Episode 2154 Scott Adams: The Most Fun You Can Have While Hearing The Latest News. Come On In, Join!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN attacks Jesse Watters
Supreme Court rules on Affirmative Action
Garland lied?
Kennedy gets persuasion right
Where's Wagner?
Legumes
Gen Z LGBTQ rates
Amish vaccinations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
I call it Coffee with Scott Adams and you could call it that too.
If you'd like today's experience to be something that you could generally only get under medical care or doing something illegal, All you need to do is get a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or 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 dopamines of the day.
The thing that makes everything better in your entire life.
It's called simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Ah.
Well, the news is full of fun and exciting stories today about persuasion and intrigue and mysteries and puzzles.
All good stuff, if you like stuff like this.
Well, does anybody do this?
One of the funniest things for me is watching what Twitter puts in the trending box on the right side of the screen, if you're using the browser.
And sometimes they'll pair trending things that are funny when you see them together.
For example, this morning, at least for about five minutes, the following three things were trending on Twitter.
Loomer, Christie, Turd.
So Laura Loomer, Chris Christie, and Turd.
Now the funny thing about this is you automatically think it's about Amber Heard, right?
Because she had that funny nickname, Amber Turd?
Nope.
It just turns out that a lot of people were calling each other turds at the same time.
It must be the word of the year.
The word of the year is turd.
It's trending.
And I feel like it's applicable to almost every story.
You could almost use it as the headline of every story.
Turd makes submarine that is not well tested.
Right?
Whistleblowers tell us about the turds in the Department of Justice.
It works for everything.
You can put it in every situation.
All right, so today was funny.
CNN is, of course, going to try to take down Jesse Watters.
He's now target number one.
Because Jesse Watters took over the The Tucker Carlson spot, that's the big media spot.
Everybody wants that.
So the story that CNN is running, like a whole big feature story on this.
Imagine that CNN thought this was important enough for a feature, like a big piece.
And then when it's done, you tell me.
You tell me if there was anything in the story.
Just anything.
But they tried pretty hard to take him down.
Here's the story.
Jesse had some kind of a corporate event that he'd agreed to do.
Presumably some paid speaking thing.
And he goes in and at some point they say, but Jesse says he doesn't recall saying it.
Which is funny in itself.
I think he did say it, probably.
But he says he doesn't recall.
Because it was literally just an offhand comment of some kind.
And the offhand comment allegedly, reportedly, questioned whether Kamala Harris is really a woman You know, he made some kind of joke about her gender identity.
And so CNN reported that as, my God, it was, you know, people were just upset and they were beside themselves and, oh my God.
Goodbye, Andrew.
Now, do you think that there were many people in the audience who were offended by that?
Feels like a national story, doesn't it?
No.
No.
Because there's nobody in the world who wouldn't know that was a joke.
Kamala Harris is not even making any claims about her gender identity.
It couldn't be more disconnected from anything that matters.
I didn't hear the joke, but do you think it matters?
No.
People saying mocking things about a president and a vice president are the most normal thing you can do.
In America.
So that was a big old nothing.
So it was so much nothing that when Jesse said he doesn't remember doing it, I actually believe that.
I actually believe it.
Because it was such a nothing offhand comment.
But they're coming for him.
The funniest part about it is that the event that was scheduled right after Jesse Waters' talk was a woke brainwashing session.
They all had to leave Jesse Waters and go immediately into one of those woke brainwashing sessions.
I just thought it was funny that they scheduled it.
Well, speaking of wokeness, wokeness continues to die in a whole variety of ways.
We might find out some of it today, or maybe we already know.
Yes, we do.
Decision just came out.
Affirmative action just ended.
Affirmative action just ended.
Supreme Court just ruled.
Now, I believe this only applies to college admissions.
Can I get a clarification on that?
It's only college admissions.
Right?
So big congratulations to Asian-Americans who I think led that fight.
Good job.
Good job.
Asian-Americans coming through.
All right.
Wow.
Well, that's heading to be a little harder than I thought it would.
You might be aware that affirmative action is a big part of my story.
So that's a big deal to me.
That's a big, big deal to me.
Thank you, President Trump, for backing that court.
I don't think you get it otherwise.
Wow.
Wow.
I don't even know what to say about that.
Just wow.
Holy cow.
All right.
Well, we'll have lots more about that.
That just broke.
Brand new.
Wow.
Let's talk about A.G.
Garland.
So the latest I think Hannity did a good job of describing this.
So there's this whistleblower, Gary Shapley, and I guess there's some other whistleblowers.
So at this point we have super credible information that the investigation into Hunter's laptop was impeded.
Very directly, very obviously, impeded.
And there's not really much doubt about it.
Nor is there much doubt that Hunter was working his foreign sources and twisting their arms to give him money for what?
I don't know.
Access, I guess?
To his father?
So we now have pretty much the most credible information you could ever have.
Because remember, the whistleblowers are public.
At least one of them.
And the others seem to be confirming.
We're not talking about some anonymous source.
We're talking about somebody who was in the room and is in public saying, I was in the room and all these other people in the room were saying the same thing.
And here's the document that says exactly what we were telling you.
Is there something going wrong here?
That's like very wrong.
And I don't even know how to capture it in my head.
And it goes something like this.
I think Biden could actually murder somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Am I wrong?
He could murder somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, because he is right in front of us.
Now, it's not murder, but it appears to be one of the biggest crimes I've ever seen.
Name a bigger crime, right?
I mean, without violence, if you take violence out of it, For a non-violent crime, name a bigger one.
