My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump arraigned
CNN & MSNBC humiliate themselves
Bolton is Bolton
Trump is us now (hunted)
Hillary is innocent because of mind-reading
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 your life especially.
This will be the most amazing time you've ever had.
Probably, oh, I don't think it'll ever be topped.
But if you'd like it to go to the levels that nobody's ever seen before, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, shells, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better with a little bit of oxytocin today.
Just a little bit.
Just a hint.
Just a taste.
I call to simultaneous sip and it happens now!
Go!
Ah!
So good.
Well, how many of you caught Tucker Carlson's third episode on Twitter?
It was a burner.
Boy, is he good at this.
It's interesting to see Tucker without any corporate control on his speech.
I won't get into the details because it was such a good thing.
You should just watch the whole thing.
It's riveting the whole way through.
But the basic idea is that the military-industrial complex has been trying to kill Trump for a long time.
Or at least been trying to neutralize him.
Because Trump is the one who doesn't want to spend a lot of money conquering countries all over the place for no good reason.
And that's a big threat, as Tucker would tell you, to the profits of a lot of people.
So, I find it fascinating that he can just say that directly.
And here's the thing that's different about Tucker.
Tucker actually lives and breathes Washington politics.
So when he says stuff like this, it doesn't feel like he's just making it up.
It feels like this is just a report from his personal experience of the people he knows and the things he's seen himself.
So it seems super credible just because of the access he has.
And it's not the sort of thing you'd expect anybody to lie about.
It'd be a weird lie.
I mean, so detailed.
So I thought that was fascinating.
I recommend it.
All right.
Of course, Trump was arraigned yesterday.
We'll talk about that in some detail.
The funniest part about it was and I had to wait.
I waited until today because I didn't think this was real.
Maybe it's not.
Maybe you can tell me if this is real or not.
I think it's real.
But the chyron on Fox.
Well, Biden was speaking, said, wannabe dictator, speaking of Biden, wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested.
Did that really happen?
I've seen the pictures and I've seen incredible people tweet it.
But did that really happen?
You saw it live.
Did some of you see it live?
You saw it live?
Okay.
Some of you saw it live.
I guess I'll believe it.
Now, how do you interpret that?
Does that look like a rogue employee who was just having some fun and probably got in trouble later?
Maybe.
I don't know.
I mean, it has that feel of a prank, like an internal prank.
But here's what I hope it is.
This is a very unlikely speculation, but here's what I hope it is.
I just hope it's this.
I hope it was mocking CNN and MSNBC.
I hope it was sarcasm.
I hope that they were just doing their version of the ridiculousness that the other side does on their chyrons.
If that's what they were doing, Oh my god, they nailed it.
Oh my god, did they nail it.
So, I don't know what the story is.
I'm just going to say that Fox News, if you can identify who did that chyron, could you give them a big raise?
Just a big ol' bonus.
Because it was the most interesting thing that's happened on the network in a little while.
It was awesome.
Alright, so I just hope it was sarcasm or a prank.
I would say more generally, let me test your temperature on this.
As you know, Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, has famously turned against Trump in the past, recent past, and seems to be more of a DeSantis guy, and maybe wants the network to focus less on Trump, etc.
So that's what we knew to be true prior to this week.
But if you were to watch the way Fox News is covering the Trump arraignment situation, I have a hypothesis That Rupert Murdoch thinks that the potential jailing of a presidential candidate is, to use my own term, too far.
And it looks like maybe one of two things has happened.
Either he has unleashed Fox News to go hard at this, Or the hosts and the people at Fox News have just decided to say, fuck you, and they're going to go hard at it anyway, at risk of their jobs, I guess.
I don't know which one it is.
If I had to guess, I would say Rupert Murdoch is like everybody else, who looks at this and says, all right, he may have done something you don't like, he may have done something technically illegal, but this is too far.
Does it feel like that to you?
Like there was a little change of something over there at Fox News?
Did you feel it?
Well, maybe you don't watch it anymore because you're all mad at him.
I felt there was some kind of a shift.
And I'm fascinated to know if it came from the top or maybe just everybody, you know, understands the same situation so nobody needs to talk about it.
You know, it could be that nobody needs to talk about it because it's just so obvious that you've got to be against this.
If you're leaning right in any way, you've got to be against this.
I mean, the fact that all of the challengers to Trump on the Republican side, I think every one of them has come out against this.
Which is against their own self-interest in a way.
I don't think it is.
I think it isn't their best interest to be straight about this.
But I don't know.
It looks like maybe Murdoch's softening up on this.
Maybe.
Anyway, Trump did his little speech after he was arraigned, which is the other funny thing about the chyron, is because it says, political rival arrested.
He wasn't arrested, he was arraigned.
It's a pretty big difference.
But I love the fact that they called it arrested, because that's sort of what you'd expect from the other team.
