Episode 2166 Scott Adams: All The News That's Funny Enough To Mock. Goes Well With Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
All the news that's funny enough to mock
Politics, Sam Altman, Oklo Nuclear, Larry Fink, ESG, Chiplet, Ron Perlman, JFK Assassination Documents, Gal Luft Indictments, China Military Ships, RFK Jr., Reason Magazine, Evanston Reparations, Jake Tapper, President Trump, Governor DeSantis, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a better time in your life or anybody's life.
It's so good, well, you can hardly believe it.
But if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody could ever dream are possible, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask of vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Ah.
Ah.
Delightful.
I love all of you a little bit better.
I like you one sip of coffee better.
That's my unit of pleasure.
Well, how did you like that event last night?
Oh, it was a three-cupper.
That was a three-cupper.
That's maximum enjoyment.
All right, well, yesterday I had this experience.
A gentleman who was doing some work at my house comes in and he says, did you know that there's blood spattered on the front of your garage?
And I said exactly what one says when somebody says that.
What's the next thing you say when somebody says, did you know there's blood spattered on your garage?
The next thing you say is, what?
There's literally nothing else you could say.
The next thing that comes out of your mouth is, what?
So I go outside.
And actually, since yesterday, so we know when it happened, it happened last, it happened over the weekend maybe, but there's actually red spots, it looks like blood, from the top of the front of the garage, which is probably 20 feet above the ground, and then, you know, just like spots down the front, and then on a ledge.
What do you think that was?
Pixar, it didn't happen.
You want me to take you outside right now?
I can drag your ass right outside to show it to you.
If you don't believe me, well, you know what I haven't done yet?
I haven't looked on the roof to see if there's anything dead up there.
I can see the roof from this window.
I just haven't looked out yet.
If I go up these little stairs and look out a window, I can see if there is anything dead on my roof.
Should I do it?
I would, but I've got two devices.
I can't carry them.
All right.
Here's my guess of what it is.
You want to hear my guess?
Now, the first thing you should know is that the reason we had been looking at that wall in the first place is because I got egged.
Somebody drove by and threw eggs at my house.
Yes, that happened.
That's right.
And I don't know if you know this, but the eggs actually destroy the paint.
You have to repaint your house.
I have to repaint my house because somebody ached it.
There's no other way to fix it.
You can't clean it off.
So... I have better security cameras now.
So here's what I think happened.
I don't think it was a prank or a human.
I don't think there was a human involvement.
Here's my best guess.
See if this sounds right to you.
Remember, the splatter is from the top to the bottom.
And it's not very dense.
You know, it's maybe Maybe ten splotches.
You know, just dime-sized splotches up the wall.
Here's what I think it is.
I think there was a hawk, because where I live there's a bunch of hawks.
It's actually named after the hawks, where I live.
So, the hawks are always in action.
I think they had some prey, and it was bleeding out as they carried it over the house.
And that it was, you know, sort of bleeding, and the splotches just hit the house as the hawk flew over.
What do you think?
Because nothing else makes sense.
If it had been a human done prank, it would have been bigger.
But small splotches, 20 feet up the roof?
I'm thinking a hawk with prey.
So that's my analysis.
All right, would you like to hear the best story ever?
I know, I know.
I always tell you it's going to be the best story ever.
But do I deliver?
Every time.
Every time it's a new high.
I'm going to read you this from the New York Post, and I like the way it's written, so I'm just going to read it to you, just the way it's written.
New York Post.
At least four women were involved in a wild, caught-on-camera brawl near a set of poker tables at Luxury Las Vegas Hotel over the weekend.
One woman was even pulled from a motorized scooter inside Encore at Wynn, Las Vegas, as a security guard and a bystander tried to break up the massive fight Sunday evening.
The video starts rolling mid-fight with two women, one in jean shorts and the other in a two-piece dress with their thong exposed, struggling on the floor as they duke it out.
A man with a Nike t-shirt rushes in to prevent a woman dressed in cream sweatpants from joining the fracas.
As he attempts to break up the scrum on the floor of the fancy hotel.
But as he turns his attention to the two brawling women, the woman in sweats lunges for another woman standing nearby and appears to throw a haymaker.
Well, it goes on.
It goes on.
I'm just saying.
Oh no, I sold my stock in wind just before it went way up.
The worst investment decision I ever made.
I held Wynn Hotels through the pandemic because I thought, well, surely this is going to come raging back after the pandemic.
And then I sold it because I just got tired of waiting and I thought I had too much China risk.
And I sold it and it just went to the moon right after that.
I think it doubled right after I sold it.
So, no, I'm not making any money on the Wynn Hotel.
But I just, I just like this reporting.
It was the least important thing that happened today.
The least important thing.
But it was written very funny, so I liked it.
So here's some news that could easily be the biggest news in the world.
It might not be, but the next story could be.
It's within the realm of possibility.
It's the biggest story in civilization.
That there's a start-up, I guess you'd call it a start-up, yeah it's a start-up, called Oklo, or Oklo, O-K-L-O, and it's a nuclear...
Energy startup making small, modular nuclear power plants.
Now they haven't made one.
I think they're getting closer.
But they're going, I don't know, they're going public through a SPAC or something like that.
That was the news.
But the thing you need to know is that Sam Altman is one of the big, or maybe the biggest investor in this.
So Sam Altman of AI, of fusion investments, he does some big stuff.
If Sam Altman is not already a household name, it's gonna be.
I mean, if you don't know who he is, you better start paying attention.
Because he started maybe, I'm just guessing, he probably started 10 years ago to invest in companies that you wouldn't hear of for 10 years.
But when you did, holy hell, And one of them is OpenAI ChatGPT.
Same guy.
Well, when he's not making AI to change the world, he's also investing in a nuclear power startup.
Now, here's the big thing.
Here's what he says about it.
He says the nuclear energy industry can make electricity that is, quote, a way better deal than anything else out there.
Now, if somebody else said that, Nuclear power is more economical than everything out there.
You might say to yourself.
Oh, there's just a You know an advocate or you know somebody who's in the tank for it or something like that But when Sam Altman says it's a way better deal than anything else out there Here's the thing you can trust He looked into it Okay, do you that's that's the thing you have to know it's Sam Altman and
If Sam Altman, so this would be similar to an Elon Musk telling you something is true, economically or technologically.
