Episode 2184 Scott Adams: The News Is Full Of Bad Behavior, And That Means Fun. Get Your Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, SnapCrap App, Oakland NAACP, Elon Musk, Twitter X, Lindsey Graham, CNN Stephen Collinson, Leon Panetta, RFK Jr, SS Protection, Alejandro Mayorkas, X Community Notes, SuperConductivity, Ted Lieu, UFOs, Hunter Plea Deal, Political Left News Bubble, President Trump, Mar-A-Lago Security Footage, Ted Cruz, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump Masculinity, Mitch McConnell, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure nobody's ever had more fun than this.
And if you'd like your experience to be the kind of experience that you'll tell your grandkids and your grandkids' grandkids, because you probably are immortal, you'll be around.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells, a stein, a canteen jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's the sound of a man who got a new coffee maker, and it's just lighting me up.
Is everybody familiar that you all know that Greg Guffield has a new book out?
Probably the best cover I've ever seen in a book.
If you've not bought this, well, I'm sure you will.
So go buy that book.
My book will be out in a few weeks, so you'll want to read this book, Greg's book, and make sure that you're done with that, completely done with that, and then you'll be ready for a new book.
I'll tell you about that later.
Well, the Twitter headquarters in San Francisco has Caused some San Francisco's a little concerned because it put a new logo on top of the building, a giant X. A gigantic X. Alright, we are required by law to make jokes about the gigantic X on top of the Twitter.
Am I right?
This is why you come to me.
Hey, there was a new thing that happened.
Can Scott mock it?
Yes, I can.
Let me put a little effort into it.
Stretch.
Stretching is important before joke making.
A lot of people forget the stretching.
And then they'll tell a joke and they'll just sprain something.
But I like to stretch first.
All right.
There's an X, a giant X, on the top of the Twitter headquarters in San Francisco.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Is it because the poop app for San Francisco finally added a summary feature?
That's the best I can do.
Did you know there's actually an app in San Francisco that citizens can use to mark where there's human feces on a sidewalk?
And do you know why they stopped using it?
Because the app became salad brown.
There were so many reports of feces on sidewalks that you could no longer see individual markings.
It just became a big brown pile.
And so I thought, wouldn't it be an upgrade?
Instead of having all those individual brown spots, you know, mentioned, you could just have one gigantic X that marks the city to stay away from.
Now I think that Musk can take this further and find other cities to stay away from.
I've got my eye on Oakland.
I don't want to jump the gun, but if I had to pick a second city to stay the frick away from, it'd probably be Oakland.
And you know who agrees with me?
The NAACP.
So the NAACP put out a statement that says, my goodness, it is too dangerous to live in Oakland because of all the crime.
This is the same NAACP, I saw in a Mike Cervic tweet, that around the pandemic time said, you know, what we need is less funding for police.
That's what we need.
How about divert that funding for the police into other beneficial areas?
Well, I wonder how that worked out.
Hmm.
High crime area.
Fewer police resources, how?
I don't know, which way is that gonna go?
I don't know, that's too hard to predict.
But, it turns out that it went in the direction of, and I know this surprised a lot of people, in the direction of more crime.
Actually turning the city into an unlivable hellhole, where before it was just a hellhole, but now it's an unlivable hellhole.
And NAACP says, you know what we could use would be some more police, that'd be good.
So nobody saw that coming.
Elon Musk tweeted something that might sound political to you.
He said, it's time for Lindsey Graham to retire.
Now, it looked like it was related to the Ukraine war situation and Lindsey Graham being a proponent of continued ongoing funding and fighting, I guess.
But I have to ask this question.
Is that a political opinion?
Is it?
When Elon Musk says that in a tweet or a post or whatever they're calling it now, that it's time for Lindsey Graham to retire, he's 68 by the way, is that a political opinion?
It is.
It is and it isn't.
But here's the part that it isn't.
If Joe Biden took off all of his clothes and went running down the street in Washington, D.C., And then you said in a tweet, you know, I think it's time for Joe Biden to retire.
Would that be a political opinion?
Isn't there some point where it's just not really political at that point?
There's some point where everybody just can see the same thing, right?
And that was the feeling I had with this, is that, you know, first of all, normally the people on the left believe that Elon is going to be You know, leaning right, right?
People on the left all think he leans right.
But here's his opinion about a Republican that he should retire.
I don't think that's a political opinion.
That does not feel political to me.
That feels like there is one individual who went so far that this should not even be a political opinion.
You know, it's sort of in that weird gray area where I'm not sure, I'm just not so sure that that's political at all.
But I always appreciate seeing transparency, so I like knowing his opinion.
Here's a shocker.
You know, I always track CNN's reporting on politics, because I like to intuit where the management of CNN is telling people to go.
You know, you assume that the hosts of CNN have a little bit of flexibility, but probably the overall direction comes from management.
At least it seems that way in the past.
So here are some maybe small shifts that to me are obvious, because I read CNN all the time on the website.
And I want to see if this looks the same way to you.
So Stephen Collinson, who does opinion pieces on CNN, which are universally just the worst anti-Trump pieces.
So the thing you need to know is that he's most famous for consistently writing, Trump is bad, Trump is bad, Trump is bad.
That's pretty much his full-time job.
And here he writes about, I guess the Republicans had an event in Iowa.
Trump was the speaker, as were the others.
