Episode 2148 Scott Adams: Hunter's WhatsApp Message, Impeaching Biden, Imploding Subs, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Hunter's WhatsApp message
My SF report ( I survived)
Sperm count theory
Bud Light f*ckery
Impeaching Biden
The topic I can't mention
More fun
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 maybe some robots, too.
If you would like your experience today to be one that you'll talk about to your grandchildren, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels, a sty, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, except for a small, submersible submarine.
Apparently, they don't hold water too well.
But if you'd like to raise up your experience to dopamine faucet, all you need is to take this simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
I would like to make an announcement.
I'd like to make an announcement.
Should I ever perish in a humorous way, At least in your opinion.
I give you full authority to laugh about it.
You may make insensitive jokes.
And I would be... I don't know, I feel I would be honored by that.
So if you don't mind, should I die in any way that looks amusing?
Like a bear attack?
Like if a bear kills me?
That's kind of funny.
I mean, really, it's kind of funny.
What was I doing fighting a bear?
Really.
Or if some, you know, horrible, strange accident, you know, somebody drives a car into my house, something like that, you have my permission to enjoy the hell out of it.
I'll be dead anyway.
I mean, if I'm dead, why should I ruin your fun?
So go ahead and have a good time with it.
Alright, here's my San Francisco report.
I was not looking forward to going into San Francisco for the first time in... three years?
I live just outside of San Francisco, and I think I've avoided it for three years.
Which is hard, if you live near it, you always have some reason to go there.
But I did want to catch up with a friend, so I went in for lunch, and as you've heard, the streets are covered with poop and criminality and drug abuse in tents.
I didn't see any of it.
I didn't see a single thing.
Did not see, didn't see a homeless person, didn't see a criminal.
Didn't see a tent, didn't see a poop on the sidewalk.
Nothing.
So... Does that surprise you?
Are you surprised?
And then we took a long walk, pretty long walk from, you know, one place to a place to eat.
And no problem.
Nothing looked dangerous, didn't see any sketchy people.
All right.
Full disclosure, I was in the best part of town.
I'm pretty sure there's like a 10 block area that there's nothing going wrong.
I don't know about the rest of the city.
The rest of the city is probably a sewer, according to other people.
But if you go to the rich part, it's all the same.
It's all the same.
I don't think too much goes wrong in the rich part of San Francisco.
All right.
Here's my opinion on AI, having experienced it for a while, having signed up for many AI apps, and having used many of them.
It looks like mostly bullshit to me.
Mostly bullshit.
Now, when I say that, don't take that out of context.
Of course, AI and its contribution to how we work will be gigantic.
So what I say next is not conflicting with the fact that AI will be gigantic in its effect.
However, I can make the following assessments right now.
Not once this week did I want to use an AI tool for anything.
Not once.
And I've used them.
I've signed up for a bunch.
I've used them just to see what they can do.
But not once have I said to myself, I've got to go back there and use that.
The exception would be Googling for just a text answer for something.
I do use that.
So I have used the Chat GPT to answer some complex questions.
It's really good for that.
I love it for that.
But I just saw that Mid-Journey came out with a new update.
That you can not only do amazing pictures, but now you can zoom into them, like and get detail of the zoom in, like new detail that wasn't there before.
That's crazy.
And I said to myself, my God, what an update that is.
That is so impressive.
And then I said to myself, when would I ever use that?
For what?
I don't know.
Can't think of anything.
So, 90% of everything that AI does is done by people who do things you can't do.
You got that?
90% of everything you see on social media is like, hey, look, it can do this, it can do this, it can do this.
But you can't do that.
You can't do that.
In order to do that, you would have to learn a new language.
You would have to learn this language called SuperPrompt.
Because if you didn't know that language, do you think you could make that cool photo?
Nope.
Nope.
You'd have to learn a whole new language in order to ask the right questions to create good pictures, which nobody really needs.
I mean, impressive pictures, the value of an impressive picture just went to zero.
You know that, right?
The market value of a really impressive image is now zero, because anybody can make one.
So I'm not even sure people will care if you made a good image because they're all going to be worth zero in our minds.