If Elon Musk says, the following statement is a true statement about technology, don't we believe it?
You just say, okay, that's probably true.
You should do the same with Sam Altman.
If he says he looked into it, and it's by far the best economics, it is.
It is.
He looked into it, and he's smart, right?
So, I would love to see, of course, I'd love to see a conversation between Sam Altman and RFK Jr.
Not a debate.
Not a debate.
I would like to see them have a conversation.
Because I would like Sam Altman to explain why he thinks his startup will be the most economical energy that could be produced, short of fusion.
You know, fusion is also one of his investments.
That's down the line.
But at the moment, it looks like they could build these things and they would be the best economics in the energy world.
Don't you want to see RFK Jr.
sit with him and say, all right, my current opinion is that nuclear energy cannot be made economically, but you've got this startup that looks like maybe it could.
Tell me what you're doing different.
Don't you want to see that?
I'd rather see that than a campaign event.
Wouldn't you?
Like, actually, to find out, can I convince RFK Jr., or can Sam Altman, convince RFK Jr.
that this startup, should it work?
You know, all startups are a bet.
But I'm pretty sure he's going to pull this off, right?
It's all the right people, I'm sure.
All right.
Today, the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you're on Locals or subscribing to it on Twitter.
Decided to take a run at ESG and Larry Fink, who's the CEO of BlackRock.
And the biggest promoter of ESG, equity.
Equity... What's the second thing?
And governance.
Sustainability and governance, right.
So here's Dog Birch running into Larry Fink, who's walking down the street.
And Dogbert calls out to him and he says, hey, are you the biggest racist in the world?
And the gentleman turns around and he says, I'm Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, and I'm best known as the champion of ESG and corporate America.
And Dogbert says, I'll take that as a yes.
And then Larry Fink says, you're totally ignoring my good intentions.
Well, I thought it was time to put the Put the shiv into ESG.
So if you're not embarrassed to be promoting ESG, it's time you should be.
You should be embarrassed that you were ever part of this.
Maybe someday an apology to the country for the damage done.
At the moment, we'll do a little test to see if Dog Bird still has the mocking ability to take something out of the public interest.
We'll see.
So that's for you.
Have you heard of something in the technology world called a chiplet?
Chiplet.
I like to make sure that my audience is like the cool people when you go to the party and somebody says, hey, have you heard of chiplets?
And everybody else will be like, what?
What's a chiplet?
And then you're like there with your drink.
You're just looking cool.
And you're just there, ah, chiplets?
Yeah, you know, you mean like the Lego chips they're putting together?
Yeah.
Ah.
I know all about the chiplets.
See, that's what you gotta do.
And I'm getting you ready for that by telling you what a chiplet is.
So it's in the news today.
It's a big deal.
Some say it'll be like one of the biggest advances in technology and chips.
Could actually change a lot.
Here's what it is.
At the moment, if you wanted to make something like a phone or any device, digital device, it probably is going to require more than one chip.
So you might have a video chip and a processing chip and some other kind of chip.
And they've got to talk to each other, so you kind of wire them together with these little wires.
It's kind of very inefficient.
However, the idea is that the chip-making people are getting together to make their chips just interconnect.
So somebody makes a video chip, but you make another kind of chip, and you just take your chips and you go click, and you just click them together.
Now apparently, This is going to be an enormous breakthrough.
As much because it makes it easy to design things as it does to put them together.
So assembly would be easier, cheaper.
You could build new things that you didn't even think about just by taking chips off the shelf, add some software, slap them together, you got a new device.
And presumably you could then easily expand your device.
So you might have a device that can do XYZ, but you think to yourself, what if I added another chip?
You just snap it in there.
So it could change everything.
It might.
And next time you're at a party and somebody says, what about those chiplets?
C-H-I-P like a chip?
L-E-T.
You'll be the smartest person at the party.
You're welcome.
Well, this is tragic news.
Tragic!
Actor Ron Perlman has announced he's leaving Twitter for threads.
That's like learning that a cancerous spot has been removed from your ass.
Aww.
I'll certainly miss that cancerous spot on my ass who's going to threads.
And I thought to myself, I just wondered what Was Zuckerberg a thought when he saw that?
Now, if you don't follow Ron Perlman, you'd have to know he's the most dislikable person who's ever been on Twitter.
Like, he really takes it to the extreme of being unlikable.
So he's not just having a point of view.
He tries really hard to make you dislike him, and he does a good job at it.
He does a really good job of making you not like him personally.
But that's part of the act.
So part of the act is he's trying to be the most unpleasant person he can online.
And it works for him.
It works for him.
But I wonder what's going to happen Suppose the most crazy people from the left actually did leave.
What would Twitter look like if the craziest people left?
Would it be better or worse?
Would it be boring?
Because I've certainly had fun looking at Ron Perlman tweets and watching people get all worked up and interacting with them.
I kind of enjoyed it.
It wasn't really a healthy dopamine hit.
It was more like, you know, the weird pleasure you get when you see something horrible happen to somebody else.
You know, that you feel bad, you might feel empathy, but at the same time you're, like, interested in it.
You're thinking, ugh.
Why am I interested?
Like you hate yourself for a little while?
Anyway.
When I think of Roadkill, I think of Ron Perlman.
So he's gone.
Has anybody seen any difference in Twitter since Threads came out?
Has anybody logged on to Twitter and said, hey, this is completely different now?
And I saw the new head of Twitter, whose name I don't remember, but you'll tell me, said that Twitter had its biggest traffic day just the other day.
So the biggest traffic day since February, they had just the other day.
So apparently Twitter, yes, thank you, Yakarino, the CEO.
So isn't that weird that her, it's an app where people yak at each other?
Isn't that weird?
We're actually using an app where people are literally yakking each other, and the head of the company is Yakarino.
Circle jerks.
For threads.
That's funny.
Alright, so I've used threads a number of times now.
I feel like I just had to know what was going on over there.
But I don't know how many people have the same experience I do.
I mentioned this before.
One of the things threads can do is it can move the people you follow, but not the people you follow, but not the people who follow you, I think.