And Stephen Collinson said, well, actually look at the headline.
I'll read it to you.
If only I'd written it down, but it was a positive headline about Trump and how he was staying on script and why it was clear he was leading.
It was interesting.
So, you know, Collinson slipped into it, you know, some commentary about Trump's legal problems.
So that was a big theme of the piece as well.
But the larger theme was that despite all of the attacks on Trump on the legal end, that when Trump showed up he was the only one with a standing ovation.
The lesser candidates who dared to criticize him got booed.
And anybody watching that event can see that Trump is at full power.
I mean that's my words, not his.
Now that's a very unusual take.
In my opinion, unless there's some trick going on where they really want Trump to be the nominee and they're pretending that they don't or something.
But to me it looked like some kind of shift.
Like a slightly more positive Shift.
I don't know if it's strategic or they're just trying to be a little bit more down the middle, but it was quite obvious.
Imagine somebody who's an anti-Trumper saying that Trump stayed on script, got a standing ovation, and it's obvious why he's leading the pack.
That's quite a thing.
And you know, even in the context of he's got all these legal issues, it was saying that the Republicans are brushing them off, it's not important.
Very interesting.
Alright, you have to watch a clip on CNN, it's on there right now on the website, of Caitlin Collins talking to Leon Panetta, And ask him if he has any regrets for signing the now infamous letter that says that the Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.
Now imagine being on CNN and CNN asks you if you regret signing that letter.
That's CNN.
CNN basically taking Leon Panetta to task for signing a bullshit letter.
Did you think you'd ever see that?
That's kind of interesting.
To me, that feels like a shift.
When you put it together with the Stephen Collinson article that was clearly saying that Trump has something going for him that his base likes, you know, but also mentioning the legal problems, which is entirely fair.
That is the context.
But you have to see Leon Panetta lie.
And now I'm going to say it's a lie.
That's an opinion.
I can't read his mind.
But one of the tricks that I like to teach you, this is very important by the way, this is a life skill, so I recommend this.
Whenever you know there's a situation where you know somebody's lying, and this is different from suspecting, right?
If you suspect somebody's lying, this won't help you, because you don't know for sure.
But in those rare situations where you can know for sure somebody's lying, watch how they do it.
You will learn how liars lie by watching people lie in a public setting when you know they're lying, when there's no doubt about it.
So certainly nobody could be happy about signing the laptop letter.
Would you agree?
Would you agree there's no real question that it was an op and that anybody asked about it would have to lie to say why they signed it?
You've got to watch Leon Panetta blink and squirm when he answers it.
It's like he's got some kind of a digestive problem.
Well, I'm so glad I did it because really the point of it all Or was to show the people, because I think the people needed to know that Russians do try to influence elections.
So in that sense, in kind of a way that is not exactly on point, it showed that I was really right and I don't regret that at all.
Now I might be exaggerating a little bit, his squirming, but there's some squirming.
So there's two things interesting about this.
One, you should watch it to learn how people look when they lie.
Every time you can find one of these situations, where there's no question about the lying, watch it once.
Watch it twice, watch it three times, and then see what you see every time you watch it.
It'll be a little different.
By the third time you watch it, you're going to see things you didn't see the first time.
You really can pick up the mannerisms.
Once you learn to detect it, and that's all you really need to do, just pay attention to people when they lie.
Now I'm going to tell you something that I probably shouldn't admit.
That if you want to find out if there's somebody in your life who's lying to you, the moment you find out that you know they're lying, make sure you get them to lie again to your face, once you know it's a lie, and watch them.
You're going to know how far that person can go.
Can you look me right in the eye with a straight face and lie to me?
Because if you can, We're kind of done here.
We're done.
Whatever your relationship is to that person, at that point you have to be done.
If they can lie to your face.
But if they can't, if they squirm like Leon Panetta, and you say, okay, well at least I can tell when you're lying.
At least it's obvious.
Maybe you might decide to live with that, if you can tell.
But if somebody can do it to your face and not make any sign that they're lying, you need to run away from that.
Alright, I told you a story yesterday that I got community note checked on.
So, my current understanding is that what I told you was completely wrong.
Which was a story about RFK Jr.
saying that he was denied Secret Service protection from Mayorkas' group.
And I speculated online about Mayorkas acting like, I'm not accusing him, I'm saying he's acting like somebody who's blackmailed.
Because his decisions didn't make sense to me.
However, according to Twitter community notes, RFK Jr.
would not be eligible for such protection because you're not eligible until you're 120 days away from the election.
And we're 400 days plus from the election.
So I'm a little bit concerned that this story went as far as it did.
Without me getting fact-checked.
Meaning I saw a number of people reporting it.
I saw RFK Jr.
tweet it.
And I don't know any situations in which he's ever intentionally lied.
And it seems like he would know the details of this and be aware of it.
So there's something else missing in the story, but I don't know what it is.
So here's what I'd recommend.
You gotta hear what RFK Jr.
says in response to the debunking of his claim.
He might say, well, but in some situation, blah, blah, blah, this is a special case.
I don't know.
I don't know what he would say.
But do you think that RFK Jr.
was not aware that he was completely ineligible for Secret Service protection?
Does it sound like, does it sound likely that he would have gone through this whole process, he's been trying to get it, and he would be unaware that he was completely unqualified to get that protection?
Could that be true?
I'm going to say there's something wrong with the fact-checking here.