Bernie Madoff?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Bernie Madoff may have gotten more money, but his crime was definitely not worse than what we're apparently seeing, allegedly.
Oh, Epstein?
Okay, Epstein was worse.
I'll give you that one.
But who was covering up for Epstein?
Maybe it's connected, who knows.
But I guess the thing that's blowing me away is that we're just, we talk about it, and then we go on like business as usual or something.
I feel like this should be the least business as usual thing that ever happened.
Now, I hate to do that thing where you flip it around and say, imagine if this were happening to Trump.
But it kind of does apply, doesn't it?
I feel like this time it applies.
And once again, Tucker Carlson is shown to be prophetic, if not genius, that when he told us, for years he's been saying this, that whatever the Democrats are doing is what they're accusing you of.
Basically, the Bidens were doing everything they accused Trump of.
Colluding with foreign nations, taking money, trying to use the office as a money-making thing, trying to enrich his family business, the family.
Every part of the accusation against Trump, every part, was exactly what they were doing for years.
And the thing about it is, it's so abusively obvious, I don't know what to do about it.
I actually don't know what to do.
And I observe that nobody's doing anything about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, there appears to be no action toward making this better.
Now I've heard that there's a possibility That the judge might not accept the plea deal, which I guess is a thing.
They can do that.
And the reason would be new information shows that there was something went wrong, especially because the prosecutor in the case was told by Garland that he could do whatever he wanted.
He could bring the case in any domain he wanted.
He had full authority.
And then it turned out he didn't have anything like that.
He couldn't bring the case in different states, and that's where it had to be taken, and so he couldn't pursue it.
I don't, you know, I just don't even know what to say about it.
It's so mind-blowing that we just sit here and watch it like it's Tuesday.
Oh, well, there's the president taking money from other countries, lying about it, covered it up.
We know it all.
We know it all.
We're not guessing about any of it.
That's the weird part.
I just... I don't know.
Anyway.
You know, at least with the Trump accusations, you can always say, well, they're unproven and stuff like that.
And then it turns out none of them were true.
But this is not a case of unproven allegations, is it?
It's right in front of us.
And still we do nothing.
We're still talking about Joe Biden, the probable winner of the next presidential election.
How?
How in the world are we even having that conversation?
The conversation should have long ago turned into, he can't possibly win, so let's not talk about him anymore.
Am I wrong?
Should not the conversation have already changed to, alright, he's out, so we're really only looking at these other people now.
And it didn't.
It didn't.
It didn't change.
Why?
Why?
Well, part of the reason is the citizenry is completely disconnected from the news.
We're only connected to the narratives now and the propaganda.
We're not even connected to facts.
Not even a little bit.
We hear them.
They just don't change our actions.
And that's strange.
We're only changing our actions based on things that are obviously bullshit.
Am I wrong?
The only thing that changes how we act are stories that aren't true.
So we're in a weird situation where we're all LARPing.
It's not true, so we better go do something about it.
But if it is true, eh, not interesting.
All right.
RFK Jr.
made a bunch of news, at least according to me, on a bunch of different topics.
So we have more clarity on some of his opinions.
And I gotta say, talk about hitting a base-clearing home run of persuasion.
I don't know if he's gonna win.
Like, I'm not predicting he's gonna win.
But, oh my god.
He's really good at this.
So I'm talking about RFK Jr.
the way I often talk about Trump, which is just that his persuasion skill, it's just not normal.
It is not normal.
Ordinary people can't do this.
He's a very special character and I completely understand why Trump says he likes him and vice versa.
They're kind of the same person without the hyperbole, right?
If you take Trump's hyperbole away and just break him down to like the common sense Trump, he looks a lot like RFK.
You know, does this work?
Have we tested it?
Is the cost greater than the benefit?
You know, that stuff.
You know, the normal stuff that people should be doing, but they don't.
But let me just give you a few of the things that RFK Jr.
said, and watch your jaw just drop.
It's almost like you didn't know that anybody could talk reasonably about some of these topics.
You hear it for the first time, you go, I guess that's what a smart person would say in this situation.
So here he is on drugs.
He would legalize psychedelics and marijuana.
Free money.
Free money.
He's compatible with science.
He's compatible with the news.
He's compatible with the public.
The only person he's not compatible with is our worthless government.
Only the government is against it, in terms of majority.
Only the government.
So he's basically saying, I'm for the people and against the government.
Here's a good example.
Your government doesn't want the things that science says will work, will fix your addictions.
The psychedelics are really good for fixing depression, addiction, anxiety, a whole bunch of stuff.
And so he's saying, let's make it legal.
Okay.
Free money.
Now, why didn't anybody else pick up that free money?
You know it was just sitting on the table for a long fucking time.
Am I wrong?
It's just sitting there.
It's on the table, and everybody's just walking past it.
Like it's not even there.
And RFK walks past the table, he looks over, there's a big table of money.
Anybody?
Seriously?
You're just leaving this, I could just pick this up, right?
I'm doing it.
I'm picking up the money.
Does anybody have an objection?
Okay.
All right.
I think we're all good.
And then he walks away with the money.
That's what he just did right in front of you.
Now, I've been saying forever that I wish Trump had done that.
Exactly this.
But Trump can't do this because he's just sort of the anti-drinking, anti-every kind of drug person.
And I do respect that, actually.
I respect Trump's more absolutist take.
I don't think he's right, but I do respect it.
Now, there's a second part of this, which I think fits with it, which is RFK Jr.
said he wants to build an addiction, what do you call it?