You can take the people that you follow and then follow them on threads.
So I'm not sure how other people use Twitter versus Instagram, but I don't do the same things on Twitter that I do on Instagram.
On Instagram, I'm more likely to do a picture of my dog, right?
Or like a funny sign I saw somewhere.
But on Twitter, you know, I'm talking about politics and world events and nuclear power and stuff.
So when I brought all of the people over that I follow on threads, it just became Instagram.
It was basically just Instagram.
But you know what happened?
I probably shouldn't admit this, but I think you would have guessed it without my help.
On Instagram, I do sometimes follow people because of the way they look.
I know.
I'm terrible.
But I admit it.
This is my confession.
Sometimes I'll follow people on Instagram solely because of their looks.
There it is.
I've admitted it.
God, I feel dirty.
But I do.
Sometimes I follow them just because of how they look.
Now, this will surprise you.
This is something you didn't see coming.
But if you pore over all the people you follow because of the way they look, your experience on threads is very different from the people on Twitter that I follow because they say brilliant things.
So on Instagram, I don't know if I follow Mike Cernovich or Jack Posabic.
I don't think I do.
But they're out there saying brilliant stuff.
But when you pour over all the people who look good into threads, do you know what they do?
When you move them to threads, they start making text only posts.
Oh my God.
Do you know how to make beautiful women seem unattractive?
Listen to their text tweets and read them.
You'll be like, oh God, I thought you were so pretty, but oh, stop tweeting or threatening or whatever the hell they're doing over there.
Stop it.
You're just ruining it.
You're ruining it.
Stop talking.
Stop.
So that was my experience.
My experience is I brought over all the dumbest people and they're all talking.
I don't mind looking at dumb people if they look good, but listening to them talk is almost unbearable.
So that was my experience.
Now, so your experience on Thread should be unique to each person, right?
Because if you were following politics on both, And you brought him over.
Like Don Jr., for example.
I would guess he's mostly following political stuff.
Same people he follows on Twitter.
So his Instagram, if he moved it to threads, would probably look like Twitter.
But I don't know about the rest of you.
The rest of you might have my situation.
Do I follow my ex?
Of course.
Yeah, we follow each other on Instagram.
Of course we do.
Yeah, no, I have a good situation.
All right, let's talk about the JFK assassination.
Old news that never goes out of fashion.
Rasmussen had a poll asking people what they thought about the government's role in this assassination.
Or was it a lone gunman?
I guess that's the question.
Or was it a conspiracy?
So 38% think it was a conspiracy.
38% think it was a lone gunman.
So it's exactly the same number.
I think it's a conspiracy or a lone gunman.
But I wonder how many are undecided.
About a quarter of the people don't have an opinion on this.
About a quarter of the people.
It's a weird one though, because I don't know if they're right or wrong in this case.
But here's the updated news that on midnight Friday, Rasmussen's tweeting this, Midnight on Friday, which is where you go to release the news you don't want the public to know, because that doesn't get picked up by the news people because it's late night Friday.
So at late night Friday, the Biden administration, the White House announced that it would be not releasing some of the documents about the JFK assassination because of security concerns.
Well, can you even imagine in your mind what would be a security concern that would still be relevant, lo these many decades later?
What would that be?
I can only think of one thing.
I'm going to tell you what I think it is, and then I want you to tell me if you can think of any other hypothesis.
Even a hypothesis.
I believe that the documents would show the government, or maybe just the CIA, but the government in some way, was involved in it.
And the security problem is that we would lose faith in our government, or the CIA.
And that that's considered a security problem, because if the public doesn't have a little bit of trust in the government, things fall apart.
I think it's because they're guilty, and they can't tell you.
Now, I don't think I would necessarily place a life and death bet on being right.
There could be some other reason.
But if there's another reason, can anybody speculate what that might be?
Because there's no technology that would be relevant.
There shouldn't be any surveillance issues that would still be relevant in modern times.
There shouldn't be anybody alive I don't think.
Anybody still alive?
Who was in power at the time?
Because they would all age down, right?
The people in charge were like 50, 50 years ago.
Or how many years ago it was.
So they should all be dead.
So we're not protecting people.
And he didn't even say that.
They didn't say they were protecting people.
They said it was You know, something important.
So, what could it be, other than as proof positive that something in the government was wrong?
And maybe still is.
Maybe still is.
Yeah, what if an allied country was involved?
Now you've got a reason to keep it secret, don't you?
Suppose some other country was involved, and it's an ally.
Just imagine that.
Just imagine it's an ally.
I don't think we would release it, because it would damage us when we're trying to stay allied to fight Ukraine, or not, fight Russia or whoever we're fighting.
So, I would say that, and I say this, I'll say this again, even today, that when the government doesn't tell you all the details, you should assume the worst case about the government.
Doesn't mean you're right.
But just as you should assume innocence for a citizen until proven guilty, when the government says, I'm not going to tell you, you should assume guilt.
Does everybody believe that that's a reasonable assumption?
Assume the government is guilty of something horrible if they won't tell you what's going on 60 years after the fact.
If it was something that happened yesterday, then I would say, oh, this could be legitimate national security.
I'd better wait and see.
But I've waited long enough.
I feel like I've waited long enough on the Kennedy assassination.
At this point, if there's something they're not telling us, I have no assumption other than massive illegal or bad behavior from the government.
I can't imagine any other possibility.
Can you?
Can you propose even a speculative, wild-eyed Brainstorming idea of what else it could be.
Aliens.
That's pretty good.
It was an alien assassination.
The kids would sue?
I don't know.
Maybe.
It could reveal who really runs the government.
But would it reveal that 60 years after the fact?
Because whoever runs the government is probably not the same today.
Unless you're saying it's an organization.
That still exists.
Which, I don't know, maybe.
Anything's possible.
But the working assumption is the government was behind it.
I think that they've essentially signaled that.
All right.
Here's the news that's no surprise to anybody.
The Biden Department of Justice is announcing multiple indictments against the whistleblower who claims he has direct evidence that The Bidens were paid by Chinese entities and other entities for stuff that's sketchy.
So, big surprise!
Isn't that a big surprise?
So, let me try to put this in context for you.