All right, so Trump said that Biden was the most corrupt president in the history of the country.
And did I hear him promise that he would investigate the Bidens for their bribery, alleged bribery situation?
Now, this is really high stakes, isn't it?
I believe that Biden and Trump have now created a situation in which one of them has to go to jail.
One of them has to go to jail.
Because if they don't take Trump out, he's gonna be the president.
And he's gonna put them in fucking jail.
Or he's gonna try pretty hard.
Now, let me put down a stake right here.
I do not want to see a Trump administration locking up any Bidens.
Unless they really, really have the goods.
I mean, you'd better, you'd better really have that locked up tight.
Because it's the same fucking problem, right?
I'm not going to put up with Trump jailing his opponents.
I'm not going to put up with that.
They better have the goods.
They better have the goods or forget it.
Because this works both ways.
I'm not going to be political about jailing Political presidential candidates.
We gotta have the goods.
All right.
Now here's what I found interesting.
CNN did a fact check on this, of course.
Daniel Dale did a fact check on Trump's speech after the arraignment.
And of course, he had lots of things to say were not factual.
But here's something that he didn't fact check.
Here's the dog that's not barking at all.
It's the most silent dog in the world.
I thought that Trump's primary defense of his own actions was the Clinton sock drawer defense.
The defense that Clinton had a bunch of audio tapes he had taken from his administration, and that the legal opinion on that, the way it shook out, was that the mere removing of them Do you think that CNN fact-checked that claim from Trump?
That the Clinton sock drawer defense is a foolproof defense?
what's personal, so the mere act of removing them was enough to prove that he meant them to be personal, and therefore there was nothing he had that was not his personal possession.
Nope.
Do you think that CNN fact-checked that claim from Trump, that the Clinton sock drawer defense is a foolproof defense?
Nope.
That was not fact-checked.
Think about that.
It also wasn't mentioned.
It wasn't mentioned.
It wasn't mentioned.
It wasn't even mentioned.
I mean, you can all clearly see what's going on here, right?
There's nothing like real news happening.
There's nothing like real justice happening.
We're so far from anything like real news and real justice.
This is the weirdest cringy theater I've ever seen.
It's like cringe theater all the way around.
The way the news is handling it is totally cringe.
Really?
You can't even mention the most important part of the story.
CNN can't even mention the most important part of the story, which is his defense.
That doesn't matter?
Like that doesn't count?
That's not somehow related to the story or the fact-checking?
They can't do a fact-check that says he's right about this?
Oh yeah, he's right about his defense.
That seems like a pretty big point, doesn't it?
That his defense is either right or wrong?
That's crazy.
Now, what they fact-checked were his claims about what other people did, not including Clinton, but some other cases.
And I think he was, you know, hyperbole and just wrong on all the other stuff, but, you know, in his usual way.
Directionally, he was sort of directionally right that presidents have taken material forever, but not in the details, of course.
All right.
Oliver Darcy writes about Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
She was explaining why MSNBC did not choose to show Trump's speech.
And she said this, and she said this without embarrassment and without any sense of irony.
Looked right in the camera and said the following.
This is Rachel Maddow.
There is a cost to us as a news organization knowingly broadcasting untrue things.
Yeah.
Well, Yeah, there would be a cost to a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.
I wonder if MSNBC has ever knowingly broadcast untrue things.
Or are they so fucking stupid that they actually believe the things they report?
They believe that the president actually called neo-Nazis fine people.
Like in public.
They actually reported that and they believe that to be true.
They believe that the President suggested maybe drinking bleach or injecting disinfectant into your body.
In public.
They believe that in public he said that.
Of course, neither of those things happened.
They thought that the President of the United States was peeing on beds in Russia and colluding with Putin.
They reported it because they believed it.
Did they?
Did they believe that?
Do you really think there was no point at which they said, you know, I don't think any of this is true.
But Rachel Maddow looked right at the camera and said, no, we don't want to don't want to knowingly broadcast any untrue things.
No, it hurts our ability to do that if we live broadcast what we fully expect to be a litany of lies and false accusations.
Yeah.
Well, let me tell you my bottom line on all this Trump stuff.
I got a lot more to talk about, but here's my bottom line.
CNN is reporting, and this is one of their opinion pieces on CNN, that Trump wants to make the 2024 election all about himself.
You know, not so much about what the country needs, but he's trying to make it all about himself and his legal issues.
What do you think of that?
What I think about it is that the left is not reading the room right.
Let me explain the room to the left.
You made Trump us.
We didn't do that.
I mean, there were people who loved him and had cult-like support for him.
That was true.
But you went way beyond that.
You just turned him into us.
He's being hunted because we're being hunted.
And I mean me personally, definitely me personally, but maybe some of you as well.
And whether any of that is a, let's say, an accurate feeling of the world.
When I say you should read the room, I'm not saying that the people in the room are being rational.