So mostly it's about people who can do things that you can't do doing demos on social media to make you think that you could do those things but you really can't because it would be too much to learn and you've got a real life to live and you're not going to dedicate your entire day to learning an AI prompt.
But the people who do the demos they did.
Put their whole week into putting together a little package that they can make a thread on Twitter.
They're not you.
You can't do that.
You're not even close.
All right.
If you've tried to use AI for anything but just asking questions, would you agree that my assessment is on point?
I don't see any disagreement, but we'll see.
All right.
Apparently, I saw a headline and I wasn't sure which way this would go.
Starbucks employees are, let's see, 150 unionized Starbucks.
So they're not all unionized.
But where they are, 150 of them are going on strike over the coffee chains policy for pride decorations.
Now, how do you think that story is going to go?
Which way?
They're on strike over Pride decorations.
Are they on strike because they have them, or are they on strike because they don't have enough of them?
Which is it?
On strike because they have them, or on strike because they don't have enough of it?
Not enough.
Yeah, the answer is not enough.
So there's some, let's say, ambiguity in the story.
Because it sounds like the people going on strike don't know that the thing they're asking for they already have.
Which is, they have the authority to put up pride decorations in their store.
So I think corporate office says, yeah, go ahead.
Put up pride decorations if you want to.
And then the unionized people are going on strike.
For not being allowed to put on Pride decorations, which the corporate office says, yeah, go ahead.
I don't know.
I don't really understand the story, but that's that's the way it's presented, that the strike has nothing to do with reality.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Something wrong with the story.
Here's my take on Pride Month.
As my regular audience knows, I'm very pro LGBTQ.
I love my LGBTQ people.
They're interesting.
They generally are low crime people who follow the Constitution.
Patriots all love them.
But like anything, like anything, things can go too far.
Wouldn't you agree?
I have now some advice for my much-beloved LGBTQ community.
This is constructive advice.
It's not meant to be any kind of a Criticism.
Just constructive advice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a big part of Pride Month is not just how the people in the community feel about each other or themselves.
It's also a branding exercise to make sure that the rest of the public has a positive point of view.
And I like that part.
But here's my observation about Pride Month, which seems off-brand for the LGBTQ community.
Because generally you expect the LGBTQ community to be sort of a leading edge in fashion and, you know, just sort of what's new.
You know, sort of the leading edge of what's next.
But I feel like Pride Month is dated.
Does anybody have that feeling?
That Pride Month made perfect sense for a long time, But now it just feels, it feels like unnecessary.
Because I feel like we're well past the point of, you know, are you a member of America?
Are you a, you know, a full, fully respected member of the community?
Of course.
Yeah.
At least for most of us.
And it feels like you don't want to do Pride Month until the very last person agrees with you.
That would be too far.
You want to stop when you get the benefits before it starts being a cost.
And it feels to me like Pride Month did its work.
I feel like it did its job and did it well.
Raised consciousness and all that.
But does anybody else feel like it just the pride concept feels dated?
Doesn't it feel dated?
It's almost like calling black people Negroes.
I feel like we've gone past that.
There are a new set of challenges, but it feels like pride?
I mean, pride doesn't even seem like the right word, does it?
Because why should anybody be proud about their sexuality, no matter what it is?
Are you proud to be heterosexual?
I don't know.
I just am.
It's not something I'm proud of.
I just am.
I'm not proud of anything about anything that I was born.
Am I proud to be white?
No.
I didn't have a choice.
Am I proud to be my age?
No.
I mean, I didn't have a choice about any of it.
So I'm not really proud about anything I don't have a choice about.
It's just what it is.
And I think society is pretty close to my opinion on that.
It's just what it is.
If you're not breaking the law, we're all good.
All right, we'll get into the politics in a moment.
So Boebert, Representative Boebert, who is just one of the Berts.
Not a Dilbert, not a Ratbert, not a Catbert, not a Dogbert.
She is a Boebert.
And she's pushing this impeachment over Joe Biden over the border.
It's political theater that even Newt Gingrich says is a bad idea.
If Newt Gingrich says an impeachment is a bad idea, I'd listen to him.
Yeah, I would listen to Newt Gingrich when he says it's a bad idea.
He's still one of the smartest people in the game.
