Episode 2186 Scott Adams: The Hunter Becomes The Hunted. Most Of The News Is Weird Or Funny Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Synchronized Whales, President Trump, Ballot Harvesting, Devon Archer, Biden Crime Family, President Biden, Leftist Mental Health, Jared Kushner, Jim Gaffigan, Joe Rogan, Thomas Massie, AI Copyright Kneecap, VP Harris, Miscellaneous Rights & Freedom, Blackrock, Bitcoin Stock, Hunter Biden, Artwork Money Laundering, 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.
Some people think there's been a better time in the history of the universe, but not really.
This is really the best time in the whole history of everything.
This is the best that it gets.
Sorry.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels which nobody has ever experienced, all you need is... a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Well, let's talk about the news.
Do you think the news today is, oh, I don't know, important news?
Is there a lot of important news happening today?
No.
Nope.
Nothing like that.
But we do have news about synchronized whales.
So we have a report of whales doing synchronized jumping.
There's a picture of three whales jumping synchronized.
Now this comes on the heels of reports about the whales attacking sailing ships.
That's right.
Now they're attacking sailing ships and also doing some kind of military training.
It looks like they're doing synchronized jumping, which would be their form of marching.
It does appear that the oceans are starting to organize against humanity.
I would look out for the other sea creatures to start joining in.
It's not going to be a problem unless they form some kind of an alliance and start sharing weapons.
But I would look out for the stingrays and the swordfish.
If the swordfish join with the whales, we've got a real problem.
There's going to be some stinging and sorting.
Alright, well forget about that.
I saw a Jack Posobiec tweet who says that Trump called on all Republican challengers to drop out of the race and divert all of their money to finance the largest ballot harvesting operation the world has ever seen.
I didn't see the news story, but that really happened, right?
When Trump says anything, it's almost like you can tell that he said it.
Now, I'm assuming Jack usually has the right information, so I'm sure he's right.
But don't you love that it's not just you should do a ballot start?
It would be simple and ordinary to say you should do ballot harvesting the same as the Democrats.
But Trump doesn't say that.
He says he wants to have the largest ballot harvesting operation the world has ever seen.
The biggest one the world has ever seen.
And by the way, that's exactly right.
Do you think he should be going small on ballot harvesting?
No, it should be the biggest thing that is ever done in the history of doing things.
If you're going to do it at all, You gotta go balls to the wall and just do it like crazy.
It wouldn't make any sense to just try to match them.
Well, they did some of that, so we'll do some of that.
If the loophole, if you want to call it the loophole, or the opportunity, if it exists and if it's legal, you should do the hell out of it.
Trump's right.
You should do it like it's never been done before, or Or get out of the race.
Because if you're not going to compete using all the rules, you're not really trying.
I don't know.
I don't know why this is so simple, and yet Trump is the one who keeps getting it right.
Right?
Just how simply you say it.
It should be the biggest one the world's ever seen.
That is precisely the right answer.
The biggest one the world's ever seen.
Well, let's talk about Devon Archer coming up and all that stuff.
So Rasmussen did a poll asking people what they think about the Biden crime family, if I could use my own term there.
According to Rasmussen, 60% of likely voters believe the president has been part of an illegal cover-up to hide his involvement in his son Hunter's foreign business. 60%.
Think he's involved in an illegal cover-up of an influence-buying scheme?
60%?
How in the world could he win an election?
I mean, seriously.
How could you possibly win this election if 60% of the country thinks you're probably, probably doing something super illegal?
All right, what else?
But the most surprising thing is, if you want to see how ridiculous this has become, guess what percentage of people polled say it is not at all likely that the president is involved in any kind of a cover-up of any kind of schemes or anything?
No, here's the surprising part.
They couldn't even get 25% to say it was okay.
They couldn't even get 25%.
Just imagine that.
If I've taught you anything, it's that 25% of respondents to polls will get every question wrong.
Maybe it's a different 25%.
But it's not like it's weird consistently, 25 will be wrong about everything.
But they got it all the way down to 18% of this.
So the The ones who say it's not at all likely that Biden has been illegally covering up his role.
Only 18% believe it is not at all likely.
Only 18% think it's not at all likely he's involved in an insanely important crime that's really relevant to the office of the presidency.
And he's going to win.
So he's going to win without campaigning.
With these numbers of people who believe he's involved in a major crime.
Does it worry you at all that the Democrats don't seem to be panicked?
That they can win without campaigning and having somebody with these kinds of numbers?
Well, we'll talk about the numbers a little bit more later.
We'll get back to that.
I've got a campaign idea that only Trump could pull off.
Now, you know, Ramaswamy could pull it off too, but it doesn't exactly fit his brand as well.
So I'll tell you what it is.
You've seen the stats that show that people who identify with the left have vastly worse mental health.
Have you all seen those stats?
The people associated with the political right, they got their problems, of course, but it's nowhere near the Democrats and their mental health situations.
Now, what do people care about?
If you said, Scott, tell me your policies and, you know, tell me what you care about.
I would probably incorrectly tell you stuff like, oh, tax rates, and protect the border, and policies, and my policies, and Ukraine, right?