I'm saying that they have a feeling.
The room has a feeling, which may or may not be related to facts.
But there's a feeling.
And I'll tell you what the room feels like.
It feels like they're fucking the guy that's us.
He just feels like me right now.
I've never had that feeling before.
Because I don't have a cult-like love for him in that weird way.
But somehow they made him me.
I honestly feel like he's me right now.
I feel like I'm being arraigned.
I feel like I'm at risk of going to jail.
And when he says, you know, it's hyperbole of course, you know, that he's what's standing between them and the rest of us, that's not exactly true.
But it feels true.
I don't think it's true.
I mean, not in a technical sense.
But it sure as fuck feels true.
And if you're reading this room wrong, you need to get out of the game.
If you can't see the mood in the room, you are not in the right business.
You should not be in the news opinion business at all.
And if you're in the Biden administration, if you don't know you're juggling live fucking hand grenades, Maybe I should inform you.
You're juggling live fucking hand grenades.
And you don't need to.
Well, maybe they do need to.
Because if they don't take Trump out, he's definitely going to take them out.
Or try.
So, they made it a fight to the death instead of an election.
And I mean fight to the death.
Because they're both at an age where even a short jail sentence could be the end of it, right?
That's a life sentence, effectively.
So, how did we allow this?
How did we, the citizens, allow this to happen?
That the two candidates are in a death match, and it's actually death.
It's actually life and death.
How did we get there?
The news, of course.
Yeah, the news is illegitimate and that's how we got here.
It's MSNBC, it's CNN, it's the New York Times, it's the Washington Post.
It's the illegitimate fake news that actually changed our system from an election to who can fucking kill the other one first.
That's what we're watching.
It's a death match.
And they created that.
That's completely a news creation.
Now I'm sure Fox News does their part too, right?
We're not going to let the political right off the hook.
The news collectively has created this situation.
And social media, of course.
Here's something I do like about social media, it's all the fact-checking we do on these people.
John Bolton was complaining about Trump and his secret documents, but it took only about a minute for Joel Pollack, writing for Breitbart, to say that Bolton was investigated by the DOJ in 2020 for using classified information in his book without authorization.
D.O.G.
even tried to seize the profits from his book.
Funny the Biden D.O.G.
dropped the whole thing.
So it's pretty hard to be anybody in power and to blame anybody else for having, you know, secret documents because it turns out every one of them does it.
It's basically just a universal.
The only thing that Trump did that was different is he had more boxes.
It just had more.
But it was the same, it looks like all the same stuff they were all doing.
And as Trump pointed out, a lot of those boxes you saw in the photographs, remember the picture of the boxes in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago?
That was a very devastating photo.
But Trump says, who says that those are full of secrets?
Which is a really good point.
All we know is that there were boxes there.
It was literally just a picture of boxes.
It wasn't like the only things he took were secrets.
He took photographs, you know, some of them are just full of photographs.
So the fact that the way that was presented to us is the assumption that every one of those boxes had classified documents in it and it was stored in a bathroom.
It's possible that there wasn't one secret thing in any of those boxes.
You haven't heard either way, right?
Have you heard anybody say, in the picture of these boxes in the bathroom, we've looked through them, and sure enough, there were some classified things in there.
Did you ever hear that story?
No, because nobody knows what's in the boxes.
The fact that they show those boxes, without telling you if there's anything in there of evidentiary value, tells you that this is not a legitimate process.
Even by the prosecutors and the people who are supposed to be the legitimate ones in the game.
You know, the rest of us don't have that obligation to be too legitimate.
We're just talking about it.
But the people who are in the process, the ones tasked with making sure that we find justice, they printed a picture of a bathroom full of boxes and didn't tell you if any of it was related to the case.
Any of it.
There was not a claim that even one box had a secret in it.
No, there's no claim.
I didn't see one anyway.
Did you?
So, it's just jaw-dropping the amount of impropriety that's going on.
It almost stuns you into inaction.
It's just too much.
It's like you don't even know what to do after a while.
There's just so many things wrong, you don't even know which direction to get mad at.
That's how it feels.
All right.
Nancy Mace, who's rapidly becoming one of my favorite politicians, Republican, representative, she tweeted this.
She said, just in case anyone is confused, what is really what this is really about?
This is the president, Biden, last November.
Now, last November is not very long ago, right?
Just a few months ago.
Last November, Biden said in public at some event, Quote, I'm making sure Trump, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next president again.
That's an interesting way to put it, isn't it?
Why do we say it that way?
You know, wouldn't it be, let's say, if it were a political statement, you'd expect it to sound more like, I'll make sure that I win, or we have to make sure we win so he doesn't get back in office.
Something like that.
But this sounded a lot like a dictator who was just taking on his competitor.
Anything about what he has, because it's classified.
Yeah.