And he knows a little bit about impeachment because he was behind the Clinton impeachment.
He basically says they're not ready.
They don't really have a case.
And the worst thing you could do is bring an impeachment if you don't have the goods.
And they don't really have the goods.
They certainly have a complaint that Biden is opening the border too much.
But you probably need more than that.
I mean, just not doing a good enough job isn't what they do impeachment for.
That feels like it's more in the political domain than the impeachment domain.
But we'll see what happens.
It's just political theater, I guess.
I doubt it will go anywhere.
As you know, the male sperm count... Well, I shouldn't say male, should I?
I'll just say the sperm count.
Look how modern I am.
Look how woke I am.
The male or female sperm count is going down every, seems like for years it's been going down, and it's still a bit of a bit of a mystery, but I'd like to add my own hypothesis here.
Now the primary hypothesis is there's something in the air or the food.
So we're either drinking something or breathing something or we're exposed to something.
I don't know, it could be microplastics in the water or something.
But whatever it is, it seems that the sperm count has been going down for a long time.
I would like to offer you the following highly speculative hypotheses.
You ready?
Number one, I hypothesize that if we were in a more dangerous climate, the sperm would go up.
In other words, if people were being slain in the streets, more than they are, that the natural instinct of human beings would be to increase reproduction.
Now there's weak evidence, it's very weak evidence, that during wartime women will give birth to slightly more boys than girls.
But I just checked that, and apparently the science for that is not firm.
There's some indication of a small effect, but it's not always, so I wouldn't call that science.
It does make sense from a biological perspective that if you knew you needed more people, because it looked like people were dying too much, and life was hard, you'd probably have more sperm count.
So just a hypothesis, something you could test.
But here's my other hypothesis.
Women are less sexy.
So men are not triggered to produce sperm.
Here's why.
And by the way, I'm not saying that's bad.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that's bad.
Because in the 70s, when I was working in the cubicle environment, if a woman got dressed for work, it looked a lot like getting dressed to go on a date.
Getting dressed for work in the 70s looked a lot like getting dressed for a date.
You got the high heels and the tight dress and you might even have a little cleavage at work.
In my day job when I worked at the bank in my 20s, I'd have a hard on half of the day.
Let me be frank.
I just walked down the hall and it was just so many hot women who were of reproductive age.
You were just basically boning out all day long in your 20s.
Like all day long I'd be sitting in my cubicle saying, all right, I can't get up for 10 minutes because I just walked past What's-Her-Name.
Right?
Any guys want to back me up on that?
And now if you go into a modern workplace, What did the women look like?
And again, this is not any kind of criticism, because I don't think women should dress like hookers to go to work.
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying it was better in the 70s.
You know, maybe the men liked it better.
I'm not saying it was better overall.
You know, you don't want to send your daughter into that situation, right?
So I'm not saying it was good.
I'm saying it was different.
And if you turned on a beer commercial, what did it look like?
Women in bikinis.
Beer commercial.
If you turned on a sitcom, was there always a hot woman with cleavage?
Pretty much.
Pretty much every time.
How about today?
Not so much.
Not so much.
Different priorities.
If you went to a modern workplace and you looked at the women who worked here, and again, this is no criticism.
Legitimately, this is not a criticism.
They would be dressed probably comfortably, wouldn't you say?
In a modern, let's say a high-tech environment, they would just be dressed comfortably.
What are the odds that they would be wearing high heels?
If you go to Google and walk down the hallway, how many of the female employees are wearing heels?
Probably not too many.
Some, right?
And you would have a lot more people going full non-binary and everything else.
So, I feel like as a male, I'm far less exposed to casual environmental triggers.
Men?
Men, true or false?
You are less exposed to environmental triggers all day long.
True?
Now, some of you are going to say, I'm getting just all yeses on that.
Oh, one false.
One false.
Now, some of you are going to push back and say, but what about porn?
In today's world, we have unlimited access to porn.
Wouldn't that be triggering us all day long?
Yes.
Yes, it would.
It triggers you, and then you take care of it, and then you go on with your day.
But apparently the science shows that masturbation does not lower your sperm count.
Doesn't change it at all.
So it lowers it for an hour, and you're good to go.