As you know, from the day of Joseph Goebbels, it has been a classic dictator move to accuse your critics of the thing they're accusing you of.
Actually, the thing you did.
I should say it differently.
You should accuse your critics of doing the crime that you actually did.
Apparently that's a Goebbels, you know, Nazi idea.
Now, Tucker Carlson, I famously always talk about, because he always used to say this, and I thought it was crazy talk, that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of whatever crime they're doing.
To me that sounded just Just too clever, too political, not really something based on actual things happening.
I have now completely revised my opinion of that.
It looks like, I mean it looks intentional.
It's so consistent, it's hard to imagine it's accidental.
And here's another example.
So the indictments, now remember the claim from the whistleblower is that The Bidens were working with China in a illegal fashion that involved a transfer of money, right?
That's the whistleblower's claim.
So what do you think he's indicted for?
That.
That.
Are you fucking kidding me?
He's indicted for that?
Now they're calling him a Chinese spy.
Do you think he's a Chinese spy?
Does anybody think that?
Now, you'd have to see him talking, but when was the last time there was a Chinese spy who wasn't ethnically Chinese?
Do we have a big history of that?
Like a big history of Chinese spies, like actual spies, who are not ethnically Chinese.
Has that ever happened?
Well, the Bidens are just taking money.
That's different.
No, Swalwell's girlfriend was ethnically Chinese and she was a spy.
Is there any evidence ever of a Chinese spy who was not ethnically Chinese?
So we're being, and do you think, and what is his nationality?
The whistleblower is Israeli, right?
He's Israeli, maybe double citizenship or something?
So he's American-Israeli?
Or is he just Israeli?
Give me a fact check on that.
I thought he was double citizenship, but I'm not sure.
But how many, like, in your experience, do you see the Israeli being a Chinese spy?
Does that, is that like, that feels right?
I mean, it's possible, right?
It's possible.
But wouldn't that be the most unusual pattern you've ever seen?
If you're using pattern recognition here, what are the odds that this whistleblower, and the pattern you're seeing developing around the accusations about him, that he's a Chinese spy?
Of all things, that seems like the least likely possibility, based on pattern recognition.
Not based on facts, because we don't have access to whatever facts they're dealing with.
Just based on pattern.
Now let's do the other pattern.
That this is, once again, the hundredth in a row time that the Democrats have blamed somebody on the other team, or some other team, of doing the exact crime they're doing.
What are the odds that that's what's happening?
Really, really high.
Now, I can't prove it.
I'm not making a factual argument.
It's not a factual argument.
It's a pattern argument.
Are we really supposed to buy that the pattern that holds almost every time is not happening, but the pattern you've never seen and would never expect to see ever in your life is the real thing that's happening?
That's the real thing that's happening.
Un-frickin-believable.
Am I stereotyping?
That's what a pattern is.
Somebody asked if I'm stereotyping.
What do you think a pattern is?
That's what a pattern is.
I mean, if the pattern is based on facts, that's what it is.
Otherwise, it would be just pure discrimination.
All right.
So, of course, Keith Olbermann is just crowing that all of the evidence against the Bidens has been now debunked.
That's what Keith Olbermann says.
All the evidence has now been debunked against the Bidens taking money from many foreign entities.
All debunked, Keith Olbermann says.
Yep.
All right, I saw a tweet by Balaji Srinivasan, who you should all be following on Twitter.
But he showed a clip, he said, the U.S.
Secretary of the Navy recently admitted that one Chinese shipyard has more shipbuilding capacity than the entire U.S.
Navy.
What?
Just one shipyard of 13, I think there are 13 of them in China, just one of their 13 can build more Navy ships than all of our facilities combined.
Well that's okay because we have a huge advantage in ships.
It'll take them a long time to catch up, right?
Is that what you're thinking?
It's going to take them a long time to catch up.
Currently the U.S.
has 300 Navy ships and China has, uh oh, 340.
Uh-oh.
340.
So at the current rate, this is just me guessing, this is not part of the story, China would have 1,000 when we had 350.
Because we have ambitious plans to make up to 350 ships.
So that'd be 50 extra.
We think we could get there in maybe a few decades.
China will have 1,000.
They're basically going to own the ocean.
It appears to me that China's plan is to own the ocean.
Which is largely just a volume question, isn't it?
If you have enough ships, don't you kind of own the ocean?
So that's not good.
Although one wonders how much Navy ships are worth in the era of drones and whatnot.
It seems like all of the Navy ships would sink the first two days of any war between China and the US.
I feel like the ocean would just be Just emptied of ships.
Because I don't know how you can really protect a ship from a superpower.
You can protect a ship from a ram, but do you think you can protect a ship from a superpower?
With superpower weapons?
I feel like not.
It feels like it doesn't matter how many there are.
All right.
Reason, the publication called Reason, Tweeted this, RFK Jr.
is not worthy of the rehabilitation tour he's getting from various pundits.
Huh.
I believe I would be one of those various pundits.
I'm not one of the important ones, but I'm one of the various pundits who is giving RFK Jr.
a lot of positive attention.
And they say that, you know, various pundits, podcasters, and tech luminaries.
And they say, Reason says, he pushes tabloid quality, quote, reporting.
And he wildly extrapolates from little grades of truth.
So then they wrote a hit piece about all this conspiracy theorizing.
I didn't read it.
I assume it's full of fact checking.
All right.
So I tweeted back and last I saw I had like three quarters of a million views.
So I know it was hitting some kind of a note.
But I tweeted back at the reason they said in 2023 a conspiracy theorist Is more credible than the government, he criticizes.
Do you think that's a fair statement?
In 2023, a conspiracy theorist, no matter who it is, but let's just say it's somebody who, you know, is a notable person.
Not a crazy person, but a notable person.
Somebody, you know, did the work, did the homework.
I would say that it's just a fact that in 2023 the conspiracy theorists has more credibility than the government that they're criticizing.
Would you agree?
And I think that maybe that was not the case always, but at the moment it's very much the case.
And others said the same, that reason is part of the problem.
And part of the problem is That nobody will give RFK Jr.
a reasonable airing sitting next to somebody who would disagree with him.
Whose problem is this situation?
Let's say reason is right.
Hypothetically.