Carpe Donctum was pointing out, this is the perfect summer hoax.
So I said the same when I was pointing out, I was predicting actually, before this heated up.
I was predicting that this would be our summer hoax about Trump, because it's a slow news time.
And it's the perfect hoax, as Carpe points out, because we can't see the documents.
Do you know what else is interesting about this?
I think at this point we know enough about what did and did not happen that the legal people who are weighing in on it have enough information that they probably have a pretty good handle on which way this should go.
And they disagree.
Just think about this.
The top legal experts in the country, because it's such a big issue, the most important, high-powered, most capable people are on TV talking about it.
You've got your Dershowitz's and your Turley's, and the people who may have a different opinion as well.
And here's what I see in their conversations on TV, on the news, and online.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The greatest legal minds in the country can't tell if a law was broken.
True or false?
The best legal minds in the country can't tell if a law was broken or not.
Now some might say there was a technical law broken, but unless you've adjudicated that whole Clinton sock drawer angle, you have the precedent that says that taking it out of the White House is all it takes.
If you take it out of the White House, there you go.
Now I'm also wondering about the timeline.
Did Trump remove from the White House Things after inauguration and therefore he wasn't president so he couldn't do anything?
Is that part of the argument?
Is it part of the argument that he didn't move the boxes out of the White House until he was technically out of office but he was just doing the moving?
Is that not part of it or it is?
I saw that today and I was like, what?
That's the first I've ever heard that.
Somebody's saying true.
So that might become part of the issue, just the technical timing.
But here's my larger point.
This is the United States of America.
In my opinion, We have, you know, two or three huge advantages on much of the rest of the world.
Some of it is geography.
We just got really lucky, you know, where America is situated in terms of close to, you know, just where it is.
And that we have natural resources and stuff like that.
So that's pretty lucky.
But the thing that we just do right That makes us, in my opinion, the most important country in human civilization, is that our legal system usually works.
Everything else flows from that.
If you don't get the legal system right, nothing else is going to work.
Corruption takes over, it all falls apart.
You turn into Russia pretty quickly.
So that's like our special thing.
And it's a special thing that you could easily do wrong.
And you can imagine us drifting into doing it wrong, because it looks like that's what's happening.
You know, crime in the city, using them in this situation.
It's looking like our historical ability to get at least justice, mostly right.
That's a little bit in jeopardy at the moment.
So that's a pretty big deal.
But let me ask you this question.
And you don't have to be a lawyer, right?
So you can take off your lawyer hat.
Now you're just a citizen of the United States.
You're now a representative of that theme that we get justice right most of the time.
You know, nobody's perfect.
But we're going to get it right, and not only are we going to get it right, but the citizens are going to fucking make sure it's right.
That's what a jury is.
A jury is the citizens making sure it's right, not just observing.
We don't just observe.
We're not observers.
We are part of this system.
And let me tell you, let me lay down a line that can't be crossed.
In our system, the following line cannot be crossed, and the citizens have to make sure it doesn't happen.
If the most qualified experts in the world can look at all of the information about a situation, this document thing, and they disagree on whether a crime has even been committed, that's the end of the conversation.
That needs to be the end of the conversation.
You don't even bring that trial.
If you can't even get legal people to agree, and they do know the information, right?
Now it could, here's where, here's where I'll put one caveat on this.
If there's something we don't know yet, well, that could be why the opinions are different.
But it looks like we're closing in on knowing everything that needs to be known in order to judge it as legal or illegal.
And it looks like people would disagree.
And even if they do agree that there might be a technical violation, it looks like they completely disagree about whether that's a chargeable, logically you'd want to do that for the good of the country.
Under this situation of extreme ambiguity about whether a law has even been broken, at the same time that we see no victim, No victim.
So, we're not sure a law has been broken.
We're sure there's no victims that have come forward.
And we don't even know what's in the boxes.
And we won't know what's in the boxes.
How does this have to end?
Not where you predict it will end.
Not where, you know, all the badness you think will shake out.
You tell me where it has to end.
It has to end before trial.
It has to.
Or in some kind of jury acquittal.
This has to end with Trump being free of the charges.
One way or the other.
I saw Rachel Maddow say that the judge can do a pocket veto.
Meaning sort of procedurally just delay it or say it doesn't meet some standard and you know not accept it and just sort of make it go away in a judgy way.
However judges have the power to do that.
Maybe.
But I'll tell you what can't happen.
You can't put a president of our country in prison for evidence the public can't see because it's classified.
On a case that our best legal experts are completely all over the place.
So there's ambiguity of whether there was a victim, ambiguity of whether there was even a crime.
And it's the person who might be the next president and was a prior president.
Under those conditions, that's a hard no.
So as a citizen of the United States, I'm telling you, you're not fucking putting him in prison.
You're not.
It's just not going to happen.
Because we're not going to let it.
