Episode 2134 Scott Adams: Trump Gets Indicted & Takes Pence Out Of The Race, UFOs, Cuba & China
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump indictment
Pence self-immolates
Vivek Ramaswamy plays it right
RFK Jr. has strongest path to oval
Past civilizations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I'm worried that they wore you down, or they wore all of us down, and that the anger that you should be feeling about this, you already used up in the prior indictments.
It's like, oh, and then you go away, and it's like, oh, but it feels like a repeat now.
I found that I couldn't generate the same amount of anger I generated with the last indictment.
Anybody having that issue?
And it has nothing to do whether he did or did not do something illegal.
It has nothing to do with what happened.
It has only to do with the fact that it's the third, fourth, tenth time he's been in great legal jeopardy.
If you count the impeachments, plus the legal issues, I just feel like I'm worn out.
I'm just exhausted.
Now, that's a pretty good strategy for the Dems.
Because I think, I worry that they've exhausted your outrage.
You know, once you're out of outrage, because there's so much to be outraged about.
Specifically in terms of unequal justice.
It just seems like there's so much that I'm just, I'm just empty.
I've run out of things.
But, let me make the following predictions.
Number one, how the other candidates treat this will make a big difference to the outcomes.
Specifically, if it turns out that Trump has taken a left with people who talked about it, right?
And if they talked about it wrong, they are dead.
They are dead, at least to me.
So let me give you an idea of what the three major Candidate said, Republican candidates.
Here's DeSantis talking about it.
And this, by the way, is an excellent, excellent answer.
So here's how to do it right.
This is DeSantis.
Quote, why so zealous in pursuing Trump, yet so passive about Hillary or Hunter?
The DeSantis administration will bring accountability to the DOJ, excise political bias and weaponization once and for all.
That's perfect.
That's perfect.
Because he didn't say Trump is good or Trump is bad or Trump should be anything.
He just said that the Democrats are weaponizing him.
Perfect.
So if Trump went down and DeSantis was your choice, if you're a Republican, he ended up to be your choice, would you be happy with that response?
I would be completely happy with that, yes.
Now, give me a fact check.
Did DeSantis say he would pardon some of the J6ers, and would that include Trump?
Did DeSantis say he would, he did say he would pardon Trump?
My memory is getting confused.
I think he did, right?
I think he did, right?
So I would say DeSantis is perfectly clean on this question.
What do you think?
Just on this question, he's perfectly clean, right?
Yeah, I think he handled it just right.
About Pence, here's what Pence said.
He will support the Republican nominee no matter who it is.
And then when asked, does that include Trump?
He said, well, he won't be the nominee.
But if he is, but he won't.
But what if he is, but he won't?
How's that answer?
And then he said he would not pardon Trump or I think anybody else.
No pardons for January 6th.
How do you feel about no pardons for January 6th?
Disqualifying.
Yeah, it's disqualifying.
I love myself some Mike Pence.
You know, I think his performance as Vice President was tremendous.
But no.
No.
No, that's dead on arrival.
I'm sorry.
He does not get even a reasonable consideration from that point of view.
How about Vivek Ramaswamy?
Did you see his statement?
Now, is this guy lengthy?
But it's also very good.
So I'm going to read the whole thing, if you don't mind.
It's a little lengthy.
So this is Vivek Ramaswamy.
He says, We can't have two tiers of justice, one for Trump, another for Biden, one for Assange, another for Manning, one for BLM Antifa, another for peaceful protesters on January 6.
Very good.
Nice little summary.
Starts you off strong.
That gets right to it.
we'd see the day when the U.S. president deputizes the DOJ to arrest his lead rival in the middle of an election.
Yeah, that gets right to it.
That's the heart of it right there.
Obama shamefully tried to deputize the FBI to infiltrate Trump's 2016 campaign, but they're leaving nothing to The federal police state is outright arresting Trump.
He's going hard at this.
This is an affront to every citizen.
We cannot devolve into a banana republic where the party in power uses police force to arrest its political opponents.
It's hypocritical for the DOJ to selectively prosecute Trump, but not Biden.
Pretty much every one of you agrees with that, I'm sure.
There are also serious legal questions about the President's power to declassify documents, and the potential illegality of the over-classification of federal documents in the first place.
That's a small issue, I'm not sure I would have put that in there.
That's for the courts to decide, but we the people decide who governs the nation.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And they're taking your choice away.
Or trying to.
It would be much easier for me to win this election if Trump were in the race.
Correct.
But I stand for principles over politics.
Are you allowed to do that?
I didn't know that was allowed.
Are you allowed to stand for principle over politics?
But yes.
I mean, I think it's good politics too.
Don't get me wrong.
I do believe he believes in the principle, so I think he's telling you the absolute truth, his opinion.
But, you know, it is politics, too.
It's just good politics.
He says, I commit to pardon Trump promptly on January 20th, 2025, and to restore the rule of law in our country.
Boom.
How about...
Perfect statement.
I commit to pardon Trump promptly on January 20th, 2025.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, how do you like his answer compared to DeSantis?
Who do you think did it better, DeSantis or Vivek Ramaswamy?
Well, Vivek's is longer.
He had more meat on the bone there.
But he was also super direct about the pardon.
Now, here's what I like about his take on this.
He could always change his mind.
If he became president, and it turns out that the charges were way worse than anybody imagined, he could change his mind.
Nobody would care.
I mean, but he'd have to have the facts on his side, right?
If the facts were not on his side, then changing his mind would be a pretty bad idea.
But he has the option.
If it turns out there's something we don't know, and it changes how you feel about it, he can change his mind.
But at the moment, with what we do know, and his position, which I agree with, on the weaponization of the Department of Justice, this is a strong statement.
I like the principle over the minutia.
So I think he nailed it.
Good job there.
Does this one feel real to you?
Let me check your temperature.
Everybody's been saying, oh, this is the one you got to worry about.
You know, the bill borrowers, the people who actually know what they're talking about.
When it comes to some of this legal stuff, I don't trust my judgment.
But I see a bunch of people who do have the knowledge and the background and the judgment saying this is the one.
They've been saying this for a long time.
Do you think they're right?
Is this the one?
It doesn't feel like it.
It doesn't feel like the one.
What does Dershowitz say?
So I guess he's being charged with espionage.
Do you think that there's anything about what he did that would sound to your mind, now this is not the, I'm not talking about the legal technical definition of espionage.
He may in fact have tripped over some technical definition.