But I do love when I get fact-checked on Twitter.
Or context-checked, I guess.
Community note-checked.
So this is the second or third time that I've had a community note added to a tweet?
Have I mentioned it two or three times?
At least two.
And I'll tell you, my reaction to it is all positive.
My first reaction is negative.
My first reaction is, dammit, how dare you?
How dare you question my tweet?
That is, of course, perfect.
And then, you know, after it sinks in a little bit, you think about it for 10 minutes, you're like, ah, dammit, that really helped.
So I left it up.
I left the tweet up.
Because I would rather leave the tweet up with the correction Than to delete the tweet.
Does that seem like the better way to play it?
That feels like the better way, right?
Because we don't really have a... There's no standard that says... Yeah, so we're kind of just guessing.
But I think it's better to show the mistake.
Or even show that somebody says it's a mistake.
Because there might be yet another counterpoint to that.
So I'd be very interested in how this shakes out.
We'll see.
Other stories I told you that apparently are complete bullshit.
I seem to be on a little bit of a streak.
Reporting stories that are complete bullshit.
But remember the story about superconductivity at room temperature?
The fast version is superconductivity usually only works at extreme low temperatures.
If you could get it to work at room temperature, it would be one of the great breakthroughs of all civilization.
But maybe it wasn't that so much.
And I saw a physicist named Alex Kaplan, who was saying that there's something going on.
So in other words, whatever the experiment showed, there is something going on.
But it might not be superconductivity.
It might be something that they call a diamagnetic effect.
So there might be something that's looking like the effect of superconductivity, but it would be like a limited little thing that's not actual superconductivity.
It would be something that could make a magnet float, like superconductivity could, but for a different reason.
So you might be making the magnet float, but it's not superconductivity.
So we don't know for sure that it's not, but I would say that the betting odds have tipped toward it not being superconductivity.
But we'll probably know pretty soon because people will try to reproduce it.
People will try to reproduce it.
All right.
So this UFO story, I find that it produced something super useful that I wasn't expecting.
And the super useful thing is, it tells us who the dumb people are.
Isn't that useful?
To know who believes the UFO story?
Yeah, I saw Ted Lieu, who's a famous Democrat.
Now, I would disagree with Ted Lieu about, you know, 99% of every opinion.
Because Ted Lieu is more of a Public partisan.
You know, he's one of the ones that mixes it up on Twitter and stuff.
But I love Ted Lieu.
I think he's a perfect model of, you know, maybe a more polite way to live life.
You know, because I've interacted with him on Twitter a number of times.
He's sort of like a happy warrior.
Well, he's not a complete jerk.
He's just pushing his team side.
He doesn't make any bones about the fact that he's a team player, but he's just not a jerk.
I just kind of like him.
He's kind of a cool, kind of a cool guy.
But anyway, he said today, the UFO story is, I'm sorry, he said that it was unlikely the UFO story is real because the government can't keep that kind of a secret.
Now, that's just one reason it might not be real.
But yeah, I agree.
So Ted Lieu, you have passed the dangerously gullible test.
You are not dangerously gullible.
So while I can disagree with Ted Lieu on a vast range of policy things, I can absolutely agree with him that he has the intelligence necessary to be a U.S.
congressperson.
Now, that doesn't sound like a big deal, does it?
It doesn't sound like a big deal that I said somebody has the necessary intellect to be in Congress.
But remember the context.
You've got Mitch McConnell, who's freezing up like an animatronic.
You've got Fetterman, who God knows what's going on.
You've got Joe Biden.
You've got Kamala Harris.
We have a whole bunch of prominent people who clearly are not capable.
For one reason or another.
Not capable.
But Ted Lewis, his brain works.
He just disagrees with you.
That's fine.
All right.
This Hunter plea deal, I'm positive that the problem Well, let's say the challenge, not the problem.
The challenge with that, if you're, let's say a Republican, and you'd like to really push this Hunter Biden criminal, you know, Biden crime family thing, and you really want everybody to understand how bad it is, do you know what the problem is?
The problem is that unless you see the whole thing explained, you know, sort of like bullet point, this happened, this happened, this happened, this happened, the things we know.
We're not even talking about the things we speculate about.
Just the things we know.
You just list them, and the story is completely damning, completely credible sounding, and really, really important.
Like, really, really important.
But, imagine that you didn't get your news.
From long tweet threads by Conocoa the Great, who perfectly summarizes things.
Suppose you didn't get your news from watching Jesse Waters on The Five perfectly summarize and bullet points the story.
He did a great job the other day, you know, putting it in context.
If you don't watch those very specific news sources with very well Let's say well-designed summaries.
You wouldn't really understand this story at all.
Imagine if you were a Democrat and the only thing you knew about it was you dipped in and you heard a new fact.
You're like, I don't know, maybe, maybe not.
And then you dip down, and then three days later you dip in and there's another headline.
Oh, there's a thing about a Hunter thing that I don't, I can't remember.
Is that the same thing as the last thing?
Are we on the same topic?
Right?
So the way the left side of the media works, as long as you can keep people in your bubble, they will never know what the Biden crime family did.
You show me, here's a challenge, show me a clearly left, this is a good challenge.
Let's see if you can do this.
Find me a clearly left-leaning outlet, could be video or written, anybody on the left who has summarized the breadth of charges against the Biden crime family in a way that even a Democrat could read it and say, oh, wow.