Because if he goes to prison, I'm sorry, it's too far.
Too far.
And the fact that the news is even treating this like it's a jump ball, like this could go either way.
No, it can't go either way.
Let me be as clear as I can.
The legal system might do anything unpredictable.
I don't know what the legal system is going to do.
But I'm telling you, the citizens are done.
It's going to go one way.
He's not going to prison.
He's not going to prison.
It's just not going to happen.
We won't let that happen.
All right.
I saw some more fact-checking here from Daniel Dale.
Comparing it to the Clinton email case.
And let me tell you why those are so different.
So, so, oh, so different.
Completely different.
Here's why.
Facts first.
This is from Daniel Dale, CNN.
This is an inaccurate and self-serving comparison.
This is Trump comparing his situation to Hillary's email.
Investigators saw problems with how both Trump and Clinton handled classified materials.
Okay.
So, so far it's similar.
Because investigators saw that they both had some issues with the classified materials.
So, so far the same.
But there are several key differences between the cases.
All right, key differences.
These are big.
All right, for starters, Trump mishandled far more material, right?
So apparently the quantity of material determines whether it's murder.
So like if you were to murder one person, that wouldn't be murder so much as somebody who murdered three people.
Because three people is a lot of murder, but one person.
One person murdered?
How much of a murder is one person?
Compared to a whole crowd.
So that's a big difference.
There was a volume difference.
And you know the law certainly cares about that.
When it comes to secrets, do you think volume is how you measure that?
Do you think one guy's got a box of secrets?
And somebody else just has one document.
So the box is worse than the one document, right?
Right?
The one document that gives away our nuclear secrets?
That's nothing compared to a whole box.
There's a whole box of things.
Did I tell you there's a whole box?
Whoa, more than one box.
We got boxes upon boxes.
So therefore, that's worse.
Because if there's one thing I could tell you about classified information, you measure it by the box.
By the box.
It's not by how important it is.
Not by how critical the secret is, or how much damage it could do the United States, or how many people could be killed.
Not important.
The fact check, but it gets better.
Also, Daniel says, Trump was charged with knowingly breaking the law.
Huh.
So according to Daniel Dale, who knows what Trump knows, when Trump says taking it out of the White House was perfectly legal, because it's my private stuff, I just made it private,
That even though he says that, and even though it makes perfect sense compared to, you know, precedent with Clinton, and it's completely logical and makes sense, what Daniel Dale knows is that he was lying.
So even though what he said makes complete sense, and it's true, Daniel Dale can read his mind, and although there are no statements from Trump to suggest this, nothing written, nothing reported, Daniel Dale can look into his mind and see that he knew.
He knew.
Yeah, he knew that he didn't have access to these.
But, it goes further than that.
He doesn't just read Trump's mind.
He said that there was not, quote, clear evidence that Clinton, quote, intended to violate laws.
Yeah, she didn't intend.
So when they used hammers to destroy their phones, that was not intended to hide any evidence.
I mean, why would you even think that?
Like, where would you even get that?
Sure, they were looking for evidence and they were asking for it, and we destroyed it with hammers, but why would you think that was some kind of, like, obstruct-y thing?
That's crazy of you, right?
No, so they read her mind and found out, it was no problem.
But they read his mind and oh, oh my God, did you see the things in his mind?
So CNN literally can write some fact-checking bullshit about them reading their fucking minds.
And they just print it like it's news.
Here's some more news.
We got our mind reader on this.
Our best mind reader's working on this.
All right.
Let's see, Erasmuson has a poll.
I'm not going to look up, and it's because I know that my viewers are so smart that they already know the results of the poll before I even tell them the topic.
It's probably screaming across the screen right now.
And you are within one point of the percentage that is correct.
And the question is this, according to Rasmussen, and talking about the likelihood of cheating in an election, what percentage of people think that the next election cheating is unlikely?
Unlikely.
Well, no, let me say, what percentage consider it not at all likely?
You did it again.
Amazing.
24% of likely voters say that election rigging is not at all likely.
Well, that's not at all likely.
So we got that.
24%.
Starbucks is getting a little heat for allegedly, but I don't think it's true, taking down their Pride month displays early, before the entire month is over.
Now, the price of the price of the price of the price Now Starbucks corporate headquarters says nothing like that is happening.
So apparently none of it's true, at least in terms of a corporate, there are no corporate orders to do that.
It does appear that it might be true in individual stores, because individual managers have decided, okay, two weeks is enough.
Maybe they have customers who are complaining.
So there might be individual stores that are making some individual actions.
So far, Starbucks is safe from any boycotts, and that probably keeps them safe.
So this is the best rumor that Starbucks could ever have.
It's sort of a perfect situation.
Because the corporate office can say, probably honestly, that, no, we didn't order this.
Because if they did, there'd be a document or something.
We'd know it pretty soon.
So I don't think they did.