Healing centers for addiction.
So he didn't call it recovery, he called it healing, which I also like.
Because healing, healing tells you it's a medical problem.
Right?
I like that.
Persuasion-wise, healing is way better than recovery.
Would you agree?
Healing is a good word.
I like healing.
But he also said, and this is a really big point, that he would put these healing centers in Rural areas.
That's perfect.
Do you remember me saying that we should build addiction cities?
Where if you're addicted, you can go to this place where it's just addicts, but they have no access to any kind of substance.
You just, it's almost like a jail in the sense that you can't get in.
But once you get in, it's just like a regular city, right?
It's not a jail on the inside, but it has a jail-like security that you can't even drop stuff from a drone.
They'll shoot it out of the air so that you just can't get drugs.
But otherwise, it's like a cool place to live with some people who have something in common with you.
And now he says put it in rural areas, and I really think that's the secret.
I think the secret is you have to get them out of the inner city, because otherwise they just walk out the door and score a drug on the sidewalk as soon as they leave.
You want to get them in nature, right?
Get them in a rural area, have them go hiking every day in the woods, and you want them to leave that saying, oh, I found another way to feel good.
I found another way to feel good.
That's your healing.
Now, how much do you love the fact that he is a successful, recovered, healed, he's a healed addict?
That's really strong.
You know, some people are going to say, oh, that's a negative, he was a drug addict for a number of years, 40 years ago.
And I'm going to say, nope, that is absolutely a positive.
I want somebody who's been in a war to be my general.
I want somebody who's beat addiction to beat our addictions.
I want somebody who understands it on a cellular level.
Here's what you don't want.
And I saw this again today.
Taking drugs as a choice.
How many of you think that?
Now it certainly is a choice the first time you do it.
Definitely a choice the first time you do it.
But at some point, how many of you would say taking drugs is a choice for an addict?
Once you're an addict, do you think that's a choice?
All right, good.
I have the smartest audience in the world, I think.
Actually, literally, I think I do, in terms of politics.
It's not a choice.
It's not a choice.
And you need somebody who knows that.
If you don't know that, you don't know anything.
You don't know anything.
That's the first thing you have to understand.
If you don't get that, you don't get anything.
And he understands it, because he's Bennett.
He is it.
He lives it.
So that's a big deal.
Now, I haven't heard what he would do about the cartels.
He may have said something about that, but I don't know.
So I would say this is the best package for dealing with that that's running.
Although I like Vivek's take of militarily attacking, and some of the other Republicans, of militarily attacking the cartels.
I don't know if RFK Jr.
would say yes to that, but I'd love to see what he says about it.
So I'm reserving my judgment.
So I still like Ramaswamy on fentanyl, because he would go after the cartels.
All right, here's another one.
Here's some more free money.
RFK Jr.
went to some kind of crypto thing the other day and said, I will make sure that your right to use and hold Bitcoin is inviolable.
Bitcoin is the only bulwark against totalitarianism and the manipulation of our money supply.
Come on!
Come on!
Free money!
RFK Jr.
walks by a second table This pile's full of money.
Once again, he looks at the big pile of money, which is, do you like Bitcoin to be illegal?
Or do you want your government to ban it?
The people want their Bitcoin.
The people have decided we want the Bitcoin.
All right?
So RFK Jr.
says, oh, why don't I just agree with the people?
Why don't I agree with freedom?
It was free.
Do you know what pushback he got from all like CNN and MSNBC for having that opinion?
None.
None.
Do you know how much pushback he got from Fox News and Breitbart for being in favor of Bitcoin?
None.
None.
Zero.
He just had to say the words.
And I'm sure he means it.
But it's crazy, isn't it?
He's making the other candidates look like chimpanzees.
Now, to be fair, I think Vivek is also... I don't know, but I'm sure he's in favor of Bitcoin.
You can confirm that, right?
Vivek is pro-Bitcoin?
I'm saying that only because he's smart, so he must be.
Right?
Gotta be right.
We just assume that anybody that smart is in favor of Bitcoin.
Isn't that weird?
Isn't it weird that you can know what Ramaswamy's opinion is on Bitcoin without knowing what his opinion is on Bitcoin?
Isn't that fun?
Because you just know he's the smartest guy in the race.
So of course he's in favor of it.
Of course he is!
So that's two piles of free money the RFK just picked up.
Let's see what else he did.
How about his opinion on climate change?
Well, you hate that, don't you?
Oh, don't you hate that?
Ugh!
Climate change?
RFK Jr.' 's worried about that?
Many of my audience are saying, that's not something you should be concentrating on.
So a big mistake, do you think?
Big mistake?
Well, I don't know if you know what his opinion is, but his opinion is that he would let the free market take care of it.
Now what do you think?
He'd let the free market take care of climate change.
Damn it.
He did it again.
He did it again.
He found the place that everybody agrees.
Instead of telling us what the science is and then we yell at him, because that's a terrible move.
Do not tell us what the science is.
We don't believe it.
We know science lies to us for a variety of reasons.
And even if the science is right about it, we don't believe it.
There's no credibility.
So he finds this middle ground, which is, let the free market take care of it.
Now, I don't think you could have said that 20 years ago, or 10, or even 5.
But what's different is that we're sort of at a really interesting competitive place, where the Elon Musks of the world will say, solar will give you everything you need.
It's already cheaper than nuclear.
It's infinitely reproducible.
And it's good.
Nuclear is good too.
Elon Musk is pro-nuclear.