But in your mind, does espionage sound anything like what he's accused of doing?
It doesn't, does it?
At the very worst, he was playing fast and loose with some confidential information.
That's the worst.
Worst case scenario, he was uncautious.
Now, so there's some details of the story we'll talk about.
So I think the most interesting part of the story is that there's an audio recording of him saying something along the lines of, Mark Milley, General Milley was blaming Trump, For wanting to attack Iran, allegedly.
Trump was saying, that's not me.
That was Mark Milley himself who drew up the attack plans.
That wasn't me.
So he's basically countering Milley in this audio.
And he seems to be at least rustling papers and referring to something as if he has in his hand, maybe something he's showing to people, in which is something about an attack plan for Iran.
Now, how would you feel if there was a secret attack plan for Iran, and Trump had removed it, and potentially somebody could see the actual attack plan for Iran.
I'm sorry, Iran, yeah, Iran.
What would you feel about that?
Fine?
You'd be okay with that?
A military attack plan against an adversary?
You'd be okay if If the president allowed that into the wrong hands.
I mean, just put it, he put it in a risky situation by having it not as secure.
Really?
Interesting.
Well, we don't know if it was in the wrong hands now.
We're only talking about the risk of it getting in the wrong hands.
But he was clearly talking to some people who did not have security clearance.
I mean, if the audio is correct, and we don't know if it is, but All right.
So we don't know if anything about that's true.
If it were true, I would be a little concerned about it.
Unless it's so generic that it doesn't mean anything.
Because you can imagine it being super generic.
It's like, well, we would start with an aerial bombardment.
And what would Iran say to that?
Well, obviously.
Obviously they'd start with an aerial bombardment.
And then it would be, we would work carefully with our allies in Israel.
Well, of course.
Obviously they're going to work carefully with our allies in Israel.
So what do you think that document said?
Do you think it really said, here's the beach we're going to land on?
Do you think?
Do you think he had a document that said, here's the beach.
This is where we're going to have our beachhead.
Like something that really would make a difference.
I don't think so.
I doubt it.
Yeah, my guess is it was a very generic document that said something along the line of, we'd start with an aerial bombardment, you know, they have X assets, we'd have to take out their anti-aircraft first.
It probably is the most generic, my guess is it's the world's most generic battle plan.
Do you think I'm wrong?
I say it's generic.
We'll never see it.
I don't think we'll ever see it, if it exists.
Don't even know if it exists.
But wouldn't you feel different, or differently, if you knew that the plan was just a bunch of generic BS?
I would feel different.
That would make a big difference to me.
But I don't know if we'll ever find that out.
I have a hard time believing he would have taken that out of the office and waved it around if it really was the secret stuff.
I mean, I'm sure it was classified, but it just feels like it would be generic.
Like, would they show the president?
What kind of document does the president get shown in the first place?
Do you think the military comes in with a 25-page detailed document of the battle plan and hands it to a president?
Or do they summarize it in one page, and it's just so generic by the time it's summarized that there's just no details there?
If I were the military, I would never give the President those details.
Because it would increase the number of people who saw them.
Right?
I would simply keep the detailed plans to the smallest, smallest group of people, and I would just tell the President you had a plan.
Yes, we have a plan, and we've got details.
I wouldn't hand it to him, would you?
Would you actually hand him the detailed plan?
The President?
Why would they ever do that?
I don't think they would ever do that.
They can't get Trump to read the briefings.
If Trump wasn't reading the briefings, how much of a document is he going to read?
One page.
Probably one or two pages.
I guess there was some rustling of papers so it might have been more than one page.
But anyway, so that's a big question.
The news will try to convince you that it's really some good stuff in there, but we don't know, even if it exists.
I would say if that document is real, and they can determine it ever existed, correct me if I'm wrong, every document that goes into the Oval Office is digitized.
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
Every document that enters the Oval Office is digitized, and kept forever, independent of the piece of paper.
So in theory, in theory, they should be able to do a global search, look for Rand, look for Mark Milley as the author, look for the president as a recipient.
Boom!
There's your electronic document.
Am I wrong?
There's no way that was only on a piece of paper.
I don't think there's any chance of that.
So, you find out what it was, and then you ask him to produce that document, and if he can't, or if he does it now, which would be almost as damning, that would suggest that he really knew he had something that was confidential, and that he really was trying to hide it, which would really be a problem.
So, Ben Shapiro is better than Scott on this.
What kind of a fucked up comment is that?
Do you think I don't know that?
Ben Shapiro is literally like, isn't he a lawyer?
So is that some kind of an insightful comment that a lawyer has a little better insight on a legal question?
Did you come here for my legal insights?
What kind of a comment is that?
And then we have some anti-Semitic stuff, because of course.
Can I just ask you once as clearly as possible?
I don't care what you think, but don't do the anti-Semitic stuff in the chats.
Go off and have your own little fucking bigoted thoughts.
You can do that, but don't put it in this forum.
We don't want to see it at all.
Right?
So here's my take on this.
I don't think that Republicans are going to care what he did or did not do.
The pundits will.
The ones who go on TV will say, oh, the law is the law and nobody's above the law.
I feel like that's what you should say after every time somebody says it, because it's so boring.
That the next time somebody goes on a TV show and says, nobody is above the law.
That when you do an impression of them, they should go like this.
Nobody's above the law.
Because it's just so fucking stupid.
It bothers me.
Nobody's above the law.
Because it doesn't mean anything.
It means nothing.
There's no, no useful information.
Because who the fuck are you talking to?
Are you talking to somebody who thinks that the law should be different for different citizens?
What are you adding to the conversation?
Right?
The only thing about Trump is whether he's being treated below the law.
All right.
If they start saying nobody is below the law, that would fit perfectly and also be a new thought.
But you know what's not a new thought?
Nobody's above the law.
Nobody's above the law.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, gurgle.
This is only about somebody being treated below the law.
Somebody treating and being targeted.
That's the story.
If you let this story be about above the law, who's above the law?
Then you've just let the idiots win.
You should mock the fuck out of anybody who ever says, he's not above the law.
Take my lead on this, please.
I would say that the allegations against President Trump seem pretty serious, but I also don't think there's a victim.
Is there?
Is there a victim in this story?
I mean, can you make an argument for a victim?
You can make a potential argument, like, oh, maybe nothing bad happened, but potentially it could have.
So you can't let people get away with stuff, because the next time maybe something would happen that's bad.
You don't want to set a precedent of not prosecuting people for putting your secrets at risk.