I think they didn't order it.
But at the same time, there's this rumor that they're backing down from the Pride stuff.
They're taking it down early, which would make the conservatives say, oh, that's exactly what I wanted you to do.
So now they'll go buy coffee.
So they've got a story for both sides.
For the left, they can say, no, we did Pride Month.
Nothing's changed.
And for the right, they can say, oh, yeah, we listened to you and we took it down.
So they win both ways.
And I don't know what's true.
I saw a tweet today by Razib Khan, who's an interesting follow on Twitter, if you want another follow.
A little more provocative than most, but you might like what he has to say.
And he said he was at a party recently.
He was talking to a 28-year-old dev.
I guess that's a software development person.
And kids came up, the idea of having kids.
He's got a few himself.
And he asked her if she and her boyfriend had thoughts of having kids.
And she said no.
And she gave three reasons why she doesn't want to have kids.
Number one, climate change.
Number two, overpopulation.
Number three, she loves to travel.
She loves to travel.
Having kids would be hard for that.
And Razib tweets, when I pointed out that number three conflicted with number one, she ignored me.
So number three, she loves to travel, but she's also worried about the climate.
So she wants to not have children so that she can use up all of her climate credits traveling.
And then, But then number two is even funnier, overpopulation.
Who believes that we're overpopulated?
We don't even have replacement level population in America.
America has one of the best population stability situations compared to other Westernized countries, I guess, in that we're not going down as fast.
But most of the big countries are not at replacement.
I mean, China is estimated to go from like 1.3 billion down to 700 billion in the next few decades.
We have a population collapse problem that might be calamitous.
We don't have a population, you know, overpopulation problem.
In some, you know, there's some pockets that are overpopulated.
But generally speaking, we need more people, not fewer, especially in America.
And so here's somebody whose understanding of the world is so poor that she's going to travel To help the climate.
Or something.
I don't know.
Not exactly that, but it feels like that.
So that's the quality of a software developer is 28 years old.
That's that person's understanding of the world.
Imagine making decisions that are vital to the survival of our civilization, which is having children or not.
And traveling or not, and climate, and all that.
These are the most important decisions to our future civilization.
And there's a 28-year-old who doesn't know anything about any of these topics.
Just completely clueless about all of it.
And yet has to make individual decisions that sum up to the whole.
All right.
What else is happening here?
Do you think that Trump has set up a mutually assured destruction situation with the Bidens?
It's not quite that.
But Trump said he's basically going to take down the Bidens when elected.
And it looks like he's got enough material with these bribery allegations that he could at least get a special prosecutor.
That doesn't mean that anything is guilty.
But we have additional accusations about the Bidens today.
That apparently on Joe Biden's 2017 tax returns, he has some kind of entity called Celtic Capri Corporation, and it has $10 million of revenue that's unspecified.
He had $10 million of unspecified revenue in 2017.
Do I need to say anything else about that?
Ten million dollars of unspecified revenue.
Now I think he tried to sell it as book advances.
Book advances.
But if it was book advances, why not just put a line there?
Book advances.
There you go.
I feel like you would probably itemize ten million dollars worth of income by a line item.
Ten million's a lot.
To have as just a, well, I don't know, $10 million showed up.
Don't have to tell you where.
I don't know if he legally has to.
Probably not.
I don't think he legally had to say the details of it.
But I feel like we need to know.
I feel like we need to know.
It's a little sketchy.
But it's also possible it was his book.
It's possible it was his book stuff.
That's possible.
Do you think he gets that much for a book because how many people buy it?
Do you think a publisher would pay, I don't know, 5, 7, 10 million dollars for a book of Biden's?
How many books do you think Biden would sell?
I don't see any world in which a publisher would pay that much for his book.
Because there's no way it's going to sell a lot of copies.
It would just be a loss of millions.
So there's something going on with publishing that I don't fully understand, but I feel like publishing might be a way that they launder money.
Am I wrong?
It's like somehow the publisher gets some windfall over here, and then they've got a little extra cash to give Joe a windfall over here.
But those two things are not connected by any logic.
It's just, oh, how lucky.
How lucky that a major Democrat bought a billion of our books for their organization, or something like that.
I don't know.
I'm just making that up.
But I feel like this is how money gets laundered at the high end.
Oh, your book deal is going to be $25 million, even though we expect to make $1 million in revenue.
Scott's just jealous because Hunter is a better artist.
You know what's funny about that?
Hunter is a better artist.
Hunter's not a bad artist.
I mean, can't we give him that?
We can give him that, can't we?
He's not a bad artist.
He's pretty good.
I don't take that as an insult at all.
But nice try.
So Schiff, there's a motion in the House, a resolution, to censor Adam Schiff for his lies about what was in the skiff and his lies about the Russia collusion thing.
Now, of course, Schiff is just using it as fundraising and probably nothing will happen.