Let's say that they're right, that RFK Jr.
is a big ol' conspiracy theorist, and he's wrong about all these important things, and he just keeps going out there and saying wrong stuff.
Whose job was it to fix that?
Who has the job to fix wrong information?
The media, right?
If he's out there, it's because you're not doing your job.
And you know what doesn't work?
Writing a hit piece about him.
That doesn't work in 2023.
In 2023, if there's a hit piece about you, it's just as much a badge of honor as it is a criticism.
There is no such thing as a hit piece against a conservative that makes any difference to conservatives.
Because they don't see it as a hit piece.
They see it as a sign that somebody's making a dent.
Somebody's that, you know, is breaking through.
So, that's not going to work.
Now, how could Reason Magazine not be aware of what I just told you?
How could they not be aware that they're part of what makes RFK Jr.
dangerous?
Do you know how to make him not dangerous?
Invite him on the show with somebody who disagrees with him but really knows their stuff.
Why not that?
Why not just invite him?
Do you think he'll say no?
Do you think RFK Jr.
will say, oh no, I'm not going to go on this reason, you know, event because I'm afraid of talking to somebody who disagrees with me and has some facts?
Do you think he'd say no?
No, I think if somebody is willing to talk in public, have a long public record of interacting with this data, clearly are educated and smart and really good communicators, the only way you're going to stop that message, if you think it's dangerous, is you're going to have to put up somebody better.
You're going to have to beat his message.
And you can't beat it with a hit piece, because hit piece tells me he's right.
I don't think he's right.
By the way, I don't think RFK Jr.
is right about all of his claims.
My best guess, without doing a deep dive on every claim, if I had to guess, he's right about some, he's wrong about some, and he raises exactly the right question about a lot.
That would be my guess.
I don't know.
But if you can't clear that up for me by putting him on the same venue and the same event with somebody who disagrees so they can talk it out in front of me so I can watch, I'm not buying that he's the problem.
He's a lot closer to the solution than the problem.
Because he's a well-informed person who wants to do this in public.
That's the solution.
He's a free speech absolutist.
Yes, I want to talk about this right in front of everybody.
I want everybody to look at my data.
I want everybody to look at my stuff.
I want everybody to evaluate me.
And I imagine if he were shown to be wrong in a credible way, he might change his opinion.
Because he doesn't seem crazy.
He seems like somebody who did his research and came to an opinion that's different than yours.
Or sometimes.
Yeah.
So, I think reason needs to look in the window, in the mirror here.
New York Times is reporting that Donald Trump's lawyers are asking for a delay in this documents case, you know, the Mar-a-Lago boxes.
They're trying to get a delay to get it to be delayed enough that it looks like it's going to interfere with the election, so that a judge will have to decide Does the judge decide who wins the election?
Or does the judge say, we'll delay this until after four years, I guess?
Which, of course, he could pardon himself, so that's no delay at all.
So in other words, does the court say that Trump is, as his critics will say, above the law?
Will he be above the law, as in they won't prosecute because he's running for president?
That would look very much like above the law.
On the other hand, as a citizen of the United States, I'm not really sure I want a major candidate taken out by a legal claim from the other side.
That feels like a terrible precedent.
So there are two bad choices, right?
Basically bad either way you go.
But I would give certainly a kudos to Trump's lawyers, because it seems to me that's exactly the right play from my limited non-legal expertise.
It looks to me like delaying it until it becomes confused with politics, that looks like a really good play.
Would you agree?
Does that look like the right play to you?
To me it does.
Because, you know, I think the entire thing is political.
So if he uses a political maneuver to get out of a legal problem that was only a legal problem because it was political, that seems entirely fair to me.
That's just judo.
Just using their energy against them.
It's like, okay, if you want to confuse politics, if you want to confuse politics and the law, Game on.
Let's confuse politics with the law.
Let's take it to the next level.
If you want to confuse this, if you want politics and the law to be mingled, you got your wish.
You got your wish.
Let's mingle them.
Let the judge decide.
Not bad.
I like how aggressive it is.
Well, Evanston, Illinois is going to be paying reparations to African Americans who live in the town.
I assume all the money comes from taxes of the local residents.
I don't know that it would come from anywhere else.
The story's a little vague on that.
But why do you think Evanston is successfully, if you can call it that, implementing reparations, when other places have less luck?
Why do you think that is?
Like, what would cause them to be successful?
I have a theory.
It's because they have a low population of Asian Americans.
That's my theory.
Because white Americans can't push back as much as they might like to, because they just look like racists.
But the reason that the Harvard affirmative action thing went the way it did is because the major proponents of ending affirmative action were Asian Americans.
And because they were not white Americans, who are widely considered the masters of the universe and therefore deserving of nothing, they could get away, I'll say get away with, or let's say succeed.
I'll say succeed, that's a better word.
So the Asian Americans could succeed in something very positive for the republic.
It just happened to be good for white citizens as well.
Now, I would bet you that Evanston has a low percentage of Asian Americans without checking.
I didn't check.
But I'm guessing that's the reason that the white residents are somewhat helpless and will just be paying money to black residents of Evanston.
In effect, through taxes.
Do you think I'm wrong?
Would anybody bet against me that what's going on there is a low percentage of Asian Americans in Evanston?
Because the white citizens are just helpless.
They're just going to go with whatever's woke.
But the Asian-Americans can just say, fuck you.
Right?
They can just say, fuck you.
And everybody goes, oh, it's coming from you?
OK, I'll listen to that.
So that's an interesting situation.
I guess Jake Tapper was talking to somebody and said that he's not going to shy away from the Hunter laptop or the Bryden You know, the Biden money scandals.
But in the same story, I saw how little he talked about it, basically ignored the entire story.
For most of the time, it was a hot story and it mattered.
But now that it, you know, now that that time has gone by and Biden got elected and it doesn't matter politically so much, oh, now he's going to talk about it.
Because I don't think the Democrats are really looking for a Biden second run.
I doubt that Jake Tapper is thinking to himself, oh God, things would be so good if Biden got reelected.
I doubt it, because I just don't think anybody's thinking that.
They would prefer it over Trump, I get that.
But nobody's thinking Biden's the good deal.
So I think the word is out that even the Democrats can give Biden the shiv at this point, because they're going to try to hasten his removal so they can get somebody in there who might win.