But he's saying that solar is even better.
So I don't know if that's true.
Because here's my little economics lesson.
Whatever is true today is irrelevant.
Because both solar and nuclear are going to be wildly changing in the next number of years in terms of their economics.
Like one little breakthrough in batteries And then solar rules, right?
Just a breakthrough in batteries.
And there are breakthroughs in batteries all the time.
So just one big breakthrough in batteries.
Or how about this?
One big breakthrough in recycling solar panels.
Which is hard to do now.
Do you think there'll be no big breakthroughs where they can create a solar product that can be recycled?
Or maybe last forever?
Or something like that?
Sure.
Now about nuclear.
Nuclear is uneconomical because of all the red tape.
It's uneconomical because it's hard to get insurance, RFK Jr.
says.
And we build them one-off, like everyone's designed special so it's impossible to improve and it takes 20 years and the overruns are 10 times that and you know you got all these problems, right?
All true.
But every one of those problems is being addressed.
And if you were president, you could probably do something to reduce the regulatory burden.
So that would change the economics wildly.
Although, I don't think Trump did.
I'll take a fact check on that.
But I don't think Trump changed enough, or anything, if he did, about the nuclear regulatory environment.
Maybe because those are state decisions?
I don't know.
I mean, there must be some way the federal government could come up with a single standard.
But you could imagine that they could standardize.
The design.
So that gets rid of the design questions.
You can imagine they could reduce some regulations if the federal government pushed on it.
You imagine that you could find a way to insure it because France does.
And you imagine that there might be a Generation 4 that's coming that eats nuclear waste, doesn't have a risk of melting down.
Those are all in advanced stages of development right now.
So, I don't think there's anybody who's smart enough who can do the economics or even the environmental risk of either nuclear or solar.
Because they're both moving like this.
You get that, right?
In the next 10 years, the economics of both of those are just going to be all over the place.
There's just no way to know.
Under those conditions, where we now have a fair fight between the green energies and the nuclears and everything else, this is the year, just this year, 2023, where that's the strongest argument.
Let the market decide.
But if the market had been deciding since the beginning, I don't think we would have solar power where it is now.
I don't think we'd have electric cars.
I think there's a lot of things we wouldn't have in the green world if the government hadn't been subsidizing and pushing it.
But they may have subsidized and pushed it enough so we now have a fully legitimately competitive market.
That's what it feels like to me.
It feels legitimately competitive.
Under that very unique situation, which never existed until this year-ish, you wouldn't just say let the market take care of it.
Because it wouldn't have happened.
It just wouldn't have happened.
You know, there's too many entrenched everything.
So I think RFK Jr.
just found the bleeding edge of thinking on this topic.
We finally reached the point where maybe the market can decide and that we'd end up with a good outcome with that.
So I would say his climate change view is Really close to mine right now.
It's really close to mine.
Which is, prove to me that this is a good idea, then I'm a yes.
Now he says the same thing about nuclear, meaning he's a little more skeptical that nuclear can reach the economics that it needs to.
But he's not opposed to it, if it can be shown to be, you know, low enough risk and high enough economics.
What else do you want?
Do you want somebody who would say, yes, let's build them uneconomically?
Is that what you want?
Yeah, let's build a bunch of uneconomical things.
He's simply saying, if you can show me it's risk-free and economical, I'm in.
What's your argument with that?
None.
It's impossible to argue with that.
He's actually finding all the high grounds on all of the topics.
He's finding every high ground.
I think he's way more dangerous than you know.
He's so good at this.
Alright, I think I had another one.
Oh, the big one.
So here's the big story of the day.
So he was at this town hall meeting for News Nation.
Elizabeth Verga was talking to him and they had a doctor, medical doctor, Stand up and ask a question.
And the essence of the question is, why are you such a nut about vaccinations?
Basically, he didn't say that.
But that was the essence of it.
You know, science says these vaccinations are good.
You say they're not.
Why are you such a nut?
Right?
Now, you know he's going to get that question everywhere.
And then he answered it perfectly.
I didn't know that he could do it.
Now, if you were with me the other day, You saw me suggesting how he should answer that question.
And I said he was not doing himself a favor.
He had a little mantra that he said a lot, which was, he said, I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-science.
Do you remember that?
And I said, no, that's too conceptual.
Because everybody's pro-science, but it doesn't give you what you think, because they just disagree with what the science says.
So I said that instead of, you remember my whiteboard presentation?
I said that what he should say instead is, I'm not anti-vax, I agree with all Americans that we want these better tested.
And then he said that.
Exactly that.
Exactly that.
He said, "I think all Americans agree we'd like better testing." Whoa.
There you are.
That's all he had to do.
Now, here's the really interesting part.
This gets way more interesting.
He claims that the vaccinations were not sufficiently tested.
So then somebody explained to me today, so he tells a story about challenging Dr. Fauci to present him even one example, just one, where that's true.
And he says that they finally gave him an official document after he sued from Health and Human Services that could not produce one.
He actually challenged the government to show any evidence that the vaccinations had been tested adequately and they had no response.
Now how could it be true that everyone thinks they were tested in all the right ways science should test And yet they can't produce it.
And RFK Jr., who's not crazy, he's not crazy.
He says they don't exist.
And nobody can show them to you.
Do you believe that?
Alright, here's what I think is going on.
And this is based on a tweet from some anonymous person who had a take on it.
But I think it's the right take.
And it goes like this.
That if you listen to what RFK Jr.
says, he's talking about longer-term tests, whereas shorter-term tests were in fact done.