I didn't know all this stuff.
And when I see it all in one place, it really paints a clear picture.
It's only when you see a fact, a fact, a fact, individually, that you can't get any picture.
Well, no, Matt Taibbi doesn't count.
He's left-leaning, but he's also an independent journalist.
So I'm not talking about independent journalists.
I'm quite sure Matt Taibbi can report bad news on both sides.
So he's independent.
He just personally is left-leaning.
That's different.
But show me like a CNN, an MSNBC, show me a New York Times, show me a Washington Post, the entities that are the least credible, at least to people on the right.
Show me any one of them who summarized the case.
In other words, show me anybody on the left who actually reported the news in context about what I would consider one of the important news stories of the last several years.
I'll bet you won't find one.
But then find it on the right.
So I mentioned two sources, you know, Conoco the Great, this morning had a great thread on it.
And Jesse Waters, just two examples.
I'm sure if you looked at Dan Bongino, I haven't seen it, but you know, I can say with some confidence, Dan Bongino, without even seeing it, you know that at some point he laid it out.
I haven't seen Mark Levin talk about it recently.
But I don't have to watch his show to know that he laid it out in some summary way that everybody can see the problem.
So there are probably dozens of places on the right where you've seen this summary.
But I'll bet there's not even one place.
I'll bet there's not one place on the left where they've ever summarized it.
So as long as they don't summarize it, they can get away with reporting every fact without ever telling you the news.
Think about that.
The left can hide this story while also reporting every part of it.
Have you ever seen that before?
I'm trying to think of another case where that's the case.
They can report every part of the story accurately.
Oh, there was this, the judge found this, and this was ruled, and you know, he's been charged with this, and all that.
And they can still keep the news from you while reporting all of the news accurately.
Think about that.
They can tell you the news completely accurately and when it happens and also keep all of the news from you because the news only made sense when you put it in context and they'll just never do that.
That's a really good trick.
They'll never put it in context and the Democrats will actually vote without knowing what the news was.
They won't have any idea.
Yeah.
All right.
So one of the parts of the plea deal that's just mind-blowingly, head-shakingly, jaw-droppingly crazy.
Here's a detail that I guarantee you nobody on the left will ever be aware of.
Here's a good test.
In fact, you could ask your, let's say, Democrat friends if they've ever heard this.
That one of the things that made the Hunter Biden plea agreement different is that the deal was for immunity for some other activities that were not part of the, you know, part of the charge.
Now that alone is pretty weird, right?
That you'd have a plea deal that would give you immunity for unrelated crimes that are not even mentioned, right?
So that would be a little unusual by itself.
But here's what's more unusual.
Let's see if I get this right, because it's like a technical detail.
I think this came from Conocoa the Great, if I believe so.
They put the details of the plea deal, they were in two separate documents.
One document is public, that's the one that the judge can see.
By law, I guess there's some separate document that it's a diversion agreement.
And that agreement doesn't have to be revealed to the public.
It can remain confidential.
So they took the details of what those other crimes might be, and put them in a secret document that the public can't know about, and then asked a judge to say that the secret document plus the public one were all good.
That's right.
They asked a judge to bless a secret document.
Indirectly.
They actually asked a judge to, in a sense, somewhat indirectly, but in effect, to bless a secret agreement that even the judge couldn't see.
What?
Now, it's a little bit technical, and even when I try to explain it, you're probably saying, eh, I'm not quite getting that.
Why are there two documents?
But literally, I don't think anybody had ever tried it before in the history of the law, because it was just so insanely obviously wrong to hide the point.
Usually, if you're going to make a plea deal, the point of the deal is in the deal.
They actually took the main point of the deal and put it in a hidden document so you didn't even know what the point of it was.
And tried to get away with that.
And if it had not been, you know, a legitimate judge who wanted to be a legitimate person and serve the public, we never would have known.
Imagine if some judge had approved that.
There must have been some feeling that they could get it approved or they wouldn't have gone that far.
But was that close?
I like to think that that was never close, that no judge would have agreed to that, but I'm not sure.
I'm not really sure.
Maybe they had a good shot at getting a judge to say yes to the most absurd thing you could ever approve in your life.
But it didn't happen.
Now you tell me, do you believe that you know any Democrat who is aware of that detail?
Super important to understand the whole story.
If you don't understand that the important parts were put in a secret document, which is not done, then you don't really understand anything, do you?
And that feels really critical to the understanding the nature of how deep this bad behavior is.
All right.
So Democrats will never know the news.
So the story about the new charges about Trump allegedly trying to delete some security footage because the box gate.
I saw in a tweet by Amuse, that's the name of the tweeter, Amuse, that it's hearsay.
That the evidence is there's a long guy heard it from a maintenance guy.
That's the nature of the evidence.
A lawn care guy heard it from a maintenance guy, but there's no direct evidence that Trump said it or that it happened.
So there's no evidence that anything got deleted.
Is it a crime if he asked about deleting things or even asked for it?
Is it a crime if he asked for something to be deleted and it's not deleted?
How does that work?
Is it obstruction of justice?
Let's say hypothetically you had a conversation like this.
Hypothetically.
Is there any reason we can't just delete all the videos so we don't have any problems?
Because I would.
If I knew that I could legally delete all of my video, I would do it.
As long as it's legal.