But if you can't get censured, For trying to overthrow the government of the United States by making up a lie which has been determined to be a lie.
What can you be censored for?
Would you have to actually murder somebody?
What's the point of even having a censure?
If this doesn't qualify for a censure, Like, what would ever be censured?
Why do you even have it?
I can't even imagine anything more perfectly suited for a censure.
Because it's not like he doesn't even lose his job.
All it is is, you know, a recognition that this wasn't cool.
And given that nobody thought it was cool, I don't think, seems like a slam dunk, but I don't think it'll pass.
All right.
And I saw also from Joel Pollack and Breitbart that the New York Times published a profile of Hollywood star Cheryl Hines.
As you know, she's married to RFK Jr.
And they're blaming her for, quote, normalizing RFK Jr.
So the idea is that since she's a recognized Hollywood figure and has a good reputation, you know, there's no negatives about her that I'm aware of, that she would sort of make her husband look more normal.
Yes, that's exactly what it does.
That's exactly what it does.
But where's the problem with that?
Why is that a story?
You know, shouldn't this story be... Let me give you a different way that this story could have been written.
A lot of people think that RFK Jr.
is a nut job because of, you know, vaccinations or whatever is the current thing about him.
But, he obviously married this woman who is normal, and if she married him, she probably looked into all that stuff.
So if the person who knows him best, his wife, is willing to think, oh yeah, not only are you normal, but you're so normal I want to marry you and live the rest of my life with you.
Is that normalizing him?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
Is that a problem?
Is that a problem?
Is it a problem that somebody can find a normal wife?
I would say that would in fact be a, that's very much a point in his favor.
Wouldn't you say that if a perfectly normal person can look into it and all the detail that she must have about him that we don't have, and then at the end of it she says, yeah, I want to marry you.
Shouldn't that be telling us that he's doing something right?
And somehow they've turned it into this weird negative where if your wife loves you, it's a problem.
Am I taking that too far?
Are they basically saying it's a problem because his normal wife loves him?
Therefore, that might make you think he's normal?
You know, I have to admit that I was deeply in the camp of thinking he was a nutjob until recently.
Right, so I'm a reformed critic.
And I didn't realize the extent to which the mainstream media was bullshit.
I just assumed if everybody's saying that about him, it just felt like everybody was saying that.
But it was the mainstream media.
The mainstream media funded by the people who are his enemies, Big Pharma.
So my current view is that I doubt he was right about everything he's ever said.
Would you give me that?
I doubt he was right about every claim he's ever made, because he's made some pretty big claims.
But I'll bet some of them are right.
And I know he's right about the biggest part of the claims, which is that a lot of things were not tested at the level that you and I thought they were tested.
That part seems to be totally right.
And that's a big deal, and it's really valuable, in my opinion, that he's bringing it up.
I think it's also really valuable that he's bringing up the CIA's bad behavior in the past, and he allegedly probably killed his uncle.
Who knows about his father?
And I think that he's a mixed bag, meaning I think he got some wrong and I think he got some right, but he's also very reasonable.
And if the data shows he got something wrong, I think he would just go with it and say, yeah, I got that wrong.
Let's move on.
So he doesn't look like a, to me, he doesn't look like a crazed, you know, ignore the data, you know, I'm just afraid of something kind of guy.
It looks like he follows the data.
And I think the data has been a little ambiguous, but I don't think he's not following data.
All right.
There's a story that showed a Russian soldier surrendering to a drone, a Ukrainian drone.
So apparently there was this little group of Russian soldiers that had been spotted in kind of open territory.
And there were Ukrainians who were just sending, I don't know if it was the same drone or multiple drones over, the little ones, just to drop grenades on them.
And there was just basically nothing they could do.
These drones were just going to follow them around and drop grenades on them until they were all dead.
So one of the guys on the ground surrendered to the drone.
Like he looked up to the drone and he was like signalling, you know, stop, we surrender somehow.
And then the drone, I don't know, captured him or something.
I don't know what happened after he surrendered, but that was the story.
So I think it was a story because it might be the first time somebody surrendered to a drone.
But don't you think you'll see a lot more of that?
Because as the drones get a little more sophisticated, don't you think they'll just offer a surrender option?
Hello, Russian soldier.
We're above your location.
You cannot run away, there's no place to hide.
We will be dropping hand grenades on you, unless you surrender.
If you choose to surrender, put your weapons down, we're watching you right now, and march westward with your hands up.
I feel like that's what it will be in the future, right?
Because once the drone had the drop on them, the soldiers knew they didn't have a defense.
But it's also interesting that the drone was high enough up that they didn't think they could shoot at it.
Because I didn't see them even trying to shoot at it.
They were just running and hiding.
Those were helicopters, not drones?
No, if it were helicopters and it was directly over them, they would have been shooting at the helicopter.
That couldn't have been helicopters.