So, the fact that masturbation exists, and porn exists, at higher levels than ever before, doesn't seem to have an impact on sperm levels, scientifically.
But if you tell me that walking around in an environment with no sexual cues is going to give me the same sperm count as walking through an environment that's only sexual cues, just everywhere, I can't believe that.
It seems to me my sperm count would go up if I were in a target-rich environment.
So, I'm going to say probably the biggest reason that sperm count is down is probably environmental.
It's probably what we're eating.
It's probably what we're breathing, I think.
It's the water.
But I think it might be a little bit these other things.
Maybe a little bit these other things.
Diet, yeah.
Alright, I have an opinion that will be provocative.
You know, on social media it seems like Twice a week, there'll be some viral video of a group of people, usually youngish males, beating up one person.
Now, you're going to want to make this racial, but that's not where I'm going on this.
Well, not exactly.
Because a group of people beating up one person is equally bad, no matter who's doing the beating.
But when it turns out that the people doing the beating are all the same racial group, and it's different from the person who's being beaten, I would not call that normal crime.
I would call that recreational racial torture.
Recreational.
Racial torture.
Because when you watch the videos, it's clear they're doing it for fun.
They don't have any purpose.
There's nothing gained.
They're not robbing anybody.
They're not in trouble.
They're laughing and they're enjoying it recreationally.
Now, the videos I've seen, they're quite clearly also racial.
Meaning that it looks like the person getting beaten up is because they're white.
Or because they're Asian American.
But I don't want to make this a racial case per se, not in one direction anyway.
Because let me be as clear as possible.
If I saw a video of ten white people torturing, basically torturing, by taking turns beating a black guy, I would want all of those white people involved in that murdered.
Murdered.
I'd want them all dead.
Right?
No qualifications whatsoever.
If I had heard that somebody came up with a high-powered rifle and killed every one of those white people torturing somebody recreationally, recreationally, for fun.
Imagine a bunch of white people torturing a black guy for fun.
I would want every one of those black people murdered immediately.
Just blow their fucking heads off.
Kill them.
Absolutely just kill them.
I don't even want a trial for those bastards.
But it works both ways.
Right?
It's not even a racial statement.
If you see any group of one group enjoying themselves beating up somebody of another group, that's not like regular crime.
You know, you could have a racial event if it's just one person on one.
But if you're torturing somebody, because these beatings are just torture, They're torture.
It's an extended period in which they're just trying to hurt somebody as much as possible and permanently.
They're clearly not trying to avoid permanent damage.
You know, a lifetime of crippling, you know, problems.
You know, brain injuries, everything else.
So if you tell me that this is a normal crime, when a group of people recreationally tortures somebody of another race, because they're another race, primarily, that should be the death penalty.
That should absolutely be the death penalty.
But, like I said, if some vigilante wanted to take care of it, I would consider that justice as well.
And it wouldn't matter, again, you can reverse the races, same opinion.
Same opinion.
If it were white people, they should all be killed.
Alright, Bud Light Commercial.
I had to ask on social media if this was a prank, Because I couldn't believe it.
Now you're gonna have to see this fucking thing yourself.
You have to see what Bud Light did to try to get back its audience.
It did a commercial with a bunch of redneck white people doing dumbass things.
Just like one dumbass thing after another.
Humorously.
Humorously being stupid.
Now it did show one person of color.
It literally had one black friend.
They actually made a video of a bunch of dumb, redneck, white people doing dumb shit.
And they actually had the gall to give them one black friend.
Are you fucking kidding me?
I looked at that thing and I thought, this isn't real.
This is obviously somebody's joking around.
But it's very well, the quality was good.
So I thought, wow, somebody put a lot of work into this fake.
And then I found out it's real.
It's real!
Alright, it cannot be described how offensive it is to their own buyers.
Just completely offensive.
And did they not know it?
Do they need some kind of advisor?
I feel like Bud Light needs a redneck advisor.
Like they should bring somebody in with a John Deere hat and a plaid shirt, packing a few extra pounds, just came from the barbecue, and just use him as the expert advisor.
Because I imagine you put him in the room and then you show him that video, and his face would be like this.
Seriously?
You're fucking with me, right?