On the other hand, it's going to look like a weaponized Department of Justice.
Given that DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump himself have all decided that the weaponized Department of Justice should be the biggest issue, and I feel like it should be.
Because, you know what?
I feel like everything they do to Trump, they're doing to me.
I just said it, right?
Let me just put it right there.
Now, I might be a special case, because I have a public profile and I have my own troubles.
I have my own problems.
But I feel like whatever they do to him, they're doing to me.
It does not feel like I'm watching a story.
It just feels like it's happening to me.
And how many of you feel the same?
I've never had this feeling before.
I've never had a feeling where the politician was a proxy for me as a citizen.
Have you ever had that?
Can you think of any time that's ever happened where the candidate became a proxy for you?
Like, actually you.
Trump has a way, doesn't he?
I just don't know that other people could have done that.
Maybe Reagan, somebody like that.
But it takes a really unique personality to make you feel him.
Especially after all he's done, right?
It's not like he hasn't disappointed you.
Am I right?
The love-hate relationship with Trump bonds people to him in a way that I don't think ordinary political observers understand.
Trump is a case of love.
It's not even politics with him.
It's actually just a weird form of love.
And part of the way that he addicts you to him is by disappointing you.
Do you understand that?
The way he addicts you is to disappoint you.
If he didn't disappoint you in a fairly, you know, hard to predict way, but you know it's coming, you just don't know how and when, you wouldn't be as in love with him if in fact that describes how you feel.
Alright, his supporters.
There's something about the fact he does, he'll do six things that you love, you just love, and you love him for saying it, and then he'll do one thing you're like, holy cow, what?
And then you lose your love, but then he does six more things that makes you love him.
You're like, why does he keep doing this to me?
Why does he keep making me love him?
So I do believe that there's a, you know, the Democrats call it a cult, but it doesn't feel like that to me.
Like, I get what they're saying, and that word is not so wrong that I would mock them for it, but I feel like it's just a few degrees off.
I don't think it's a cult.
I think people fell in love with him.
I think they love him.
And that's not exactly a cult.
It has more to do with just him.
It's not even about, you know, the community or the other Republicans or anything else.
They just like him.
Now, the reason I talk like this is that I have exactly the same feeling.
My feeling for him personally is very good.
Like, you know, I've met him, so you have a different feeling when you've met somebody.
But, you know, I get disappointed too.
So, I mean, I get just jacked back and forth like crazy.
You know, on some level, I would love to have a Trump-free existence.
My life would Probably be better if I didn't have to deal with it and, you know, have to explain it and have to be associated with it so more people hate me than already do.
That sort of thing.
But on the other hand, oh my God, does he deserve to win?
You know what I mean?
There's some sort of karmic justice that I feel just hanging over me like a weight.
Like, karma won't let him lose.
It just feels like almost an external force that's gonna set this right by putting him back in office.
But I gotta admit, this legal jeopardy does look pretty serious.
If I had to rank it on a scale of 1 to 10 for seriousness, it's at least an 8.
What do you say?
8 out of 10 for seriousness?
I've got some no's.
Oh, Dershowitz says no.
Dershowitz says no.
All right, well, I'm going to wait for Dershowitz and then alter my opinion.
I've told you my Dershowitz rule.
The Dershowitz rule is very simple.
If Dershowitz disagrees with me on, let's say, a legal issue, I will immediately alter my opinion to match his.
Because he hasn't been wrong yet.
Well, I'm sure he's been wrong about something.
But he's far more likely to be right about this than anybody else.
And the reason he's far more likely to be right is that Dershowitz and also Turley are two people that you can depend on to follow the path of the law and precedent and not lie to you.
I mean, I do love, love the fact that there are two lawyers that I can trust when they give an opinion about a political figure.
Yeah.
If Dershowitz or Turley give me a view, I immediately say, that looks reasonable.
I'm going to adopt that view.
I don't think Barnes falls into that category, but I mean, he's a little more of a partisan, in my opinion.
All right.
Do you think that this indictment will guarantee Trump wins or guarantee he loses?
Because it could go either way, right?
This is a really high risk.
And the reason it's high risk is that if they take him down, I don't know what that's going to do to my brain.
Do you?
Have you thought about it?
Because part of me thinks he's never going to be taken down because we've been through this before.
But what would that do to your brain if he takes him down?
I think I would flip out.
I think I would be done with the United States.
Too strong?
Not done in terms of moving.
But if there's anything that's too far, this is too far.
And I believe that one of the purposes that I can serve, if anything, to the, let's say to the greater good, is, I've used this term before, the internet dads.
There is a group of people who I believe do better than others in being independent thinkers and not having any objective other than making the world a better place.
And yeah, Sernovich, he's an internet dad.
I don't believe he's just politically motivated.
I think he's looking for what makes sense, what works.
And I like to think that I'm in that category.
Of people who will not lie to you, because I don't have a reason to.
I just don't have a reason to lie to you.
There's no incentive whatsoever.
So, in my opinion, that's too far.
And I'd like to make sure that the Democrats are aware of what too far looks like.
Now, I don't know what I would do, nor would I necessarily telegraph it.
I don't think civil war But whatever would happen would be fairly extreme.
I do think people would die.
I do think people would die if he gets indicted and goes to jail.
Not indicted, but if he goes to jail, I think there'd be a riot.
What do you think?
Do you think there would be violence?
I think people would just stop paying taxes.
It could be the end of the republic.
Yeah, I think taking down Trump is an existential threat to the Republic.
Not a big one.
Not 90%.
But I think it's a solid 10% risk to end the Republic if they jail him.
If your government is willing to take, and I'm just making up this number, but if they're willing to take a 10% risk to end the Republic, because this would be a big deal.
This would be a big deal.
I don't know what would happen.
Now I suspect, depending on the timing of it, what's your guess?
My guess of the timing is they'll drag it out so they don't have a result before the election.
What do you think?
I believe that there will not be a court result before the election.
Does that sound right?
Because I don't think they want a result.
The last thing the Democrats want is a legal result before the election.
You know why, right?
Because they lose either way.
It doesn't matter what the result is, they lose.
It's a lose-lose for them.
If they put them in jail, half the country is going to flip the fuck out.
Unless they really have the goods and it doesn't look like it yet.
Nobody's going to think that was a real election.
Nobody is going to treat whoever gets elected in that scenario as a legitimate president.
I wouldn't.
I would not consider that whoever wins to be a legitimate president.