I would get rid of anything that could cause me an unrelated problem, right?
Because there's lots going on in Mar-a-Lago that maybe has nothing to do with boxes, but you don't want anybody to see.
It's a private place, at least partly private.
So it makes complete sense that you would have a conversation about deleting your security video.
And now suppose he actually said, well, let's go ahead and do it, because I don't think that's illegal.
Maybe.
Because I don't know the details, but if he thought there was an argument that it would be legal to do, he doesn't have to be right.
He just has to think there's an argument for it.
And then he asks for it to be done.
Is that an obstruction of justice?
Let's say the videos had not been asked for, or he thought that the videos did not have any actual evidence of the crime, but might have evidence of other things that are sort of embarrassing.
Would it be illegal?
And I think the legal opinion is it depends, right?
So it's a gray area.
It would depend a lot.
So do you think anybody else would have been charged with this?
If the quality of the information is that there may or may not have been a phone call that somebody told somebody else about, but that nothing actually happened, there may have been just a conversation about it.
That doesn't feel like a crime to me.
Now, I'm not an expert, but is it a crime to Even if I imagine you could turn this into a tactical crime, I can't imagine anybody else being charged with something like this.
Can you?
Oh, thank you, Snoopy Boobs.
Thanks.
I appreciate you pointing out that I'm not a lawyer, because I don't think anybody was understanding that.
You know, a lot of you were confused.
You probably thought I was a lawyer the way I was so expertly dealing with the issue.
So I'm glad you pointed out, because there were a lot of people on YouTube like, is this man a lawyer?
He seems brilliant in his jurisprudence.
I don't even know if that's the right word to use there.
But I'm glad that you cleared that up.
I'm not a lawyer.
And you know what?
I was also not aware of that.
I thought I was a lawyer!
But it turns out I'm not.
So thank you.
I saw a tweet.
Somebody found the Tate Brothers Ph.D.
program.
Did you know the Tate Brothers had a Ph.D.
program?
It was a course that people could sign up for.
And the Ph.D.
stood for Pimpin' Hose Degree.
The Pimpin' Hose.
And there are a bunch of materials shown.
If they're real, it suggests that he was teaching people how to turn girlfriends into sex workers on webcams.
So he had the Tate Brothers PhD program for turning girlfriends into sex workers.
Now, I wasn't going to say this, but that was my backup school.
Tate Brothers PhD program was my backup school.
My first choice was the Hunter Biden Laptop University, where I would learn also similar lessons about pimpin' hoes, but a different approach.
So yeah, the Tate Brothers PhD program, that was my backup school.
That's all I got on that one.
That was a long way to go for a bad joke.
Back up school.
All right.
CNN is reporting that Ted Cruz is one of those seats that is likely to flip in 2024.
So Senator Ted Cruz might not be a senator after 2024 if CNN has their way or their prediction is right.
Now, I want to see if you see the same thing I do.
Do you ever have these situations where you feel like you can see the future?
Has anybody ever had that?
Like, every now and then, there's a situation where it's not like you're predicting, it's like you're seeing it.
Am I wrong that Ted Cruz is going to be on the Supreme Court?
Am I wrong?
Do you see it?
Because I swear to God, I just see it.
Like, I don't predict it.
I'm not predicting it.
I just fucking see it.
I mean, I see him in the robe.
I see him in office.
I just see it like it's real.
I see it like it's the past.
I can't even wrap my head around the fact that it couldn't happen or wouldn't happen.
I just see it.
Now I don't know if there's going to be... What's the next opening that's likely to happen?
Who's the next oldest Supreme Court Justice?
Who's the oldest one?
Thomas?
How old is Thomas?
Early 70s?
He's 80?
Justice Thomas is 80.
Well, don't you think that he would most likely be replaced with an African-American candidate?
Somebody says he's 75.
Yeah, I don't think he's going anywhere.
He looks like he's in pretty good shape.
Last time I saw a photo of him, I mean, he doesn't look his age.
He looks like he's going to be fine for a while.
Well, I do think that even a Republican would be maybe incentivized to make sure there's some diversity in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is one of those places where putting a little effort into diversity makes sense to me.
And I hope you know that's a very big exception from all of my other opinions.
The Supreme Court is the one place That I don't mind that they put a little effort into diversity.
Now, I'm not sure that they're picking, in every case, I don't know that they picked the most capable person.
So I don't believe that they have picked all winners.
But it doesn't mean, you know, it's not because of diversity.
They just may have picked some bad candidates.
But I do think you should put a little work into it.
I don't think you should obsess by it.
And I don't think you should necessarily be a minimum, like, requirement.
So if you can't find people who are first rate, then no.
Does that make you feel any better?
In a weird world in which you literally had no candidates...
And I don't think anybody could argue that it would be more credible if it was all a bunch of white men.
But I do think the Supreme Court is different from anything else in that its credibility with the public is the primary thing that keeps the country together.
And I don't think anybody could argue that it would be more credible if it was all a bunch of white men.
It wouldn't be more credible.
So if you could get something like the same performance, but it looks a little more diverse, that seems like a service.
That would seem like a benefit to the country.
And remember, I don't want to see that kind of activity in corporations.
I don't want to see it in schools or anyplace else.
I don't want to see it in my personal life.
Certainly the Supreme Court is different than everything else.
It's not like anything else.