You don't really think that's a commercial you're going to put on, do you?
Seriously?
Like, all they needed was one objective opinion from a customer, and it feels like they wouldn't have done it.
Alright, here's a little statistic I saw online.
I think it's real, but fact check me if it's not.
It was a list of countries, and what percentage of them are unmarried, but have kids.
So they have kids, but they're not married.
In Iceland, almost 70%.
The people who have children are not married to each other.
Now I saw in the comments some people saying that the reason people don't get married is that culturally it's just not required.
So there's no legal reason.
There's no financial benefit.
Apparently there's no financial benefit in the other countries.
So if you don't have finances, you don't have a cultural pressure.
So they just don't do it.
There's nobody saying, why don't you get married every day?
Like the in-laws are not coming over and saying, so when's the big date?
When are you getting married?
I guess it just doesn't happen.
Because people think, yeah, and probably the paucity of religion.
Now, here's my question.
If we were to watch this experiment, would we eventually say to ourselves, well, no wonder France is turned into a third world country.
I don't know that there are any problems in France, do you?
Does France have any kind of a problem because of the unmarried people with children?
Do they?
What's the problem?
I mean, I know they have immigration issues, but what's the problem?
Yeah, taxes, maybe taxes.
Alright, so anyway, that's happening.
I just thought that was, that was just like a shocking number.
Alright, we're of course going to talk about the submarine story, and of course everything has to do with Hunter Biden.
There's no story that doesn't go back to Hunter Biden.
This should be like a, some kind of a Kevin Bacon situation.
Hunter Biden is always one degree of separation from every news story.
But as you've already heard, and no doubt the story, the submarine met a bad end.
Must have been some structural problem and at least the people died quickly, they think.
I guess that's the best you can say about it.
But I'm not too interested in that story.
I just don't find that story that interesting.
But apparently this story was coincidentally at the same time some bad news came out about Hunter, which we don't know if it's true yet.
But it's coming from a whistleblower.
And there is allegedly a WhatsApp message from Hunter to his Chinese connection.
And it's pretty darn damning.
Let me read it to you.
So this is allegedly from a WhatsApp messaging from 2017 between Hunter Biden and this Henry Zhao, his Chinese connection.
All right.
So Biden apparently wrote, quote, I am sitting here with my father.
And remember, it's 2017.
So I'm sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.
Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand.
And now means tonight.
And Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me, his father, and every person he knows, and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not following my direction.
I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.
Is that too on-the-nose?
It doesn't sound like a fake phone call.
If it were fake, it would mention the payments.
It's not quite on-the-nose.
The reason I think it's real is that it's not on-the-nose.
On-the-nose would have said, you promised us some payments for connections.
Where's the money?
That would be on the nose.
But here he's just making this threat about his commitments.
So you can tell the hunter knows he doesn't want to say exactly what the commitments are.
So he knows it's discoverable.
Ultimately it could be discovered.
So he's still talking indirectly.
That's not on the nose.
This is the way real people talk in the real world.
That's why it's not on the nose.
It's messy.
It's a little unclear.
That's just like reality.
So anyway, the whistleblowers are saying that that's a real message.
They're saying that they were limited from asking any questions about the big guy or the dad.
They were prevented from looking into Joe Biden connections.
So the story that came out at the same time the submarine story, which by the way, there's a sub story about the sub story.
On Substack.
Probably not, but it should be on Substack.
That the government knew on Sunday that the sub had been destroyed, but they waited until the Hunter Biden story came out so they could bury it in the news.
Did it work?
Let's see if it worked.
Let's see, if I went to CNN, would it be a big old news story about Hunter Biden and the whistleblower?
Let's see.
We'll go right to the web page.
Let's see, top story is about a submarine.
It's about a submarine.
Yeah, that's the top story.
But I'm sure it's the second story.
I mean, given the nature of the claim, it would obviously be the second story.
No, the second story is about the sub.
But we'll go down to the third story.
The third story is about the sub.
But on the fourth story we get... Okay, that's about the sub.
But the fifth story, fifth story down is about the sub.
Okay, that's about the sub two.
That's about the sub... Okay, here's some news about government.
That's about Texas.
All right, here's the news... No, that's not it.
