete.
Alright.
Hey, I want to talk to the manager.
The Karen defense, exactly.
How to persuade the one in charge.
Well, here's what you do.
If you can persuade the one in charge, or make one think that they're in charge, then they feel good about being in charge.
And that will replace the dopamine that they were going to get by punching you to death.
If you can get them to accept that they're in charge, you might get them to accept that they can prove it.
By telling the others not to beat you up.
So basically, you want to move them to the question of who's in charge and is that person going to stop the fighting from the unambiguous, yeah, we're about to kill you now.
T says, roll with lots of friends.
How'd that work out?
We're all Tate's friends right now.
Trying to get him out of jail?
All right.
That is what I've got for you for today.
I believe it was entertaining and not as good as the UFOs.
Did anybody check on the UFOs yet?
Breaking news, NASA confirms interaction with a spacecraft.
No way.
No way.
That can't be true.
So let me see if I can find an update on that.
Who would have that?
Does anybody see an update on the UFOs?
It's on CNN?
All right.
Tennis champ engaged to a fan who asked for a selfie during the US Open.
That's one way to get married.
Ask for a selfie.
Alright, I'm guessing that the UFO thing is a bunch of nothing.
Yeah, I don't believe there's any aliens.
But here's my current view, if you want to check my prediction.
My prediction is we will not discover any living aliens.
But it might be true that there are things flying through the air that are automated.
So there might be some kind of robotic thing going on and it might be from an earlier civilization of earthlings or some other planet or some other civilization we don't know about.
But I don't think there are any and part of that is because if the things they say are spaceships are really spaceships and if they're moving at like 20 G's or whatever it is There wouldn't be any living thing in there.
They could be ancient Egyptian flying vehicles.
From inside the moon.
Digital UFOs.
Could they be silicon-based lifeforms?
Oh, they could have AI.
Oh, how about that?
What if the ships do have AI, and it's sentient, that would be able to withstand any amount of Gs?
Oh, that could be.
Maybe it's a digital AI.
It's possible.
You have a brother who trusts Adam Schiff?
You should get away from that, brother.
Would I go to Mars?
Nope.
under no scenario.
All right. - Yeah.
All right, here we go.
Oh, private insurance won't cover plants.
That's not a good argument.
The head of the Pentagon's New Leaf Forum has said the existence of intelligent aliens has not been ruled out.
But no evidence.
Okay.
It looks like there's no news about aliens.
Would you go to space?
I doubt it.
You need to do more research.
Hey, John, what is wrong with you mentally?
Do you need some help?
John Soprich.
He's just screaming in all caps at me on different topics.
John, you might need to get some help.
That doesn't look like an opinion.
That looks like a cry for help.
So go get some help.
I'd probably have to be vaccinated to go to Mars.
Would I go to an underground farm?
arm, probably not.
Alright, that's all for now.
Aliens are from the future, traveling back in time.
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
Alright, that's all for now, and I'll talk to you YouTube tomorrow.