If the winning only became, well, if maybe if it was a Republican, because that's a different situation where you're replacing like with like, but if the Democrats win because they figured out how to jail Trump at the last minute, that's not going over well.
Would you agree?
That is too far.
But I don't think they're going to play it that way.
I think they want to put the cloud over him until he gets elected.
And then what happens?
Can he pardon himself?
Can Trump pardon himself?
How does that work?
Well, I think that at the very least they would have to delay the legal process for another four years because they don't like to prosecute sitting presidents.
I know.
I think the Democrats, through their surrogates, are playing a very dangerous game.
There is one way that this ends right, and it doesn't include Trump in jail.
If you put Trump in jail, half the country, well, 40% of the country is just going to flip out.
And that is just too far.
That's just too far.
You know, the impeachment was sort of theater, and I thought it was, you know, outrageous and inappropriate, but it wasn't too far, it was just political.
But putting him in jail?
That's when I would lose every bit of trust and love for my government.
Or the country, really.
In fact, if the country allowed that to happen, I would lose my love for the country itself.
I would lose all respect for our country if we let that happen.
Yeah, that's a pretty bad place to be.
All right.
Let's talk about something else.
UFOs!
I've asked before, and almost all of you think the UFO story is BS, but I love the fact that there are so many credible people who are saying it's credible.
Here's my theory.
You may have heard it before.
The only thing that fits all of the facts and evidence, because the whistleblower story has some weird holes in it, and the holes are, are these only happening in the United States?
All the UFOs are crashing in the United States?
And there are actual, like, dead UFO bodies and no one else was talking about it.
But what about all the other countries?
It's like this global conspiracy.
You know, there's nobody, not the Russians.
No citizen took a picture and put it on the internet.
Right, so there are all kinds of these.
Really?
You know, this story doesn't hold together if you do the really test.
Really?
Really.
Every single time, the government got there first.
Really?
Did they all crash next to a U.S.
military base?
How did all of them only get captured by the military?
Just no citizen, right?
No citizen saw these.
Just the military.
And they packed it up and took it away?
Well, maybe.
I mean, I'll always be open to recreational belief, you know, that maybe there's some aliens.
I would love that.
Here's what I think is the most likely explanation.
That the US is starting this rumor as disinformation, so that our adversaries, Russia and China, believe that there's some possibility, just some possibility, that we have alien weaponry.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, China and Russia are never going to believe that.
What do you mean?
There are members of our own government who believe it.
You don't think that there are members of our own military who believe the alien story?
If you were to do a survey of our generals, you think not one of them would think that's true?
No, they would.
Some of them would think it's fake, but absolutely some of them think it's true.
Would you agree with that?
Some high-end members of our government or military, or both, some of them believe that there are some UFOs and we're taking them apart to learn their secrets.
Now, that would be a really good story to have out there if you thought you could sell it at least a little bit to any of the Russians or even a little bit to any of the Chinese.
It doesn't mean that Putin himself believes it or that Xi believes it, but maybe the generals might.
Just put a little doubt out there so they're not so willing to go to war.
Because we're really talking about nuclear confrontations with both of them.
We're talking about what happens if Taiwan becomes a subject of attack?
What happens if Russia looks like it's losing?
I think that's a stretch.
But I do think that this was put out here as, and that would also explain why the whistleblower could say it under oath.
And not be concerned, because it's just a government operation and you would be protected.
I assume you could do that, right?
If you were a CIA agent, just hypothetically, let's say you were a CIA agent, could you lie under oath for national security?
Could you?
No.
Could you lie under oath about what somebody told you?
Because he didn't say he saw him personally, he said people told him.
What if people did tell him that?
Suppose people actually told him these stories, but they were the spies.
What if he's not the spy, but the spies are the ones who told him it was real, so that he would become a whistleblower?
And then he would have no record as being part of intelligence or anything?
So you'd say, well, this guy looks totally real.
All of his information is from other people who told him.
He has no direct information, but he looks real.
He's not lying.
All you do is you have the liars talk to him.
He gets all these good stories, thinks they're real, and now he's not lying.
He's just wrong.
So I think the one explanation that fits all of the observed facts is that it's a disinformation campaign to influence our foreign adversaries.
That's the best I have.
I wouldn't bet my life on it, but it's the only hypothesis that answers all questions.
It tightens everything up in a nice little bag.
Doesn't mean it's right.
It's just the only thing that answers all the questions.
Everything else leaves gigantic question marks.
Seems like a dumb misinformation campaign?
Well, here's the assumption that you would have to make to think that was a bad idea.
Check this assumption.
That high-ranking members in the Russian and Chinese military could or could not be convinced that it might be true.
Might be true.
Remember, this is the trick that Trump uses.
When Trump says he might bomb Moscow, he says directly, he only has to think there's a 10% chance.
That's it.
If he thinks there's a 10% chance he'll act like it's real.
So you don't think that you could convince some members of those two governments there's a 10% chance we have some alien technology?
You could convince 10% of the people of anything.
Let me say that again.
You could convince 10% of any group of people of absolutely anything.
And this is well within the range of things you could convince people are true.
Now, I've never seen any data on this, but do you think that the average Russian is more or less likely to believe in a UFO than the average American?
What do you think?
The average Russian, more or less likely than an American?
I don't know.
There's no such thing as an average Russian, so it's a weird question.
I think they're not that different than Americans.
I don't think that they are more gullible or less gullible than Americans.
And don't you think that at least a quarter of America believes these UFOs are real?
At least a quarter of America.
I don't know what the real number is, but at least a quarter.
Maybe higher, wouldn't you think?
You think less than a quarter?
I don't know.
I think in regular middle America, people see it on the news and they say it must be true.
We're sort of a weird group of people because we're the people who really read the news every day and care about it.
You see all the lies and the gullibility and stuff.
So we're the most skeptical group you could be.
And probably the rest of the country is just saying, oh, it was on CNN.
Must be true.
All right.
Elon Musk weighed in again to a Michael Schellenberger thread.
So Michael Schellenberger is taking the interesting take on this, which I wasn't expecting.
He is treating the story as credible, which is different from being true.
Got to make that distinction.
Credible just means it came from a source that cannot be impugned.
And I think that would be fair.
There's nothing about the whistleblower's past that suggests he's a liar.
Am I right?
As far as I know, he's served with distinction in the military and he's on record.
He's put it out there.
And there are other people too, Shellenberger says, there are other people who are confirming the story.