But if I just keep going down, I'll see it, of course.
Still looking?
It's the biggest story of the day, so obviously it's not there.
It's not there.
It's not just undercovered.
It's actually not there.
It's actually not there.
I mean, just hold that in your mind for a moment.
We have written proof and testimony that the President of the United States was taking bribes from China.
It's not even anywhere on the CNN page.
Nowhere.
Now, how about Fox News?
Now, of course, we'll cover the submarine as well.
Yeah, so first story is about the submarine.
Second story?
Whistleblower revealed.
Do you see the problem?
I mean, how is this possible?
Like, how are we okay with this?
Like, you know, we have outrage exhaustion.
You know, so I'm outraged about this.
But I'm outraged about so many things, I don't know where to begin.
So I don't do anything about this.
Like, I'm not going to be active about the fact that CNN didn't cover the biggest story in the news.
And it's obvious they didn't.
What are you going to do about it?
I don't know, just talk about the next thing?
Act like it didn't happen?
No, I'm not just catching on to this trick.
Dumb shit.
Anyway, if you saw Jordan Peterson tweeting that he got a message he had zero new Twitter followers in June and you probably said to yourself, that's not even possible because he's got millions of followers to have no new ones in June.
So obviously he was questioning the The algorithm there.
But somebody else said that was just a bug.
And then I saw a screenshot where there are people who had actually grown a lot of users, but they also got that message that they got no users.
So I think it's the message itself that's the bug.
It doesn't seem that he got no users.
He probably got users.
He just got a message that said the opposite.
So I'm not going to worry about that one.
It looks like just a bug.
A couple of days ago, There was a story that I didn't report, but I saw it again and I thought, you know, dammit, I guess I'm going to have to.
I'm trying to do this without getting sued.
So there's a report in the National Pulse and written by Rahim Qassam, who's a credible person.
If you don't know who Rahim is, he's a credible person in this domain.
But he says the, There's a 2021 Haldeman report that just came out, so even though it's 2021, the report just was issued, that identified, allegedly, many, many technical holes in the Dominion voting machines that are commonly used in our elections.
It's a 96-page report, and it says, among other things, That you can put malware in it in moments, so you only need momentary access to the machine to stick in a drive or something and reprogram it.
So the first thing is, just a casual contact with the machines would be enough to reprogram them.
Casual contact.
You just need access, that's it.
And then allegedly, now these are not my claims, these are just the claims here, and that allegedly it would be easy to change them in a way that would change the votes and would be undetectable in an audit.
That's the claim.
So there's a 96 page detailed report that says the machines are full of security problems and that brief access to them would allow a hacker to change the vote and never be detected.
Is that too on the nose?
It feels a little too on the nose for me.
Now part of me says anything can be hacked.
Right?
But would they really make it so easy to hack that casual contact with it would be all you needed?
I mean, just a few minutes with it is all you need to get in there?
That doesn't feel right.
I don't know.
And I'm guessing the reason it's not national news is that it's not credible.
Or nobody wants to cover it because Dominion likes to sue people.
So it could be that nobody just wants to touch the story.
It's just too toxic.
Might be that.
But it also feels a little too on the nose.
Yeah, which is our signal for bullshit.
It's like, really?
96 pages of problems and nobody else was aware of it?
Really?
96 pages full of problems.
But Dominion wasn't aware of it, right?
But they could easily just go in there and look from the outside and find 96 pages worth of problems.
Maybe.
I'm not going to say it's impossible.
I'm just going to say that what you judge as credible these days, you really, really have to be careful.
I have no idea.
I don't even have the best guess about whether this is credible.
Not even a guess.
No idea.
I'm pretty sure that you haven't seen the other side of it.
Well, that I know.
So if I gave you a report that says, you know, these machines are full of flaws, but I've not given you Dominion's response to the specific claims, do you know anything?
In 2023, if you see one person's claims without the defense, do you know anything?
No.
No, that would be exactly like knowing nothing.
Because there's always a counter-argument.
Always.
And you might be quite convinced by it.
You know, it could be as easy as the machines they tested were not production machines.
You know, like the defense could be that easy.
They didn't test the real machines.
The real ones have better security.
And then you're done.