So a short-term test would say, we followed this for, I don't know, a year, or whatever it is, and we didn't see enough problems to stop it, so it's approved.
I don't know if you would disagree with that.
So I don't want to talk for him.
But there is a suggestion that they were all tested for, you know, the six-month or one-year, whatever it is, a short-term, shorter-term safety test.
But it was a full test.
In other words, it was randomized, it was controlled.
There wasn't necessarily anything wrong with the test.
It was just short-term.
Now, RFK Jr.
gives this following example.
He says the chickenpox vaccination... I think I got the right one or was it measles?
Chickenpox.
I think it was chickenpox.
He says the chickenpox vaccination definitely stopped chickenpox.
So that's good.
But if you look at the number of people who are getting shingles, which comes from having this dormant chickenpox thing in you, even if you're vaccinated, You have that dormant chicken pox?
The shingles, which might occur maybe many years down the line, might be worse if you're vaccinated.
In other words, it might have been better just to get the chicken pox the way I did.
I did it the old-fashioned way.
I just got the chicken pox.
But now, I'm not sure that he's got the science right.
What I'm sure of Is that we didn't do long-term tests of the products.
So we don't know.
Do you know if the rise in shingles is related to the rise of vaccinations decades ago?
I don't.
I don't know.
Yeah.
And by the way, you can still get shingles if you've been vaccinated or not vaccinated, I'm sure.
But apparently shingles is more dangerous.
So if you had known when you tested the shot in the first place, if you'd known that there might be, because I don't know, I'm just saying that some people say there's a correlation that should be looked into deeper, then maybe shingles is exacerbated by something we did decades ago.
Shouldn't you study that?
Is there any American who would not want to know the answer to that question?
Is this shingles stuff related to anything?
Every one of us.
It's the ultimate high ground.
Do you want to know the answer?
Yes.
Yes.
Well, that's all I'm offering.
So he's not offering that you shouldn't take the vaccinations or that you should.
He's offering that you could know more about them.
Fuck that guy, right?
Yeah.
Well, how do you disagree with him?
How do you disagree with the one who wants to give you better information based on science?
It's a tough argument.
So I watched him turn an entire audience to his side.
Now, I can't read the minds of the audience, but I watched what he said, and I can't imagine every person in that audience didn't walk out with a different opinion.
Every one of them.
I think he was persuasive 100%.
I think he nailed it, and then he stapled it, and then he screwed it, and then he glued it.
Like, you can't hit it harder than that.
That was good work.
And then he does it again.
Here's more free money.
Damn.
He's really making the other politicians look like chimpanzees.
I'll say it again.
Every time he does some small, smart thing, You just say, nobody else could figure out how to do that?
Are you serious?
Nobody else could figure out how to do that simple thing.
All right, here's another one.
Here's something that no Democrat figured out how to do.
At least that I remember.
Maybe you can come up with an example.
When asked about Trump saying that he respected Kennedy, and the challenge was that they're trying to get him to say something bad about Trump.
And he said, you know, here's the thing, I'm not going to say bad things about individuals.
I'm just going to try to bring people together, and I'm happy that Trump likes me, or respects me, or whatever he said.
Big table, third table, free money.
He just picked it up.
I'm not even sure the Democrats need somebody who hates Trump to do that.
They just want somebody to beat him.
They don't care what he thinks about him.
They have their own thoughts.
I feel like that was just free money.
Because what he did was he made it safe for independents and even some Republicans to be on his side.
Compare that to dumb old Joe Biden who says that Republicans are white supremacists.
I mean, that's barely trying to be a president.
Compare it to Hillary Clinton and her deplorables.
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
She said that in public.
How hard is it to not say that your enemies are assholes?
How hard is that?
It's not hard.
It's not hard.
RFK Jr.
just did it.
He actually showed respect to people he doesn't agree with.
Apparently it's possible.
Apparently it can be done.
And what does that do to you?
Do you understand what that does to you?
Principle of reciprocity.
If you're a Republican, he just gave you something you wanted.
And you didn't even ask for it.
You'd never ask for it.
He gave you something you wanted, which was respect.
Don't you like that?
He actually respected you.
Even when disagreeing.
Very strong.
It causes in you a reciprocity response that's very deeply built into your being.
We're built to give back when somebody gives to us.
That's how civilization works.
It's like the basic glue of human civilization.
Oh, you did something for me?
I guess I can do something for you.
He did something for you, if you're Republican.
He just told you you don't suck.
And how nice is it to hear that from a Democrat?
Very, very nice.
And it cost him nothing.
Zero expense.
Third big pile of money.
Three tables full of free money.
He picked up all three.
Have you ever seen that?
Now, honestly, he is exceeding Trump level of persuasion, which I didn't even think was possible.
Now, Trump still has the wattage advantage.
Trump can still turn up the light in the room until you're all blind.
Nobody can do that.
He's still the king of getting your attention and getting your emotions worked up, et cetera.
But in terms of just straight ahead, solid, Persuasion.
Damn, he's good.
And what did Kennedy say on Biden?
Well, he's a Democrat, right?
Kennedy's a Democrat.
So obviously, he's going to, you know, say, obviously, he would say if Biden is nominated, that he would support him, right?
That's the obvious thing to say.
He didn't say that.
Yep.
RFK Jr.
said what every one of us can see.
Biden is not ready for the job.
He's just not up to it.
He can see it, and he doesn't have to say it's because of age, because remember, he's not dissing people.
Just when asked if he would support him, he said, we'll have to see.