It's credibility has to be a plus all the time or else everything falls apart.
And I think a little bit of diversity is exactly the kind of thing that makes the country go well.
At least my opinion is being heard through this person.
And by the way, this would be very much a category where I would totally respect a competing opinion.
I think that needs to be called out.
I like to call that out when I can.
There are some times when I have an opinion, and if you had the opposite opinion, I would think you were kind of an idiot.
You know what I mean?
There are plenty of those.
This isn't one of those.
If you want to argue with me, no.
The Supreme Court cannot consider diversity in terms of the people that are on it.
I'd be okay with that.
I would say that would be a credible, probably well thought out opinion.
It's just I have a different one.
And I think it's fair When you say, this is my opinion, but I actually would completely respect an opposite opinion.
Completely respect it.
Alright.
What else is going on?
I saw that there's some news on social media, anyway, that Vivek Ramaswamy wanted to re-enter the TPP agreement that Trump took his hand off and cancelled.
Did you see that news?
I think it's new news, right?
I don't know if it's old news.
It didn't have a date on it, but it looked like it was new.
And then I saw somebody say, oh, he took himself out of the race because he can't possibly win if he's a big globalist and wants to be part of the TPP.
But correct me if I'm wrong, Trump's problem with the TPP was not the concept of a TPP.
I need a fact check on this.
My understanding is that Trump disagreed because it was poorly negotiated.
Am I right?
Trump never said, I would never agree to anything that had the words TPP.
I believe Trump said, the way it's negotiated, hard no.
Hard no the way you negotiated it.
But, if I were negotiating it, maybe yes.
Because maybe we get something we like.
So when you hear Vivek say we should rejoin it, if you don't include there what he thinks you should do in terms of negotiating before you agree to rejoin, I feel like this is misreported.
Yeah, the one thing you need to get right about Vivek is that he's not a simpleton.
He's not saying yes or no on something like a TPP.
Do you know who says yes or no on something as complicated as a TPP?
People who don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, you've probably got a firm opinion yes or no.
If you do understand it, you probably know that it's got some good, some bad, and if you could negotiate it to be more good than bad, Worth considering.
Is that crazy?
To me, this is exactly who you want as your president.
You want your president to know, like Trump does, that it's not good or bad.
It's good if you negotiate it, right?
It's bad if you don't.
Is that a problem?
I don't think so.
It's certainly not a reason why he can't win.
It's not going to stop him from winning.
There might be other things not winning, like Trump.
All right, so Trump, I guess it was at the same Iowa event, said he would sign a law prohibiting what he calls child sexual mutilation in all 50 states.
He would take away funding for schools that tried to do CRT and DEI and other racist policies.
And he said that he was the first president in decades who didn't start a war.
Now, Every time you hear Trump speak, after you haven't been saturated with him too much, do you always have the same opinion I do, which is, why is he so clear?
Do you ever have that opinion?
Why is this so clear?
And why don't other people do it?
Why can't other people be this unambiguous and this clear?
And when I was listening to this, all three of these, see if you find something that these have in common.
So one was about he would prohibit what he calls child sexual mutilation in all 50 states.
No funding for the CRTDI stuff, the racist policies.
And first president who didn't start a war.
What do all three of those sound like?
Dad.
Dad.
Those are dad policies.
Hey mom, hey mom, what do you think about, you know, child reassignment surgeries?
Well, you know, I could, you know, in some situations, you know, these situations, blah, blah, blah.
Some exceptions, yeah, I could see in some.
How about funding for CRT and DI?
Well, they're very important, you know, I could see you'd have a problem, but they're very important, you know.
How about not starting any wars?
Well, sometimes there's a reason for a war.
You know, you might have to, you know, you got to fight them there before they come over here.
Right?
All these nuance and maybe and if that and risk reward.
And Trump just says, I'm going to prohibit sexual mutilation in 50 states, cut funding for all this racist bullshit in schools.
And by the way, I'm the first president who didn't start it.
It's dumb fucking wars.
Dad.
Three letters.
Dad.
You can feel the dadness of that, can't you?
That is pure male.
Pure male.
And sometimes you need pure male.
You know what you don't want when you're talking about maybe it should be okay to do these surgeries on minors?
I'll tell you what you don't want.
Mom.
Sorry.
I love mom.
Moms are great.
I'm very pro-mom.
I could not be more pro-mom.
But on these three questions, war, CRT, DEI, and the gender reassignment stuff, surgeries for children.
Those are three topics I don't want to hear from women.
Don't want to hear from women.
Am I going to get in trouble for that?
I'm already canceled.
Blah ha ha.
You can't cancel me.
You cannot over-cancel me.
Now, and keep in mind, I love women.
Love moms.
And I also think that they're very smart and capable and, you know, blah, blah, blah.
Nothing negative.
Now, could you think of other decisions where you wouldn't want dad to be involved?
Maybe there are decisions that you really want mom to be involved in.
Yes.
Yes.
Well, abortion.
Actually, good decision.
My opinion is very similar for abortion.
Keep the guys out of it.
Keep the guys out of it.
Now, I'm not telling you you shouldn't have an opinion on it or not vote on it, because you're your own person.
I have nothing to do with your votes or your personal decisions.
I'm just saying, personally, that's another one that I would make a gender distinction.
I'd say, yeah, I think women should decide what the law is, because it's not going to be that different than what men would decide.