I mean, that could be the whole story.
I don't think it is.
I mean, I'm just giving you an example.
I'm just saying that if you can't imagine that there would be a totally good defense for all of it, Then your imagination is broken.
That would be a problem with your imagination.
Because I can definitely imagine that none of it's true.
But I can also imagine it is.
I just don't know.
No information one way or the other on that one.
So I've been watching with some amusement.
There are a number of videos on social media that are all sort of in the same vein.
And what it is, is there'll be some guy, usually on a podcast, who will ask a woman or a group of women to describe the minimal acceptable man, you know, for a boyfriend or a husband.
And when they describe the sort of minimal acceptable man, They have some requirements.
They usually say you should be at least six feet tall.
They like them to make at least six figure income.
They want somebody who's fun, got a sense of humor, somebody who's not obese, and somebody who likes to travel.
It's a pretty good package, right?
Imagine that, six feet tall, six-figure income, fun to be around, good body weight, and likes to travel.
That's exactly what the women are looking for.
I just described Hunter Biden.
That's Hunter Biden.
He's six feet tall, has a seven-figure income, he's very fun, he's not obese, and he likes to travel.
So there's your perfect guy.
Another one would be, let's see, six feet tall, six figures, Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate.
He'd be another one.
So ladies, you do have options.
I mean, it can seem discouraging, because you're looking around, you're like, why?
Why is there nobody who meets my requirements?
But there are.
There are.
Hunter's available, and I believe that both of the Tate brothers are single.
Both available.
You said nothing about living in Romania.
So that's on you.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is about all I had.
I think even this shorter version today, we could conclude it's the best thing you've ever seen.
And probably all of my points will be turned into talking points by all the important people in the world.
I think that's going to happen.
Or we could just talk about that stupid submarine all summer long.
By the way, is anybody talking about Trump anymore?
Does Trump have any legal problems?
Who's getting all the attention in the election?
What candidate is sucking up all the attention?
Trump?
Not anymore.
It's RFK.
Yeah.
So there's a funny thing happening with RFK Jr.
that I'm very curious about.
And it goes like this.
There's one version of him where he has always said crazy stuff and he's saying more crazy stuff.
And that everything he says has been debunked and disproved and everybody who agreed with him has changed their mind.
So that version is out there.
Now, you might not be surprised that it's Democrat-leading people who have the version that he's crazy, because they don't want him to beat Biden.
However, there's a version that I've seen, just watching a number of his interviews, which doesn't look anything like that.
The one I've seen, he's asking for insanely reasonable things.
Like, maybe these vaccinations should be tested more, or maybe the company should be, you know, not free from any lawsuits.
Those are reasonably good points.
You could agree or you could argue them, but they're solid points of debate.
So, I would say that the Democrat smear machine is in full action, but at the same time, I don't know if any of it's true.
Does anybody have an opinion that RFK Jr.
has been spewing BS for years and none of it's true?
Does anybody have that feeling?
Because that's what I thought a year ago.
A year ago, I just dismissed him as a crazy guy.
Well, I don't know.
So I am completely engaged in trying to figure out what's true and what's not true with RFK Jr.
Because I'd love to know if the criticisms are true.
Because if the criticisms are valid, well, that would definitely change my mind.
But the people making the criticisms are the least credible people on the planet.
The least credible.
If you're going to make a list of all the people you could believe, and then all the people you couldn't believe, The people who are accusing him are all the people you can't believe.
It's the least credible people are his enemies.
So what do you make of that?
Because it doesn't mean they're wrong.
There's a Cernovich link.
Is Cernovich linking to something saying he's crazy or something saying he's not crazy?
Give me the highlight of the Cernovich opinion.
Because Cernovich has probably looked into it, so I would trust his opinion on this.
Alright, well give me the deets on that.
Sunu says he's solid, 100%.
All right?
That means something to me.
Now when you talk about the least credible people and the most credible people, I would consider Cernovich in a high credibility category.
With the exception of Pizzagate.
I think Pizzagate just has to be its own special case.
I won't make any more comments on that.
I'll just say that if you don't count that, He's a high-credibility person.
Vivek?
I see lots of comments about Vivek.
So I don't think there's going to be a third party run in either case.