In my opinion, it could not have been.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, that is the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
Did I miss anything?
Shooting at a helicopter is not a good idea?
Well it is if the helicopter is trying to kill you.
Slaughter meter?
It's a little too early.
Oh my god, yeah, I just saw a mention of Tom Brady.
Did anybody see the video of Tom Brady knocking a drone out of the sky with one throw of a football?
Did you see that?
That was just the most crazy thing.
I've seen a few videos of him being insanely accurate with a football, but I don't know what the setup was for what show or whatever, but they had a drone that was flying off a boat.
So Tom Brady's on the boat and they give him the football and they ask him to knock the drone out of the sky.
Now the drone was low enough, you know, that he didn't have to throw it way up, but it was a drone.
It was like a little drone that's like two feet square.
And he just knocked that freaking thing out of the sky with one throw.
It was probably the most impressive thing you'll ever see an athlete do for the rest of your life.
And I thought, how often could he do that?
Was it just luck?
He hit it on the first try?
I mean, it was just insane to watch it.
Yeah, that was very cool.
Yeah, maybe it was CGI, who knows?
Who knows?
Yeah, will Thomas Massey read, what was it?
He was offering to read the FBI document that alleges the bribery of the Bidens.
Is that what he said he could read in Congress?
Because it's legal to read it, but it's not legal to have it?
Or something like that?
He can't show it to you, but he can read it to you in Congress?
There's some weird rule like that.
He was teasing he might do that.
Oh, you can read it into the record.
Narcan at every household.
R.I.P.
your son?
What?
Okay, I don't get that, but... Let me tell you something about Narcan that I learned the other day.
All right, this is very important.
Allow me to save some lives.
All right, so you all know that if you have Narcan, you might be able to save somebody who's having a fentanyl overdose.
And I guess you just spray it up their nose or something.
Here's what you need to know.
From somebody who's in that life, a person told me privately, it often takes two to three Narcans to revive somebody.
Did you know that?
It works very well, but sometimes the first one doesn't work.
And it might not work because maybe you're not good at administering it.
Like you might not quite execute it right.
So if you're a police officer and you show up with a Narcan, you probably have a few extra.
Because you might come up against a scene where there's a party situation and three people are down at the same time.
So the police are usually set.
They're going to have an extra.
But if you just bought one for your house, in case your neighbor needs it, think about three.
Just think about three.
I know it's expensive, but I just need you to know that there's, at least anecdotally, the first one doesn't always work.
And it is life and death.
So think about three.
Just think about it.
I'll just put that out there as my public service.
How does Ukraine figure into my theory that hot wars will become increasingly rare?
Well, it seems like every hot war is proving that we shouldn't have another one.
But you could argue that was true since World War I, right?
That was the war to end all wars.
So, I do think that this war is this weird follow the rules kind of fight.
Where people are trying to do things according to the rules of military action.
And that's why it's staying at least localized.
So the fact that it's localized and is not creating yet a world war might be a step in the right direction.
But it doesn't make sense to have wars that nobody can win.
So I think you're going to see that the Ukraine-Russia thing ends up with a war that nobody won.
So that would be to my theory that once you realize you can't win a war anymore, there just is no winning, then you don't do it.
Now an exception would be the Middle East where there's not really governments in some areas, you know, you're battling the terrorists and their little groups and stuff.
Now that might still be worth doing for a long time.
Because that's more like maintenance or mowing the lawn.
But in terms of two countries putting their tanks on the battlefield and attacking each other across the border, I think Ukraine and Russia are the proof that it doesn't work anymore.
And I think you would also have to say we did everything wrong.
Or we did everything to cause this.
This didn't happen on its own.
This was the United States acting poorly for a long time to just force this into being.
Yeah, this isn't the avoidable fight that, you know, if things had gone a little differently, maybe we wouldn't be in a war.
This was somebody trying to start a war as hard as they could, and then finally they got one.
So, it doesn't feel like a normal war.
In fact, I would argue that the news is already starting to shift its coverage from a war to a negotiation.
I saw that today on CNN, I think.
There was a reference to that the Ukrainians were trying to capture some territory with their counter-offensive to have a stronger negotiating position.
Just think about that.
So this is the news, just matter-of-factly, framing it as improving their negotiating situation.
In other words, the war is over.
The war is over.
There's not going to be a military conflict, or there's not going to be a nuclear conflict.
And the reason there's not going to be a nuclear conflict?
The war is over.
We are in advanced negotiations right now.
And a lot of that looks like who's going to, you know, have a beat on maybe Crimea or something.
But basically this is the violent negotiation part of the war.
There's no longer a hope on either side of something like victory.
Victory is off the table.
It's just a negotiation now.
A very bad one.
All right.
YouTube, I'm going to say goodbye for now and I'm going to stick around and talk to the locals people because they're special and I'll see you in the morning.