I don't think men and women are quite that different on abortion.
It's more of a left-right thing.
But we would have a better situation if the women decided and then the men said, you know, even if I don't like it, I'm going to respect that men don't have babies, generally speaking.
And I feel that Trump, more than anybody, maybe any president ever, maybe any public figure ever, he understands the true nature of human beings just better than other people.
And I think that instinctively, whether he says this out loud or not, he instinctively knows it's time for dad to set things right.
Don't you think?
I feel like he's just saying it's dad time, but he doesn't use those words.
He's just, he's giving you pure male energy against some questions, which I would only want pure male energy to be applied to.
I don't really want any female energy in any of these questions.
But like I said, there's really a place where the female energy would be the superior, superior approach.
All right.
Trump apparently lost his bid to sue CNN over the big lie.
So CNN sort of branded Trump as the big lie guy over January 6th.
Was that it?
Yeah, January 6th.
And of course the big lie comes from Nazi lore.
You know, the big lie was Goebbels saying, if your lie is big enough, people will believe it.
And so Trump sued because that basically was calling him a Nazi.
And the judge threw it out because it's obviously just an opinion.
It's, you know, political speech and opinion and cannot be protected because nobody takes it as a literal.
But that's an interesting opinion, isn't it?
That nobody would take it as anything but an opinion.
Well, actually it's not about what you take it as, it's about what it was intended as.
Right?
It doesn't matter how you interpret it, it matters how the person who did it, you know, why they did it, what was their intention.
I think, I think that matters more.
But, so I guess it was opinion.
But, it's sort of a grey area, because if you're the, if you're the entity that assigns opinions to other people, Work with me here.
Let's say the situation is that CNN just keeps saying it's the big lie, which makes you sound like Trump is a Nazi.
So let's say that we agree that CNN is just giving opinions.
So that's legal.
They're just giving opinions.
But here's the part that's left out of this.
Where does the public get their opinions?
The public gets their opinions from CNN and whatever they watch.
So if CNN is saying, well, it's just our opinion that he's a Nazi, but the net effect of that is that the people who are their audience come up with the opinion that he's actually a Nazi.
Like, maybe not card carrying, but that, in effect, he's a Nazi.
That's legal, apparently.
Because CNN would just be giving an opinion, but the law is silent on the fact that that opinion becomes fact to the people who are watching it.
Because the people watching it don't think it's an opinion.
They think they learned the news.
Am I right?
They think they got the news.
So they think, oh my god, they just told me he's a Nazi, he must be a Nazi.
So, it's a weird area.
Yeah, I guess because Trump's a public figure, it makes it nearly impossible to sue.
Because if you know that it's political speech, I just don't know how it could ever be illegal.
So I think probably the legal system got the right answer on that.
What do you think?
I think the legal system got the right answer on that, given the nature of the law.
Everybody agree?
Yeah, that was the right answer.
And I'm not sure I want to live in a world where you could sue a news entity that easily and win.
I wouldn't want him to win on that.
That would be too chilling for the entire industry.
All right.
Yeah, I don't like it, but it's the correct answer.
That is correct.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there any topic I forgot today?
All right.
And apparently there's some, somebody produced a quote from Trump, or somebody who knew Trump a long time ago, saying that, you know, telling a large lie was part of his strategy.
I think that's hearsay, too.
Vivek and Elon.
Yeah, so there was the spaces.
I didn't catch it.
So there's the spaces with Vivek and Elon.
And I saw some good things said about that.
Are we seeing the defection of DeSantis people yet to Vivek?
Has that happened?
I feel like we're starting to see just a little bit of a little bit of a trend.
And-- no?
You're not seeing it?
Yeah, probably not yet.
I don't think it's reflected in the polls, but I feel like there's a zeitgeist kind of a thing happening.
Now I saw a tweet that I can't confirm that suggests that Vivek Ramaswamy and Jared Kushner are friends.
Have you heard that?
Do you think Vivek and Jerry Kushner are like personal friends?
Somebody said they had lunch or something.
Now I saw that claim and my first reaction was, oh that's quite big news that two prominent people who went to Harvard would have a dinner, a meal together.
They both went to Harvard.
I don't think their ages are that different.
So is it some big surprise that two Harvard guys interested in politics about the same age had lunch and maybe liked each other?
That feels like a non-story.
You know, the app that I would love, I would love to see an app that showed who knows who.
Wouldn't you love that?
Wouldn't you like to see like a visual map of this person is, you know, worked for this person in their law firm, but you know, is good friends with this person.
They're married to this person who works for this law firm.
Wouldn't that be fascinating?
Then every time you saw a news report, Imagine this.
So I just told you about Leon Panetta, right?
So Leon Panetta was asked about signing the document that said the laptop was Russian disinformation.
Wouldn't you love to see, when you're watching that story, wouldn't you love to see the visual map of Leon Panetta and who he's most connected to in politics?
It'd be like, you know, Hillary Clinton and then blah, blah, blah.
That would mean a lot to me.
Because that's the context That if you don't have it, you don't know anything.
Everything's a mystery if you don't know who knows who.
So the big news is usually who knows who.
Who's working for who, who's married to who, that sort of thing.
We don't get that reported, generally.
We act like the surface news is the news, but really, to understand it, you'd have to know who knows who, and who's working for who, and all that.
So that'd be good.
As you touch the wall, I think so.