But I was wondering what it's like to be Jake Tapper.
So here's this clear, well-documented situation where for money, as his profession, he gave you fake news.
And by fake news, I mean he ignored the real news that would have changed how you thought about a lot of things.
So I call that fake news.
Ignoring real news, if your job is to report the news.
How can you be, how embarrassing is it to present yourself as a news professional when the news itself, the news itself, has clearly defined you as a purveyor of fake news, a misinformation purveyor, by omission as much as inclusion.
How embarrassing is that?
Do you think he actually has any embarrassment about that?
Or do people just get used to their situation and it doesn't even occur to them to be embarrassed?
I literally got cancelled worldwide and I would be way more embarrassed to be him than me.
It wouldn't even be close.
I would be like, I wouldn't be able to go outside of my house if I were him.
I mean, he actually may have helped change You know, change the direction of the country and started a war.
Let me just put this out there.
If Jake Tapper had aggressively reported on the laptop from the first moment, as well as, you know, allegations from whistleblowers and everything, do you think Biden would have been elected?
Just ask yourself, would Biden have been elected if just one thing had changed?
Just one person, Jake Tapper doing his actual job, Instead of doing something that looks political from the outside, ignoring the laptop story.
If the only thing he'd done is his job, is it possible that the war in Ukraine would not have happened?
Seriously.
The war in Ukraine is because Biden's president.
Would Biden be president if Jake Tapper, just that one person, had aggressively reported on the laptop and all it implied about the Biden crime family?
Jake Tapper may have killed hundreds of thousands of people by not doing his job right.
Am I wrong?
Now, I'm not saying that that's a direct line from Jake Tapper to dead people, but it's pretty direct.
It's fairly direct.
You know, I'll say it again.
Jake Tapper doesn't do his job, and he ignores the laptop story, which would have said a lot about the possibility of the Biden crime family corruption thing.
If that had been enough, let's say if he had been aggressive about it, if that had been enough to change the narrative, and I think it would have, because CNN reports that everybody on the left gets to see it.
So if he had done that, you'd probably have a President Trump, or at least there's a better chance.
Don't know that for sure.
That would be a leap.
But polls do seem to suggest a number of people would have changed their votes, had they known.
So that's the only reason that there's a major war in Europe.
How many people are dying because of the Ukraine war and wounded?
To me, that's on Jake Tapper.
Am I wrong?
Jake Tapper is responsible for every injury and every death in Ukraine, because if he'd simply done his job, it wouldn't have happened.
I'm not wrong.
You know, you can't prove that chain of connection because there are too many other variables, but it is fairly direct.
It's hard to imagine that Biden would have been elected if Tapper was reporting on the laptop the same way that Fox News was.
And I think that Fox News has been proven to be completely accurate on the laptop.
Every bit of it seems to have been proven out.
So I would be living in shame if I had created a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
But just to remind you, I'm the cancelled one.
I'm the cancelled one.
Just keep that in mind.
I'm cancelled.
Jake Tapper probably started a world war by not doing his job and knowing, and probably knowing he wasn't doing his job.
Wow.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Do you all know what the superdelegates are?
The Democrats have superdelegates.
Republicans do not.
Now give me some fact checks because this is not some area that I know a lot about.
But the superdelegates are people who will go to the Democratic Convention and And when they cast their vote, it counts for way more than a regular delegate's vote, because that's the system they set up.
And these so-called superdelegates are so super that they decide who won.
So it's a little bit of smoke and mirrors to look like the convention is real.
It's not a real convention.
It's a handful of superdelegates who decide who's going to be the nominee, and then everybody else pretends they're part of the system, but they're really not.
They're really not.
Now to me, that's just like the Chinese Communist Party.
It's the same system.
Now, it's possible that Chairman Xi, he may have taken over dictatorial powers at this point, but prior to that, it was a whole bunch of super delegates who were the head of the Chinese Communist Party.
They would decide who the candidates were, and they would largely decide who won.
How is that really different than the Democrats?
They've got superdelegates, the Communist Party has the Communist Party leaders, they're unelected individuals who decide who can run for office, and then the system supports their ascension.
It's basically just communist China's system.
It's not actually very different than Iran's.
So Iran's system of picking the top leader, it's the mullahs, right?
So there's a bunch of unelected mullahs, and here I really don't know what I'm talking about, so probably even pronouncing all the words wrong, but they get together and then they decide who's their boss.
That's just what the superdelegates are.
It's basically an Iran-Communist China government system.
Now, as long as the Republicans were competitive, you didn't mind so much, did you?
Like, you didn't care too much how the Democrats picked their leader, as long as you had a fair fight in the end and you could put forward your own champion.
Right?
It's a private organization.
You know, you're not forced to be a Democrat.
If you don't like that super delegate thing, you just register as a Republican or an Independent.
So you can just opt out, which makes it perfectly legal, because it's not mandatory.
But what happens if the Democrats get enough, let's say, control of the entire system, which might include the voting systems?
So that the challenger can never win.
Are we close to that?
Are we close to a point where the challenger can't win no matter who the challenger is?
Feels like it.
If we're not there, we're close to it.
So we might be, you know, like a hair's breadth away from essentially a communist system, which is the leader is going to be a Democrat because they're going to win no matter what, and the Democrat is not selected by a popular vote.
They are elected by superdelegates who are connected to the power base of the party.
And if they can't lose, which we're getting to that point where they can't lose, then you just have China.
And does China have elections?
China has elections, right?
But the elections, at least for the, you know, at least for Xi, the election isn't real, right?
Because you don't really have, you know, actual real choices.
Now this is why somebody like Trump is so important.
I would imagine a Ron DeSantis would just get rolled by the Democrat machine.
Somebody like a Trump, potentially, Could slice through any amount of noise, because he has that superpower.
It doesn't matter how much noise or machine is running against him, he does have the power to slice through it and dismantle it.
Very rare, right?
Now it has to do with the fact that he will take any amount of pain to get what he wants.
I think Trump is deeply underestimated for how much pain he is willing to endure personally.
To get done what he thinks needs to get done.
It's actually very impressive.
The amount of pain he willingly takes on.
You know, the criticism, etc.