So there is some other, but I don't know if anybody's seen it.
I think they're more confirming the story than somebody else has seen it.
But Elon Musk replied to that and he said, I haven't seen anything and I think I'd know.
Do you believe that Elon Musk would know if there were a secret U.S.
government entity that was so secret that even the rest of the government didn't know about it?
Would Elon Musk know about something so secret that even the President of the United States might not know about it?
I don't know.
I think Musk would know about it in the general sense that he would know if any UFOs look credible.
I don't think he would have specific information about a top secret government program of some kind.
But if you're talking about a dozen crashed ships, and that would just be the United States, Yeah, you think about all the world and all the other crashes there must be, in theory.
If Elon Musk hasn't heard anything that looked credible, I mean, I'm leaning in his direction on this, as you know.
All right, however, we don't know that these are coming from different planets.
I saw a Brian Romeli A tweet today showed a bust, a carved bust of a woman's head and he tweeted that it's made of diorite.
And he said, diorite is one of the strongest materials on Earth.
It resists alkaline, acidic elements, and it can withstand the effects of the environment and time.
Experts claim that this, meaning that bust that looks just perfect, Remember, the bust had no degradation.
It looks exactly like it looked 3,000 years ago.
I don't know what this diorite is, but it looks like a metal of some sort or something.
But it looked like it was made in a mold in modern times, because it's perfect.
Every part of it is smooth and perfect.
As Brian says in his tweet, experts claim this was made with stones, sticks, chicken bones, and copper 3,000 years ago.
I don't think this was made by the ancient people with their chicken bones.
When you look at it, you say, no, that was not made with chicken bones and copper.
I don't know what it was made with, but it doesn't look like it was made by the people of the time.
3,000 years ago.
So 3,000 years ago there may have been an artifact that the ancients found that was an advanced civilization that could do that.
Now that would also explain everything from the pyramids to the Sphinx and all the things that we can't figure out how they were made.
I am getting more and more convinced by the earlier advanced civilization Hypothesis.
Meaning that there wasn't necessarily an Atlantis, but there probably was an advanced civilization before some cataclysm.
And it wouldn't surprise me if they built drones.
Maybe they still have their underwater base.
Because it's easier to imagine all the people dying, but the robots going on.
Imagine a situation where a virus killed all the humans 10 years from now.
So 10 years from now, all the humans die from a terrible virus.
In 10 years, do you think the robots will have enough AI and enough, you know, physicality, there's enough robots walking around, that the robots could keep the lights on and just go on?
Do you think the robots could, you know, well, they could at least cannibalize each other for parts.
One robot breaks, but you take some parts from the other broken robot.
So you could go on for a very long time if the robots could assemble things.
If you get to the point where the robots could type on a computer, or just use their minds to connect to the internet, if everything's local, if they have a power source that they can either repair or runs forever, you don't think you could have an underground civilization of robots that have been there for 6,000 years?
What do you think?
If we put robots on Mars, and no humans, but they were sent there with the express purpose of setting up a civilization and building things and repairing themselves, and you came back in 10,000 years, would the robots still be there, building and repairing things?
There's a good chance they would.
I mean, there's a chance they wouldn't.
But there's a good chance they would.
Because remember, they don't die that easily.
To kill a robot, it's got to break or something.
So if they can repair each other, that's the main thing.
Once the robots can repair each other, they can also do anything else with their physical environment.
And they have AI, which would include all the knowledge of whoever built them.
In theory, I would say we're... I'm going to put a number on it.
I'd say that we are 20 years away From building a self-sustaining robot civilization.
20 years.
20 years is a blink of an eye.
We're basically at a point where we could build a civilization that would withstand a human cataclysm that killed us all.
As long as they were protected, they would just keep on.
So I'm going to go with the theory.
So this is similar to the way simulation theory is thought of, just playing the odds.
What are the odds that our civilization, the one right now, will build an environment with self-sustaining technology?
Robots that can repair themselves?
100%.
Yeah, the odds that we'll do it, maybe in the young people's lifetime, not mine, maybe, but the odds that we'll do it in the next 50 years are 100%.
In my opinion, I think it's 100%.
So if we can do it in our civilization, and it's right here, I mean, it's going to happen in many of your lifetimes.
Why do you think that a prior civilization, if you hypothesize that they existed, and they would have had thousands of years to develop?
Oh, here's the most mind-bending thing.
Think about our current civilization and where we were 500 years ago.
We're basically walking around and You know, pooping in holes and wearing rags 500 years ago.
So the time it takes a civilization to go from rag farmers to rockets to Mars is about 500 years.
Just 500 years.
Now imagine if there was a human civilization 50,000 years ago.
Or, make it easier, I'll say 12,000 years ago.
12,000 years is not that much.
If there were humans 12,000 years ago, they could have reached our level of technology 12 times over.
So if you say to yourself, what are the odds of some primitive civilization being able to do what we do?
The answer is, they could have done it 12 times over.
It's not just possible, it's nearly guaranteed.
Because whatever it was about the humans now, if we were biologically similar then, and 12,000 years isn't a lot of evolution for a human being, they had probably 12 times the chances of building advanced technology that could go on without them.
So we're definitely going to make autonomous robots that could live forever without us.
It's going to happen.
They might be on Mars.
But it's going to happen.
Why do you think they didn't do it?
I actually think there was a prior civilization.
Maybe more than one.
It's actually possible there were ten prior civilizations that all reached our level of technology.
But we don't, we just don't see any of it.
Because it wouldn't take more than, I don't know, a few thousand years for all signs of them to disappear.
Imagine, if you will, that their entire civilization lived in what is now an icy shelf.
Maybe the climate was different or something.
So they just lived what is now below Antarctica or something, or below the ocean.
Maybe they never lived above ground.
Maybe after 2,000 years they said, hey, this atmosphere is no good.
Why don't we just go live under the ocean forever?
And maybe they're still there.
All right.
So I'm about 80% on past civilizations that had advanced technology.
And if that's true, given that I think it's very likely there were advanced technologies or advanced civilizations, wouldn't that be far more likely than space aliens figured out how to overcome the physics of space and time and distance and get here from a distant planet?
And then 12 of them crash.
If there really are 12 of them, is it far more likely that they were, you know, some kind of human-made thing?
All right.
Ukraine's counteroffensive has allegedly started.
Russians are allegedly putting up a stiff defense.
But you may have noticed there's almost no news about it.
What's up with that?