I saw Joe Manchin teasing about it.
But I don't think Joe Manchin's going to do it.
He'd get too much heat.
Now, I saw on YouTube that RFK Jr.' 's voice is going to be a huge impediment.
Let me ask you this.
You know that AI can fix his voice.
AI can listen to his voice and immediately, I'll say translate, into smooth voice.
Because if you were speaking American and used AI to translate them into another language, it would also do that instantly.
If you haven't seen that, AI is pretty much instant on translation now.
So you could, and I wouldn't be surprised if you did this.
Oh, actually, if RFK had a special microphone with AI built in, it could fix his voice for the audience.
How hard would it be to build AI into the microphone that just smooths out your voice?
Your microphone should get rid of your... You know how I always clear my throat and like I'm terrible at this job because I'm always making like auditory noises that shouldn't be there?
Coughing and stuff.
Your microphone could get rid of that automatically.
Like you could actually be on microphone and go, and the microphone would just swallow it and just wouldn't produce it because it's not a word.
Good.
And you could teach it what noise is like, uh, it could even get rid of your ums.
If you're one of these people who was like, um, and then I think we'll do that.
Um, I think we'll do that.
Um, it could just get rid of the ums.
Yeah.
So, I would not be surprised if in two months or so somebody has introduced a microphone for podcasts that RFK Jr.
could buy.
You could just take it with him to any interview and just plug it into the podcaster's system and then he speaks smoothly for anybody who wants it.
So it's possible.
On the other hand, it would seem less authentic.
So my guess is he wouldn't do it, because it might sound a little robotic.
It might take away some of his appeal.
But at least you'd have an option.
Now the other thing is that he could do his regular voice, but YouTube could give you an option to smooth it.
Because, you know what I'd like?
that option on movies.
Can I give you my impression of every modern movie?
I think you need to see this before I go.
Alexa, turn off studio.
All right, we're going to give you a scene from every modern movie.
You ready?
Every modern movie.
Scene.
I give you every modern movie.
Scene.
I give you every modern movie.
Too dark, so you can't see what the fuck is going on the entire time, even when they're indoors.
When they're indoors in the middle of the day, all the lights are off and it's dark.
Why?
Why?
And why do they have to whisper all the time?
Why can't they let me hear the dialogue?
Why can't they give me some Hitchcock dialogue?
I believe I saw the person going into the store.
Hitchcock.
Modern dialogue.
There's your modern audio right there.
Am I wrong?
Yeah, it's like 24.
Everything's whispering in the dark the whole time.
Is Tara like that?
No, it's not my hearing going, because I know how to turn up the television.
It's not my hearing.
Have you ever tried to watch anything with a British accent?
It's not hard to understand a British accent.
When I watch the news and I see somebody with a British accent talking on the news, I understand every word.
Every word.
No problem at all.
But if you put a British person on any kind of television show, a scripted show, it's just like they're talking with a mouthful of nickels or something.
I mean, I don't even understand how it's a show.
Yeah, you have to put on subtitles.
Do you know people who put on the subtitles just to watch a show that's in English?
Yep.
And it's not because your hearing's bad.
It's because they make it so you can't hear it.
It's made that way.
Yeah.
I'm seeing an entire list of people saying they have to put the subtitles on just to watch TV.
Yep.
Yep, yep.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
What this needs is a little bit more light on me.
That's all I have for today.
I'm going to say bye to the YouTube people.
Best live stream you've ever seen in your whole life.
Remember, you can subscribe to Dilbert Reborn on Twitter.
Just go to my account and see the subscribe button.
And you can get access to Dilbert.
Or you can join the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, and you get a lot more than Dilbert Reborn.
You get all the good stuff that I can't show you in public.
And I'm not positive, but it looks like Elon Musk subscribed to my Twitter, Dilbert Reborn.
Because I saw a little subscribe button on his account, the kind that shows up for all of my subscribers.
He has his own subscription, but there's a different label that shows up if they've subscribed to you.
And I saw it on his account.
So I think he's subscribed.
I don't know.
It would be smart for him to subscribe to as much as he could because he's trying to sell that service.
Adminous Scott, you were jealous of Andrew Top G. Tate.