We'll have to see.
Think about that.
He just said something that's obvious and true, but we were trying to deny it.
His own party has tried to deny that they don't notice that Biden really, he doesn't have the capability to do anything, much less president.
He's beyond his sell-by date.
And that is not personal.
That's not personal.
He's just past his sell-by date.
If I had a choice of Trump as president or someone who is similarly effective, I would take the younger one.
So I'm going to say the same thing about Trump as I do about Biden.
Now Biden's, you know, he's gone.
Trump still looks like he has everything going for him, but he's at a certain age.
You've got to play to the odds, right?
So I would say his opinion on Biden is exactly right again.
It's exactly right.
You wait and see.
Because here's the thing he's not saying.
What if Trump gets some legal problems and it's Ramaswamy versus Biden?
Just think about this.
If you're RFK Jr.
and in a hypothetical world where it ended up being Ramaswamy against Biden, and it could happen, who do you think he'd back?
Who do you think RFK Jr.
would actually prefer to win the presidency?
Ramaswamy or Biden?
I actually don't know the answer to the question.
I don't know.
Because I think he'd like a little bit about what both offered, but would be worried about Biden's age, of course.
So, it was the perfect answer.
Because it's accurate.
It's honest.
It comes across as honest.
You don't think he's gaming the system.
You really think that he's got an issue there.
And that's what I want to hear.
I want to hear that he's got an issue.
With his own leadership.
Doesn't even have to be specific.
It's all good.
All right.
Did you see the latest video of Biden trying to form full sentences?
And it didn't work out at all.
It feels like a repeat.
I would play it for you, but now you've heard so many times that he's, he confused Ukraine with Iraq twice in the last few days.
I mean, he's just gone.
He's completely gone.
But you'll be happy to know that Ron DeSantis made some news today.
Ron DeSantis.
So the Ron DeSantis news is he just announced that he would abolish the Departments of Education.
Energy.
IRS.
So that was pretty exciting.
He knows how to light up a room that Ron DeSantis does.
Now I mock Ron DeSantis for being boring, because he is.
But I will say again, I have never been more optimistic about the country, so long as Biden is out of office.
Because I'd be happy with RFK Jr., even if I don't agree with some of his stuff.
I would be completely happy with Ramaswamy as my president, and I would be quite happy with Ron DeSantis.
I could live with a Ron DeSantis presidency.
I'd be okay with that, because he's very effective.
Newsom, I just don't think he has substance.
He could end up being the president.
There's definitely a path for him.
But I feel that if you've got a... See, this is what I love about this year.
RFK Jr.
and Vivek may not get to the final competition.
There's a good chance they won't.
According to the experts, not according to me.
But don't you think they're already changing the arguments?
Don't you think they've shown us the way?
Right, you can now see where we need to go, because both of them are painting a very clean picture of younger, more rational, less corrupt government.
They've both given you a picture of that, and I think both could deliver that, or at least they'd try like hell.
So, I think that makes the people who are leading in the polls Have to modify their game.
If you're a Democrat now, imagine being a Democrat and knowing that your maybe champion is Biden, that's your guy, and you're up against Ramaswamy, maybe the smartest person who's run for president, like in my lifetime?
Maybe.
Might be the smartest person who ever ran for president, who is also smart and effective, like can actually do things in the real world.
That's amazing.
How about RFK Jr.?
Well, I don't know what he is, but he's certainly brilliant.
He's persuasive like all get-out.
And he's a Kennedy, so maybe he gets that honestly.
Carter was smart, but he wasn't Ramaswamy smart.
I don't think so.
I mean, I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
I think he's unique.
I don't know.
I just feel great about the ones who are pushing the ones on top.
But I don't really think we're well served by very old men in the presidency.
All right.
Some other news here.
Just an update.
I was telling you there may be a number of reasons why there's more trans people.
Some of it might be where they just feel safer coming out.
Some of it might be the, I don't know, the food supply.
Some of it might be that, who knows, might be several different reasons.
We don't know.
But there's a weird correlation, I don't know if you knew this, between autism and trans.
Did you know that People with autism are more likely, or people on the spectrum I guess, are more likely to be trans?
Like, a lot more likely?
What does that tell you about, if anything?
Does it tell you anything about what trans is?
I mean, I think if autism and trans are linked, that would suggest that there's a brain difference.
And maybe they have some common part of the brain that they operate through or something.
But it would suggest that people are in fact what they say they are.
Not all.
I mean, it's clear to me that some people are being socially manipulated into a point of view they wouldn't have held naturally.
But I think we all agree there's probably something real.
We don't know the percentage to the trans You know, the trans situation.
That there are people born with brains that are somehow out of sync with their bodies.
And that they're looking for ways to fix it, and if they're adults, I wish them luck and all the support I could give.
But I just think it's something you should know, that autism and trans are linked.
Because that does give you, maybe, I'm hoping, The reason I bring it up is maybe give you a little more empathy because I'm not sure that on the right especially there's I don't think there's quite the level of empathy that is appropriate to the situation because I think there are so many people who are outrageously don't look like it's organic That they're taking all your attention away from.
There are some individuals who were born on the spectrum.
There are some people who were born with this gender dysphoria.
And I don't think you should throw them under the bus, because there's some other people who are outrageous.
So, that's my little social good for today.
All right.
I was watching Steve Kirsch, who's a big skeptic of vaccinations.
I'll say skeptic.
And he was talking about how the Amish, he makes this claim, that the Amish don't have the same rates of autism and ADHD and maybe something else.