So the Ukraine counteroffensive is, I guess, in full swing.
And we don't know anything about it?
Nothing.
There's just no news about it.
Is that intentional?
What's going on over there?
Now, as I've said, I believe the Ukrainian war has been over for some time.
The war is over.
This is the negotiation.
And I think that the negotiation is going to be all about Crimea.
I think that Ukraine wants enough at least threat of Crimea, you know, maybe a little surrounded or something.
But I think that's what they need before they negotiate.
I think they don't want to negotiate until they've got a, you know, maybe a good claim for they could take Crimea if they pushed.
They might not take it, but they might be surrounding it and saying, all right, if you don't negotiate what we want, we're going to take Crimea and it's going to be bloody.
So it's definitely a negotiation at this point, not a war.
But not much news.
I saw that, as predicted, there will be a... I guess Mark Andreessen was tweeting this recently.
He tweeted that in our era, a new era of AI, every child will have an AI tutor that is infinitely patient, infinitely knowledgeable, and infinitely helpful.
And an AI company that I've used a little bit called Synthesia now has a tutor.
It's basically an avatar.
You get to pick your own avatar.
And that avatar will have conversations with you and teach you individually.
And that will be better than anything we've ever seen.
Now, I guess I have a little skepticism.
Whether we'll ever be as happy listening to people on a screen as we would be people in person.
And I suspect it's going to be a combination of some people who can only learn from other people and some people who actually would love to have it on a screen.
Now I'm the kind of person who might like it on a screen because I can fast forward it.
If you sit in a classroom, what percentage of the time that the teacher is up there doing something is actually education?
It's a very small percent, right?
Of all their talking and acting and doing stuff, yeah, maybe 25% is actually teaching.
So if I could just put my finger on the screen and go up to the part where something's on the whiteboard, and you're actually seeing some graphics and something useful, that'd be great.
You know, I would think that even something like math could be turned into a visual lesson that would just bring you inside it like you're inside a machine.
And you can see the machine working.
There's addition.
There's calculus back there.
There's probably some way that even something like math could be taught without making it just memorization.
And then certainly English and writing and conversation and language, those things would be easy for the AI.
But math would be a little challenging because it's so boring.
The reason that I think it would be hard to get a kid to use a screen, maybe an adult can, but to get a kid to use a screen is asking a lot of their self-control.
But if you put them in a room where there's a human looking at them and saying, hey, Billy, Billy, eyes up here.
Maybe you can get them to pay attention.
But if you put a kid with a screen alone in a room, how much education is going to happen?
I don't know too many kids who could learn on their own with a screen, no matter how well designed that screen is.
I don't know kids who could do that.
I do think adults could do that.
And I do think that it works really well to supplement in-person training.
But I don't think you can give a kid an iPad and say, go get your education.
I mean, so there's certainly a limit there.
They might need a robot.
I think you need a robot tutor so the robot can actually look at the kid and say, hey, hey, eyes up here.
It's robots.
I think it's going to be robots.
All right.
Here's Congress being extra, extra useless.
What have I told you about when politicians say they're going to form a committee to study something?
What does that mean?
We're going to form a committee to study these recommendations.
Well, it means they just want it to go away.
It means they're not trying to solve it, they just want it to go away.
So I was not aware of this, but during the debt ceiling negotiations and the budgeting negotiations there.
So Democrats wanted to have a deal to immediately mandate more transmission.
On the electric grid.
And I may have the details wrong, but I think what the Democrats wanted was to mandate that the various companies that own their own transmission facilities, that they connect with each other.
I always thought they were, but I guess they're not.
So that they can share energy when there's a shortage in some place and somebody has some extra.
Now apparently there's some resistance to this from the industry itself.
Because I think the industry likes more control of their own territory and to not be subject to the demands of their neighbor, which I can understand.
Because let's say if they have some energy and it's a high demand period, they can charge more money.
But what if the neighbor says, hey, we want your energy?
Well, then they can't charge more money for it.
They probably have some deal where they give it to them at a low price or something.
So I think they have to study to find out if the industry is going to get killed by it.
Or if it would just be all good.
And they've decided that they're going to take two and a half years to study it.
Two and a half years to study a proposal that would require the nation's big power regions to share energy during the peak.
Two and a half years to study it.
Does that sound like Congress was serious about that at all?
At all?
No.
We're not serious about that.
They made it go away.
So what do you consider one of our biggest homeland security risks?
I'll tell you mine.
The energy grid.
I don't think there's much that we need to get right more than the energy grid.
Because if the energy grid is fixed, and by the way this is an RFK Jr.
thing, he says if you fix the energy grid then green energy actually could work.
Because you could be producing it in one place when the sun is out and the wind is blowing, and then just transport it to where those things are not happening.
And then when it reverses, transport it back.
Now, there's a lot of loss over transportation, so that has to be managed.
But at the very least, you should be able to transport it to the neighboring company's assets.
I don't know.
I don't have an opinion yet if it's a Good idea or a bad idea the way it was proposed, but certainly you need a free market where if somebody has some extra energy and someone else in the country needs it, what would be the problem with selling it to them?
Just that they can sell it more on their own territory, I guess.
But I feel like the free market in the long run would be a better idea.
But this looks like maybe it's not a free market.
It looks like it might be mandated.
As in, if you run out of energy, you can just demand that your neighbor give you some.
I don't know if that's a good idea.
So there might be a mandate part here that's the sticker.
I don't know the details.
I'm guessing the mandate part's the sticker.
Because the Republicans wouldn't say no to free markets, would they?
Would the Republicans have a problem with a free market where everybody could simply buy and sell as they needed to?
So it can't be that.
There must be some details in here that are obnoxious.
All right.
So MSNBC apparently beat Fox in the primetime viewing on Monday night.
Which is unusual.
So two things happen.
One is that Tucker's departure has really slammed him in terms of ratings.
Some say down a third.
But Rachel Maddow only does one show a week and I guess she just killed it on Monday and she beat all of Fox.
All they'd have to do is back up the truck to Rachel Maddow and put her on for five nights a week and she would be beating Fox News.
I did not see that coming.
I did not see that coming.
So Fox News has a real problem.
I don't know what they're going to do about that.
All right, did you hear the story that China is planning on building an eavesdropping station in Cuba?
So it'll be a hundred miles off Florida and they could use it to monitor communications in the United States, at least the southern U.S.?
How in the world do we let that happen?
Now, it's not there yet.
It's just that's the plan.
How in the world?