He's pro-wall, right?
Vivek is pro-wall.
Now, I'd also love to see if Vivek could solve for actually getting it built.
Dave Rubin says he'll be for Trump if he's the nominee.
Well, I feel like that's going to be true for all the DeSantis supporters.
Does anybody think that the DeSantis people won't go to Trump?
I think they do.
I think they do.
Is Vivek Muslim, Indian, Hindu, or Hindu Indian?
Oh, let's talk about that.
My understanding is that he says that God is real.
So every day Vivek tweets, I think every day he tweets it, that God is real.
Do Hindus believe in one God?
I don't even know what's going on there.
You know, see, my understanding is that he's Hindu by ethnicity, but that he believes in one God. but that he believes in one God.
Hindus believe everyone can be God.
I'm not a Hindu expert, so... One God, many forms?
Hindu is mono... I guess I don't know anything about... I thought he was identifying as Christian, but I didn't know.
Is that not true?
Doesn't he identify as Christian?
I thought that was well understood, but now you're confusing me.
Well, I don't know.
So, I've heard some people think that you couldn't trust him because he has some, like, Hindu connections.
Have you ever met any Hindus?
How many of you think that's a problem, have ever even met, like, even one Hindu?
Have you ever met a Hindu that, like, you thought was a problem?
So where I live, there's a very large Indian American population.
So I'm continuously talking to, interacting with, friends with, playing tennis with, you know, Indians with Hindu backgrounds.
I've not seen one Indian Hindu or somebody who has a Hindu background that you would consider even a little bit of a problem, you know, in terms of some belief they have that would conflict with some of your beliefs.
There's no conflicting belief.
There might be different beliefs, but you're not going to find any, you're not going to find any Hindu beliefs that bother you.
And I don't even think you're going to find a Hindu who bothers you.
Right?
It's a, it's a pretty pleasant culture.
You're going to be pretty happy in a room full of Hindus.
Let me tell you that.
If you get invited to a party where everybody there is, let's say, lives in America, but they have Hindu backgrounds, that's a fun party.
You're going to have a good time at that party.
So I think you have to release on that whole, you have some problem because he's got some Hindu background.
I think maybe you're confusing Hindu with something else.
But you're not going to have a problem with any Hindu beliefs at all.
Yeah, you're just going to have better food.
If you hang around with people with a Hindu background, the biggest thing you'll notice is that the food is better.
That's it.
That's about it.
All right.
Yeah, Hindu is not Muslim.
I think some people might be confusing the two.
Norm says, Scott loves brown people.
Well, that's true.
Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?
What's wrong with loving brown people?
You racist.
All right.
What's...
Colorist is...
Indian food is pretty amazing.
I ate Indian food last night.
It's always the best.
All right.
So, do you think reality is like the Mandelbrot what?
Do you think reality is like a Mandelbrot fractal?
Well, I wish I had a nickel for every time somebody asked me if reality is like a Mandelbrot fractal.
And the answer is no.
I think no.
All right.
Can Congress regulate Supreme Court?
I don't know that issue.
Tulsi Gabbard is religious.
She's Hindu.
Yeah, let me just tell you, don't worry about Hindus.
You're in good hands.
That's not going to be a problem.
Mandelbrot, what?
All right, Mitch McConnell is hypnotized.
No, you know what's going on with Mitch McConnell, don't you?
People on Locals, should I do my Mitch McConnell... I need to confer with the Locals people for a moment.
So if you're on YouTube, don't listen to any of this.
Hey Locals, should I do my impression of Mitch McConnell being body snatched?
Body snatched, yes?
I'm getting yeses?
All right.
They talked me into it.
I know it was reported that maybe Mitch McConnell had a health problem, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the UFO hearings were at the same time.
As you know, aliens from other planets like to body snatch.
And I'm pretty sure that what we saw was McConnell getting body snatched.
So I'd like to give you my impression.
Of somebody being body snatched.
Well, yes, I had a difficult recovery.
had some health problems, but were better, looking good.
Mitch, would you want to take any more questions?
Mitch, do you want to go back to the room?
Now, that's when the snatching happens.
What happens after the snatching, and I think you've seen it, it's the same thing that happens with Joe Biden.
Because once the alien inhabits the body, they don't know how to work the mouth and the arms and legs, they're just testing it out.
So if you look at Joe Biden trying to walk, he was obviously body snatched a while ago.
If you watch Biden walk, he's Now, if you've watched Men in Black at all, the thing you want to look for is when McConnell, after he's snatched, you want to see if his walking is any different.
Now, he's an old guy, so prior to being body snatched, he probably walked a little like this.
Sort of slow.
That's what I'm guessing.
After a body snatch, you've all watched Men in Black, you know how this works.
after the body snatches, sort of like this.
So look for that.
So I've got my, I don't know, I've got a watch list.
I'm watching John Fetterman, probably body snatched.
Kamala Harris I think is obvious.
Would you all agree that Kamala Harris was body snatched, you know, early on?
Because, you know, regular people talk like this.
Well, I'd like to tell you a story about a yellow school bus.
But body-snatched people talk like this.
I love it!
It's obvious.
Body-snatched.
So, right now we've got quite a few body-snatched, alien-inhabited politicians.
Yeah, maybe that's something we should look into, you know what I mean?
Alright, ladies and gentlemen of YouTube, that's all for now.