And he was suggesting that they, because they also don't get vaccinated, that it's pretty clear that the vaccinations are a causation of these things that seem to only happen to vaccinated people.
Now, he might be on to something.
He might be.
But I'm not buying it.
No, I'm not buying it.
Because the Amish have too much that's also different.
There's too much different.
Number one, how many fat Amish are there?
A lot of fat are Amish people?
Probably not.
How much processed foods do the Amish eat?
Do they eat a lot of processed foods?
Probably not.
Do they have the same exposure to lead?
In their environment?
Are they sniffing paint?
Probably not as much.
How about just pollution?
Pollution.
Do you think that where the Amish live is as polluted as where the rest of us live?
Probably not.
Probably not.
Do you think that the Amish sit in chairs as many hours as the rest of us?
Do you think they sit in chairs?
Probably not.
They're probably active most of the day.
So basically you see the Amish doing every, you know, just about every healthy thing you could possibly think of.
Do you think the Amish are on their phones all day?
You ever see the Amish?
This is not an Amish person.
This is everybody who's not Amish.
Don't you think all of that stuff is bad for you?
So, Steve Gersh is very smart.
And he's looked into it far more than I have.
So I don't want to say he's wrong.
I'm not going to say he's wrong.
But I'm going to say the argument isn't landing.
Because there's just too much that's different.
Here's another thing that's different about the Amish.
You ready?
They're genetically similar.
How about that?
Yeah, you don't think there are some things that some genetically similar groups of people would have less problems with than other people?
Yeah, how much sickle cell anemia is affecting the Amish?
Are they having a big problem with the sickle cell?
No!
Because there's some things that just don't affect you based on your genetics.
So there's just too much going on there.
But Steve Kirsch is very smart.
He's looked into it.
So I'm not saying he's wrong.
I'm just saying persuasion wise that wasn't coming across to me.
All right.
Aspartame might get banned or not banned.
It might be labeled a possible carcinogen.
Is that the least surprising thing you've ever heard in your life?
The least surprising thing.
I thought we'd heard bad things about aspartame for years, but maybe they had not been proven.
So that's happening.
Here's another one for you.
I saw a statistic that said 20% of Gen Z is LGBTQ.
I saw a statistic that said 20% of Gen Z is LGBTQ.
20% of Gen Zs.
That's people under 25.
Do you see any problems with how they gather the statistics?
Any problems?
Because in the recent years the number of LGBTQ is zoomed.
Just in recent years.
Let me mention one problem.
LGBTQ includes the B for bisexual.
You know all women are bisexual now, right?
I'm exaggerating.
It's not all women, of course.
Let me tell you the most common female opinion I hear under 25.
You ready?
This is the most common under 25 female view.
Are you hetero or are you gay?
I'm hetero.
Totally hetero.
So you wouldn't have sex with a woman?
Oh, well, I mean, it's not my first choice, but yeah, I mean, if I met somebody and they were like really hot, I mean, I could see it happening.
So theoretically, even though you're hetero, you're saying if you met the right woman, you could be in a relationship with her.
Oh yeah, yeah.
In fact, when I was younger, I had a long relationship with a woman.
But you're hetero.
Yeah, I'm hetero.
How do you even determine who's bisexual in 2023?
In 2023, the most common answer under 25 is it doesn't matter if they're male or female.
If I fell in love, I fell in love.
That's the end of my story.
So is that bi?
What is that?
I have a feeling that there may be some number of people, young women in particular, who are identifying as bi Who in another time would have identified as hetero.
I'm not sure of that.
The only thing I'm sure of is that young women will say out loud with no embarrassment, yeah, I could have a relationship with a woman.
At the same time, they'll tell you they're completely heterosexual.
So bisexual doesn't mean anything in 2023.
So bisexual doesn't mean anything in 2023.
So it's not even a category.
So I don't know.
So one possibility is there are just more women in particular who say they're bisexual.
Do you think that that could be part of, not all of it, do you think that could be a part of why the LGBTQ is big?
If you took the B out, I wonder what it would look like.
That's all I'm asking.
If you just take the bisexual out, just take a look, see if that looks different.
It might look different.
Yeah, the prisons are full of it, exactly.
Let's talk about Prokhozhin.
So, it's dangerous to be a general over in Russia lately.
So, there's a rumor that the leader of, I think, the Air Force, Russian Air Force, Serovkin, may or may not have been in on the plot with Prokhozhin, and now Serovkin has disappeared.
Meaning he's not in public.
And then there's another general.
What's his name?
Chief of General Staff, Valery Gerasimov.
And he has not appeared in public lately either.
So the Kremlin watchers are looking at the generals who seem to be disappearing.
And they're assuming that Putin is doing some purging.
He's trying to figure out who was on the other side and getting rid of him.
So that's probably happened.
And there's some word that Serovkin knew in advance about the rebellion.
So that alone would be sketchy if he didn't tell Putin in advance.
All right.
And that the thinking now in the news is that Prigozhin planned to seize two top military officials.
You know, he was after... I guess Gerasimov was one of them.
And the other was... What's his name, the head of the military over there?
Shoigu.
Yeah, Shoigu.
By the way, I'm really enjoying the Russian last names.
Has anybody had that experience?
Like, in order to talk about it, you have to get their names.
But I love all the Russian last names.
They're fun to say.
Proguzhin, and Shygu, and Gerasimov.
Like, is it my imagination, or they all have, like, awesome last names that are fun to say?
This has nothing to do with anything.