Like, I don't understand this story.
How in the world does Cuba think they can get away with that?
Wouldn't you have to invade Cuba to make that stop?
What kind of military does Cuba have these days?
Could they withstand an American invasion?
Or a decapitation strike?
Would that force us to overthrow Cuba?
I think it would.
Oh, we could jam it?
Maybe.
I don't know how good jamming is.
I don't think they would consider building it if we could jam it.
Now, I don't know if a blockade is right.
I think we should... See, this is a job for Trump.
Imagine Biden versus Trump.
Biden says to Cuba, hey, Get rid of those things or we'll get mad at you.
What does Cuba do?
Well, I don't know.
What if Trump says, if Trump called Cuba, he'd say, we're going to decapitate you.
We're going to take out your leadership if you don't get rid of those by Tuesday.
And what would Cuba think?
Would they believe that Trump would actually decapitate their leadership?
In the next 48 hours.
Yes, they would.
Yes, they would.
They wouldn't maybe think it's 100%, but it's that 10% thing.
And what does Cuba get?
Like, what is their upside from working with China?
I mean, I'm sure they have trade and stuff, but there couldn't possibly be enough upside to make that worthwhile.
So, every time you see a situation where you know Trump would be exactly the right solution, now I'm not saying that, you know, Vivek wouldn't be or that DeSantis wouldn't be, they also would probably be tough, but it's just that he has that extra I don't know, the extra scariness, the unpredictability thing.
I just feel like Trump would be able to sell that threat better than anybody could ever sell a threat.
Because he's the salesman.
He can sell a threat.
All right.
Can you believe that there are people going on television and saying that the Canadian fire problem is climate change?
And I honestly can't tell if they know they're full of shit.
Do you know?
Do they know that that's not a thing?
Here's what I mean by not a thing.
Climate change is not what caused 15 fires to start at the same time.
Climate change doesn't set fires.
And there's no direct You know, track from the climate change to the fires.
It's not like climate change made more electricity.
This was more lighting.
Nobody's saying that.
It was a perfectly normal Canadian year, and their forests were maybe under-managed, or maybe they weren't under-managed, because apparently it's just something that happens once in a while.
It's not the first time.
There's some historical precedence for exactly this happening before, which I didn't know until Jesse Waters said it.
I assume he's right.
But when I watch the climate people go on TV, they act like we're stupid.
Does anything bother you more than stupid people acting like you're stupid?
I don't think there's anything that gets under my skin more than that.
And I have this problem a lot because when you're... I'll just say it because I have no shame.
I'm smarter than most people.
Probably so are most of you.
Probably most of you are smarter than most people, because you're engaging in, you know, stuff that dumb people don't engage in, just this content.
So you're probably smarter than most people, if you're watching this.
So you probably have this situation a lot, where dumb people are treating you like you're the idiot, and what do you do?
Like, what do you do with that?
Who is it?
Jayapal?
What's her name?
She's one of the squad.
Jayapal?
Is that her name?
Yeah, and she's acting like, how can you ignore the climate change now?
I mean, it's right in your face.
It's so obvious.
And the whole time I'm like, oh God, that's so squirmishly, awkwardly dumb.
It's like dumb on a level.
If you had arrogance to dumb, you've got a nuclear weapon there.
Because she has arrogance about her intelligence and is just really, really dumb.
Because the thing with the 15 fires is you don't have to be a scientist to know that this wasn't because of climate change.
And I'm not making a claim about climate change.
I'm not saying that there is or is not climate change.
I'm saying that 15 fires starting at once is not climate change.
And anybody should know that.
Everybody should know that.
It's obvious.
And how in the world?
So here's my genuine question.
Do you think that somebody like J. Appel is just being political and pretending and knows full well that this is not because of climate change?
Or is she in some kind of cognitive dissonance where she actually believes it is?
Because the people around her say it is and everybody she talks to says it is.
So she's convinced that it's obvious and all the smart people around her say it's true?
What do you think?
Because she did not look like she was telling a political lie to me.
To me, she looked like she was actually disgusted and feeling arrogant about the poor intelligence of the people who think that 15 fires are started automatically because of climate change.
I don't know.
I had such a reaction to watching dumb people call me dumb.
I just hate it.
When smart people call me dumb, I just gave you the example of that.
If Dershowitz disagrees with me, I have no problem saying he's the smart one in the conversation.
No problem at all.
But I'm not having that with Jay Appel.
She's not the smart one in this conversation.
Alright.
So I tweeted this and I believe it to be true.
But it may not be true after today.
So this is something I thought was true one day ago.
So one day ago, I said that RFK Jr.
has the strongest path to the presidency.
That was one day ago.
And a lot of that had to do with the fact that he could beat Trump if he got the nomination.
But now I'm not so sure he would run against Trump.
Because the box hoax gate, or whatever you want to call it, that might actually take him out of the race.
It's possible.
I'm not betting on it, so I'm not predicting it will take him out, but it's possible.
So that does change the calculation.
So here's the calculation that says RFK Jr.
has the strongest path to the presidency, and before you say it, I want to tell you that I'm aware of the fact that you don't know any Democrats who want him to be president.
Can we stipulate?
That you don't know any Democrats who want him to be president.
I get that.
It doesn't have anything to do with my prediction.
Completely unrelated.
So here's why I think he has the strongest path.
He's the only person who's polling high who's actually in the race on the Democrat side.
So give me a fact check as I go.
These are the assumptions I'm basing this on.
He's the only one with enough support that if Biden disappeared for some reason before the primaries, He would be the obvious one.
Now, some other people would jump in, but by then they would have lost a lot of time, whereas RFK Jr.
would have created his old brand and people would know what he's about by about that time.
So my assumption is that Biden is not going to make it physically.
He's not going to make it through the nomination process.
So the first part of it is Biden's health, which seems so obviously degraded that I don't think the Democrats even want to take a chance on him.
And I don't think they want to take a chance on President Kamala Harris.
So I'm going to say there's a 75% chance Biden does not make it to the primary to be the actual candidate.
If he doesn't, RFK Jr.
would be the most obvious replacement.
If he gets the nomination, will he also get Democrat votes?
Of course he will.
Because he's a Democrat.
And because he's not Trump.
If you assume Trump wins, that assumption is under question because of the legal stuff.
If you assume he's running against Trump, his numbers show he kills Trump.
He would destroy it probably better than Biden would.
So the Democrats are going to have a choice of somebody who would definitely be Trump, versus somebody who might not even survive, and if died, Kamala Harris would be the leader.