So he's a singular character who might be the only thing keeping you from a communist-like government, in effect.
So we'll see.
We'll see what happens there.
So a bunch of Republicans, House Republicans, are introducing some kind of a voting bill that would apply to all the states.
Usually the states run their elections, but the federal government could have some input here if this got approved.
And here's what they're trying to get done.
I doubt it will get passed, but what they're trying to get done is, let's see, what would it do to improve our elections?
Photo ID would be required, so that would They would like to make it required in all states for a federal election.
It wouldn't be required by this law for a state election.
But it would bar non-citizens from voting, it would require annual maintenance of voter rolls, and, this is kind of key, prevents the mailing of unsolicited ballots to rolls that have not been maintained.
So if you can't show that your voter rules have been, you know, massaged to be accurate, you can't even send out ballots.
because you'd be sending them to people who don't exist, and that creates opportunity for fraud.
All right, I'm going to allow this all capital letters.
I'm going to make an exception here.
I told you I block everybody with capital letter comments.
But I'm going to let this one go from Mahak.
All in capitals.
I want to marry a guy just like Scott.
If not, then I'm not getting married.
Allowed.
Allowed.
Approved.
So I guess capital letters aren't so bad after all.
Not so bad after all.
All right.
So given what the Republicans are asking for, I think you could assume they would get zero Democrat votes.
So it doesn't look like it could pass.
But I love that they're putting it out there.
So I would say this is good work by the Republicans.
Because they're forcing the Democrats.
Stop it.
Somebody's chanting in all caps USA, USA.
Like, damn it, what am I going to say about that?
No!
Get your patriotism away from me.
All right.
Well, it's good play by the Republicans to make the Democrats answer for why the elections don't have these controls.
All right.
I saw Dr. Jordan Peterson disagreeing with Elon Musk.
Isn't that fun?
Has that ever happened before?
You know, I have this theory that when you reach a certain level of intelligence, everybody at that level of intelligence has the same opinion.
Now, I'm sure it's not literally true, but it feels like it.
It feels like it.
At some level of intelligence, people have the same information and the same ability to process that information.
Usually, most disagreements are disagreements in information, Or disagreements, or let's say different abilities to reason.
Now some people are just taking a team perspective.
But if you look at Dr. Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk, those are two people that I respect immensely for their intelligence, specifically.
But I would also say that these are two people who would easily, easily be able to go against their team.
Would you agree with both those statements?
They're both immensely intelligent, and both of them have shown that they could, it would just depend on the topic, they could go against the people that, you know, you imagine are on their side.
Easily.
And they could do it without any hiccup.
Like, no, there would be no friction there at all.
I believe that they could go against their biggest supporters in a heartbeat without even a hesitation.
So that makes them two of the most valuable people in the country, even though Jordan Peterson's Canadian.
But in terms of the value of the United States, you give somebody who's that smart, who can also change their mind, that's just gold.
That's what makes your country work.
You need a few of those.
Mike Cernovich, same thing.
He recently tweeted that he made a mistake, in his words, a mistake, thinking that DeSantis was going to rise and win the primary.
Now when you see somebody like Mike Cernovich, easily and effortlessly say, oh, this thing I said I was very sure about was 100% wrong, and now let's go on.
That's such a credibility builder, because nobody's right about predictions.
You can be the best predictor in the world, which happens to be me, and I still get plenty wrong.
So being wrong is nothing No kind of shock.
That's just part of the process.
So, here's where Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk disagree.
Which I find fascinating.
Elon Musk said something about he would protect anonymous users on Twitter.
And that if you wanted to be anonymous on Twitter, as long as you're following the guidelines.
Elon Musk says, absolutely.
You can be anonymous on Twitter.
Dr. Jordan Peterson says, in a tweet to Elon Musk, he says, Anonymity enables the dark tetrad types.
I'll explain that.
Elon Musk.
And unopposed, they will take us all down.
It's a big mistake, sir.
With all due respect.
Now I do love to see the respect that, you know, he pays to Musk.
Because he knows Musk isn't doing stupid shit.
Right?
So that is worthy of respect, even if you disagree a lot.
You know he thought it through, right?
But they disagree.
Now, the expertise that Jordan Peterson is bringing to it is this dark tetrad thing.
I'll give you the dumb guy's explanation.
There are some people who are terrible.
That's a simple explanation.
They're narcissists.
They're trolls.
They're looking for trouble.
But there's a personality type who's looking for destruction.
And if you give them a way to destroy things anonymously, you're going to get a lot of those people because it's the perfect sadist place to go.
So if you're Dr. Jordan Peterson and you've done a, I believe he had a clinical practice, right?
So he would have had both research and experience, life experience plus maybe clinical experience, with this dark tetrad personality.
When he tells you they could destroy your world, he's not guessing.
You know what I mean?
He's not guessing.
This is his sweet spot.
This is exactly where one of the smartest people in public life, Peterson, this is exactly his area of expertise.
He knows this stuff.
So when he disagrees with Musk, you know, Musk is coming from a freedom of speech perspective, which of course we all appreciate.
But when you add the real life effect of unleashing sadists with no controls, As long as they follow the guidelines, no controls.
That that could be deadly.
It could actually destroy the country.
Now, I have not formed an opinion on this yet.
I'm still mulling it.
Because when you see people this smart, And this well-informed, disagreeing on something?
If you immediately take sides with one of them, you should ask yourself if there's something wrong with you.
Right?
If you're too quick to pick a side, that's not a good look, in this case.
Because, frankly, both of them are smarter than you.
They're both smarter than me.
So, you know, I don't say that lightly.
You've watched me long enough.
I don't say that lightly.
They're both smarter than I am.
It's just obvious, right?
So when they disagree, my first thought is, oh damn, what am I going to do now?
Because I hate to be on the other side of either one of them.
That's a terrible place to be.
But if you want to find a way where they can agree or some way to make those two opposite views the same, I would say the way to get there is through preferences.
It's not a difference in opinion of what might happen.
It's a difference in preference.
So I think Elon Musk would say, if the ship is going to go down, let's go down with free speech.
And I think Jordan Peterson is saying, I don't think you see how big this risk is.
No, I don't know.
Maybe Musk does see how big that risk is, but he still prefers it.