It's just, you know, it's not true of every language, right?
You know, German doesn't sound like the most pretty language.
To golf?
That's hard on the ears.
But the Russian stuff, I just like how they form words and noises.
Anyway, it's neither here nor there.
So do you remember my prediction that was the opposite of everything in the news?
Do you remember when Purgosian's personal plane took off and then it flew to Belarus?
And then the news said that he went to Belarus.
All of the news said that.
And then what did I say?
Do you remember what I said?
I said, no, you only know his plane went there.
You're never going to see him again.
I told you you'll never see him again.
His plane went there, but you're never going to see him again.
Do you think you would have seen him by now if you were going to see him in Belarus?
You don't think he would have taken a selfie in Belarus?
You don't think that there's any source in Belarus that could confirm that, oh yeah, we saw him, he was in his car, anything.
So here's how the Wall Street Journal is describing it.
I hope I wrote it down.
Well, I'll just tell you what it said.
I think it was the New York Times that said today that his plane went to Belarus.
That's how they described it.
His plane went to Belarus.
Do you know what they're leaving out?
The passengers of the plane.
So now the news is starting to walk it back.
You can watch it happen.
The news will walk you back from Pergrosian went to Belarus to his plane went to Belarus.
And then it's going to be, well, we haven't seen him for a while.
You know, the cat's on the roof.
Well, yeah, his plane hasn't been doing much in Belarus.
His plane has never taken off again.
It's been dismantled for parts.
That's not true.
Is anybody ready to give me the win on this or is it too early?
I say he's gone forever.
You'll never see him again.
You'll never see him again.
Anybody want to take that bet?
Because if he's in Belarus, you're totally going to see him again.
Now there's a story that he did not agree to Wagner being absorbed by the military.
So the Wagner group will not be part of the military.
Do you know how we know that Progression did not agree with that?
Because he doesn't exist.
In order to agree with something, you'd have to be in existence.
Or at least alive.
No, he did not agree.
You know what would be really shocking news?
If you heard he agreed to something.
If you hear he doesn't agree, That could include he's dead.
If you hear he agreed to something new, well that would imply he's alive.
So I'm going to predict he won't be agreeing to anything.
But you might hear again, a few more times, that there are some things he didn't agree to.
Being dead and everything, that would contribute to his not agreeing.
So I don't know if he's dead.
He's more likely in prison being interrogated to find out who all the... Wouldn't you assume?
Don't you assume he's being tortured to find out who the other traitors are?
Yeah.
Yes, he's being tortured to find out who the other traitors are.
You wouldn't kill him.
There's no way you'd kill him until you found out who he was working with on the inside.
No way!
There isn't the slightest chance Putin wanted him dead.
Yet.
Yet.
But he's as good as dead.
All right.
I heard Kash Patel say that Russia would come out ahead because they get all those Wagner fighters.
Maybe even from other countries, where Wagner is in other countries.
And that big new fighting force of 25,000 fighters would be joining the fight and it would make it tough on Ukraine.
I don't believe any of that.
I think the Wagner group is now irrelevant to the fight with Ukraine.
I think they're too unorganized.
Maybe some of the fighters will disperse, but apparently they're not keen on joining the army, because the army would basically just kill them, or there's a high chance they would be fragged or something.
So I don't see that Wagner will be a benefit to Russia going forward, at least for a while.
And my last point, I don't know if I agree with this or not, Legumes are really good for you.
And if you eat lots of legumes, you would be like the people who live to a hundred.
So apparently there are a number of places around the world where they live to over a hundred far more likely than in other places.
And apparently one of the things they have in common, these long-living people, is legumes.
Beans.
And garbanzo beans are especially good, I guess.
And then it said, garbanzo beans have lots of magnesium.
What?
I'm starting to think magnesium is like the secret to life or something.
So get your fart-filled legumes.
You know what I need?
Here's what I need.
I've not looked into keto, but I've been trying to reduce my access to anything with sugar in it, and I feel way better.
Yesterday I door dashed some stuff that was mostly carbs and had way too much sugarish stuff in it, like sauce, and I didn't feel as good.
Didn't feel as good.
But when I eat low sugar, like just broccoli and a fish or something, I feel great.
Feel great all day.
Big difference.
But beans are not really, like, super easy.
Because they're either in a can and, I don't know, that's a turn-off to me.
Or they take a long time to, you know, soften up.
So here's what I want.
I want a store that only sells me food that doesn't have sugar in it.
And that includes fruit.
I want to walk into the store and they just don't even sell it.
It's like every single thing Just doesn't have sugar.
I just want that at store.
Is that paleo?
Yeah, I tend to not look into the specific diets too much.
I mean, once I found that a Mediterranean diet was good for you, I felt like I didn't need to know too much more.
But just getting a Mediterranean diet is a lot of work.
Like, I'm in California in a, you know, high-end kind of a place, and it's hard to get healthy food.
You know, even if you want to pay extra, it's just hard.
It's just hard, hard to do.
Anyway, the beans are good for you.
I like to make sure that my audience gets healthier and smarter every single time they listen to me.
And I think today is one of those days.
Don't you feel healthier and smarter already?
Yeah, of course you do.
Let's do a Closing sip for the YouTube people.
Gonna say goodbye in a moment.
Anybody want to do a asynchronous sip?
Sure you do.
I'll tell you about Joshua Lysak's book after I read a little bit more of it.
It's called So Good They Call You a Fake, which is a great title and it fits really well.
So I love what I'm reading so far, but I'll give you more of an update on that.