Do you think the Democrats are going to allow that level of risk to themselves?
To put themselves in that situation?
Well, they also have a problem with RFK Jr., who wants to rip apart You know, maybe the CIA and some things they love and close the border and stuff.
So he's not the ideal choice of the deep state.
But if he gets the nomination, the rank and file and the Democrats are just going to vote.
They're just going to line up and vote for him.
So I think that Biden's health will fail 75% chance.
I think the most likely stand in for the nomination would be RFK Jr.
If he's running against Trump, he wins.
According to the polls, he's got a dominant advantage.
And if it's not Trump, and it's DeSantis, I heard somebody say this yesterday, if it's DeSantis versus RFK Jr., I'm going to start liking my country again.
I like my country.
That would be one of the strongest contests we've ever seen.
Now, I don't agree with RFK Jr.' 's policies on stuff.
I'm not entirely sure what DeSantis is and whether I agree or disagree on anything there.
But policy aside, they are two serious American patriots who I would feel proud to have as my president.
I would feel proud to have either one of them as my president.
I would also feel confident that they can handle the job.
And I would feel confident that they're operating in the interest of the country.
Of course everybody looks out for themselves as well.
But I would think that unlike Biden where I actually don't know if he's looking out for the benefit of the country.
I actually don't know.
Because of all the bribery stuff.
I just don't know.
So I think that would be an amazingly healthy situation.
So it always seems like we're at the edge of doom.
But just imagine for a minute that if Trump gets taken out, that you're going to see a contest on the Republican side between DeSantis and Vivek.
Wouldn't you love to see that?
Vivek adds so much.
To the political, philosophical thought on the right, the way he frames things, the way he does maybe the best job of communicating we've seen on a Republican.
I would love, just love, to see the Republicans sharpen their tools by having those two characters go at each other hard.
Wouldn't that be the best?
A nice, free, fair, polite, but hard fight between those two characters.
And again, whichever of those two won, I'd be pretty happy.
I'd be pretty happy with that.
The only person I absolutely don't want to be president is Biden, or Kamala.
They're sort of the same animal.
It's sort of a Biden-Harris creature.
It's like one creature that's a combination of the two of them.
So there's not even a Biden or a Harris at this point.
There's a Biden-Harris.
It's like one creature with two heads.
I don't want that.
I do not want that to be my president.
But RFK Jr., I would feel like the country was in good hands even if I didn't like every single thing he did.
I would still feel like rationality was winning and maybe I should look at my own opinions harder if he disagrees.
That's the ultimate test.
Here's the ultimate test of a leader.
I guess it's the Dershowitz test.
The ultimate test of a leader is if they disagree with you, it makes you rethink your position.
That's the ultimate test.
That's the best a politician can be.
They disagree, and you immediately say, well, let me think about that.
I had not thought of it that way, but now that you've presented it, I'm going to think about it that way.
That's the best you can do.
And RFK Jr.
does that like crazy.
Vivek can do that.
I think DeSantis can do that.
I think Trump does that.
Those are really, really good leadership qualities.
I think they all have that.
We've never had a better batch of candidates.
So what about Chris Christie, huh?
I'm trying to figure out what the play is for Chris Christie.
It's got to be just for speaking engagements.
Maybe speaking engagements.
Maybe somebody who hates Trump wants to just rough him up a little bit, so that's just one way to do it.
I don't know.
I don't even know what that's about.
He couldn't possibly think that he's going to win, right?
And then, of course, so... This should tell you everything you need to know about Christie.
So Christie announces he's going to run, and in theory that should be his big publicity day, right?
So DeSantis announced he got big publicity, you know, Vivek did.
Basically when you announce you're going to run, that's your big publicity day.
So Christie announces he's going to run, but what was the story?
What was the story on the day he announced he was going to run?
The story was that Trump called him fat.
And he didn't even.
Trump did this juvenile thing where he's like, wow, he sure mentions size a lot.
Why does he have some obsession with size?
And of course, that makes you think of Christie's size, which makes you think he's fat.
And the funny thing is, Trump is not exactly svelte.
Trump's got a few pounds on him.
And somehow, he still gets away with it.
Like the only thing I heard about Chris Christie is, let me tell you about his policies.
Chris Christie's policies, I'm sure I have these here.
In his quotes, did he say anything?
Was there any takeaway?
Oh wait, here's something from Trump calling him fat.
Well that's interesting.
Now I'm all in on this story.
Trump already took him out.
Trump took him out with one tweet that got criticized for being juvenile.
Sure.
It was very juvenile.
I would definitely agree.
It was uncalled for.
It was unprofessional and unstatesmanlike.
And it ruined Christie's chances forever.
And it totally worked.
He's not a bully because it doesn't work.
He's got a lifetime of bullying.
He knows it works.
He knows it works.
That's why he does it.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the presentation I was prepared to give you.
Is there any news that I missed today?
Any big news that you think I should weigh in on?
Because, just because.
Tucker.
Oh, Tucker.
Is there a second video from Tucker today?
Did I see that just before I came on?
Has anybody listened to it yet?
What's the topic?
Oh, yesterday it came on.
Yeah, I was a little out of touch yesterday.
It's about... What's it about?
Oh, OK.
It's about taboos and child... OK.
I don't want to talk about that stuff.
All right.
Yeah, the simultaneous erupting files I mentioned.
Oh, the global health passport.
Okay, let's talk about that.
So the World Health Organization wants to have a global health passport, which presumably they could turn on and off if there's a pandemic and restrict your travel.
What do you think of that?
Do you think the United States is going to sign up for a global passport?
No.
So I didn't talk about that story because I don't find it real.
I don't think there's any chance the United States will sign up for a World Health Organization, China-sponsored restriction on travel.
I don't know.
I mean, I could be wrong.
Maybe the Democrats might.
But to me, it's just another reason to assume that Trump or a Republican will get elected.
Yeah.
So I don't think that story... Jimmy Dore is on the Ukraine hit list?
What?
Was he anti-Ukraine?
Do you see Bremmer's response to Tucker's initial video?
Oh, yeah, Ian Bremmer has a response to Tucker's initial video, which Ian actually sent me the link Make sure I saw it and it was my birthday yesterday so I didn't do any work.
So I'm a little, I'm like 24 hours behind just because I was enjoying myself yesterday.
All right.
I'll look into that though.
I want to see that because I know he's got a different take on Ukraine.