So it's a risk-reward thing where nobody can be 100% sure of the size of the risk, and nobody can quite be sure of the size of the reward.
So it's so subjective that intelligence doesn't quite get you to the final answer where you normally would.
But in this case, you kind of have to use your gut.
And I think Elon's gut says free speech has never not worked.
Everywhere you've tried it, it works.
Everywhere you take it away, you're fucked.
Now, that's a pretty simple rule.
But could there be an exception?
Could Twitter be an exception because of this anonymity thing?
And I'm a little undecided.
A little bit undecided.
I can certainly see Jordan Peterson's argument, but, you know, an absolutist approach to free speech, it's hard to argue against that either.
You know, for adults, anyway.
Anyway, so I thought that was fascinating.
With much respect to both individuals, I'd love to hear them discuss it.
Well, here's another one.
Don't you think you want to see the show where Elon and Jordan Peterson just sit down and talk about just this?
Nothing else.
Give us 15 minutes on this.
You know, bring us into the question.
We'd like to be part of that.
At least with our opinions.
I don't know.
Who do you think is going to break the seal on this?
So I say that there's a thing that's inevitable, because everybody feels it now, and that is you're going to have to create platforms where the people who are smart and disagree can get in front of the public.
It might be that calling it a debate is where everything goes wrong.
That might be our mistake, because we sort of reflexively call it a debate.
If we called it a conversation, maybe we could get him to sit down.
What do you think?
How about a one-topic conversation?
I'd love to see somebody who has some clout.
You know, a Bill Maher type, somebody like that.
David Sachs, somebody like that.
I'd like to say, let's do some 15-minute conversations on one topic.
We'll put good people on both, and we'll give them just enough time that they can definitely say what they need to say.
If it needs to go longer than 15 minutes, we'll do it.
But we're not going to let anybody not say what they need to say.
And I feel like if anybody ever pulled that off, and the hard part is getting people to participate.
Because as I've told you a number of times, whichever side is already winning, they don't want to debate.
That would be crazy.
But I do think that somebody of a high enough stature could get him to do it.
For example, and this is not a real example, if ex-president Obama said, look, we've got some big issues, here's the best thing I can do for the country.
I'm going to bring on this expert and this expert, and I'm going to talk to them, and I'm going to ask both of them some tough questions.
Now, if Joe Rogan If Obama asks, let's say, a doctor or whatever to come on, you can still say no to Joe Rogan.
Am I right?
You can still say no to him.
He's hard to say no to, because he's so important at this point.
But if Obama asked two people, who's going to say no?
Right?
Who would say no?
I think you'd say yes, simply because of who's asking.
So you could probably find some public figure who people can't say no to.
It might be Oprah.
Let's take Oprah.
If Oprah calls you and says, I want the two of you to sit here and I'm going to ask you some questions on this one topic, would you say no to Oprah?
I don't know.
She's just too much part of our national fabric.
I think I would say yes.
Even if I had some questions about how it would go, I'd lean toward it.
So my prediction is that somebody's going to break the seal on that.
Somebody's going to know, oh, I could pull this off.
And I think it's going to have to be somebody who is, believe it or not, Higher than Joe Rogan in terms of national, let's say, credibility.
Now, I also think that you might have better luck with a Democrat as the host.
Here's why.
If a Democrat invites, let's say, a pro-vaccination person to give their views, then they're going to at least trust that the host will let them do their thing.
And that's what they're worried about, because they don't want to lose the debate because they already won, right?
They have everything they want.
They don't need to debate.
But if your team invites you, if Obama, your God, says, you know, we better defend this better, you know, help me defend whatever the view is, I think they'd say yes.
Now, how about the Republicans?
Can you name me a time a Republican ran from a debate?
Go.
Nothing, right?
Name a time a Republican said no to a debate on anything.
Trump, 2023.
But Trump is not looking to debate topics.
If Trump and DeSantis had a conversation, they would agree on all the policies.
So when Trump doesn't talk to somebody who agrees with him, it's because it's not about the topic.
Trump versus DeSantis is personality, right?
You're getting the same, basically the same policies, but you're voting for the character you think can execute and not destroy the country for other reasons.
So if Trump decides not to debate, I would say I would be disappointed, because I want the entertainment.
But he wouldn't be making a bad decision, and it wouldn't be bad for the country.
Because whatever the Republican primary produces, it's going to look a lot the same.
Except for the personality.
And we don't need a debate on personality.
So, I think if you have a Democrat host, they can get the Democrat to say yes, because they'd feel safe, and the Republican always says yes.
Tell me which show Vivek would not go on.
Right?
Just take one example.
So, Vivek Ramaswamy.
There's no show or no conversation he'll say no to, if it's legitimate.
He would be there in a heartbeat.
So you could definitely pull it off.
Who would RFK Jr.
say no to for a debate on his favorite topic, if it's credible people?
He wouldn't say no to anybody.
So you've got all these candidates out there who are saying, I'm not going to say no.
I'm going to say yes, but you've got to get the Democrats on board.
So you're going to have to have a Democrat host.
I think that Joe Rogan, as the host of People Who Disagree, I think that's a non-starter.
I think he's exactly the wrong person.
And I have a huge positive opinion of Joe Rogan, by the way.
It's just that the position he's in in the country, whoever it was in that position, would not be the ideal moderator for important issues.
Because he looks to others like he's on one side.
And that just won't work.
Now personally, I would rather have a Democrat host if I were debating.
Do you know why?
Do you know why I would prefer a Democrat host if I were part of a debate with somebody else on the stage?
Because the Democrat is going to push me.
I wouldn't want to be in the debate unless I could be pushed as hard as they can push.
And then I still overcome.
I don't want to waste my time with something where they said, well, the debate was kind of friendly to you, and so we didn't really see anything happen.
That's a waste of time.
I want the one who could crush me with their arguments, and if I don't get crushed, it's going to be news.
Like, if you can get out of the hardest trap, well, then you've done something useful.
If it's not the hardest trap, it's probably not worth the effort.
All right.
They'll say that anyway.
I suppose they will.
All right, that's all I got for today, YouTube.
I'm going to say bye.
Obviously, this was the best livestream you've ever seen.