So that would be the typical answer.
What do you care about in politics?
And I would just list those things I talk about.
But do I really care about those things?
Or do I care about how I feel right now as I'm sitting in this chair?
Which one do I care more about?
Climate change policy, or my current feeling as I'm sitting here talking to you right now?
I care about right now.
I care about how I feel.
Now, I'm happy to report, I feel great.
I feel great.
I'm mentally and physically, I'm just cooking at 100% right now.
I don't have a freaking problem in the world, honestly.
Honestly, I'm going to go through the entire day without a problem.
Nothing.
No health problems, no mental problems.
I won't be bored.
I'll be doing some useful stuff.
I'm going to have a great day.
I don't know the details, but it'll be, you know, yesterday was great.
The day before was pretty terrific.
I don't have anything but good days.
Right?
However, I do note that many, many people, especially on the left, are having mental problems.
Now, it's not a big mystery, right?
I tweeted that there are three facts and a mystery.
So the three facts are that the people on the left are being taught that climate is going to kill them, right?
The entire world that they live on, they can't escape it, and it's doomed.
Two things you need to know about the planet if you're on the left.
You can't get off it.
It'll be too long before Elon can get you a rocket right off of Earth.
So you're trapped on the Earth, and it's going to blow up, or it's going to burn up with all the climate change.
Then you're also taught that you are either a victim or an oppressor.
If you're a victim, oh, I'm sorry.
And if you're an oppressor, I'm twice as sorry.
Oh my God, you're an oppressor.
How do you live with yourself, oppressor?
Plus, you're surrounded by white supremacists who are trying to kill you all.
So imagine if that was your reality.
That's sort of, you know, semi-reality on the left.
Imagine that's reality.
It's total mental health You know, creation.
So here's the idea.
What if... You're going to love this idea.
That's why I'm like, I'm like creeping up to it.
Because when you hear it, you're just going to say, oh shoot, that's a good idea.
You ready?
Trump should tell you he's going to help your mental health.
Just say it directly.
Say, look, we got a massive mental health problem, and a lot of it is because you're believing fake news.
If you believe the fake news, it's not good for you, and you should probably find a way to back off it.
At the very least, you should sample the news from both sides.
But right now, you're just talking yourself into mental health problems by listening to the clickbait alarmists who are trying to get you worked up so they can make money.
Your mental health is because somebody else is making money off of you.
I'm not trying to make money off of you.
I want you to feel good.
I want you to be healthy, mentally and physically.
And if you'd like to know how, about voting for me, I'll show you how.
But just imagine this.
The miracle of Politics, and you tell me if I'm wrong.
The miracle of good politics is when the politician can make you feel something in your actual day-to-day life, right?
You don't win because you've got a concept.
Oh, I've got a good concept.
Your concept doesn't make me feel anything.
So when Trump won, it's because he made people feel something that seemed really relevant to their daily activities.
But right now this mental health problem is the biggest thing that people are feeling.
They're feeling a gigantic mental health burden.
You know, they also feel economic risks, etc.
But he could make a case for that too.
Do you want to feel comfortable in your economic life?
Do you want to feel comfortable in how you feel about the risks in the world?
Do you want to feel comfortable that something is being taken care of?
Trump could sell you mental health.
Trump could sell you mental health and you would buy it.
You would actually buy it.
Now, not every person, right?
Politics is all about getting that 5% to switch over.
But he could certainly get 5% to say, you know what?
I do have a huge mental health problem.
And he is offering me something that sounds like it could be a solution.
If you've got a big mental health problem, anxiety or depression or whatever, wouldn't you do almost anything to just see if it made a difference?
You know, if somebody said, take a walk around the block and it'll make you feel better, you'd think, well, I should try it, because what I'm doing now isn't working.
So I think it would be completely revolutionary for a politician to say, you know what?
You feel bad every day when you wake up, and I'm going to fix that.
I'm going to make you feel better.
Just directly, I'll make you feel better.
It's very powerful.
Alright, even CNN is reporting, at least in an opinion piece, Harry Enten, that Trump could win.
Now, when CNN is saying, you know, a headline, Trump very well could win.
Do you think that's a warning shot to the Bidens to get out of the race?
Or Joe Biden to get out of the race?
I feel like CNN is tapping him on the shoulder as hard as they can tap.
You know, I'm just reminding you, the polls, blah blah blah.
So the argument for why he's in better shape, apparently Trump is polling better now than at any time in 2020.
Were you aware of that?
In 2020, he was never polling against Biden nearly as well as he is now.
So he's improving in power, and a lot of polls are showing him slightly ahead, not enough to beat the margin of error, but consistently he's tie or ahead.
Again, not above the margin of error.
Now that was never the case.
Apparently that was never the case in 2020.
Now the caveat here is that CNN says, based on polling, that CNN finds acceptable.
So they have their own standard of which ones they believe.
But their own polls, the ones that they say are acceptable, are now showing that Trump He's starting to get a bite on this that it would be hard to shake him off.
So their only play is to arrest him, or give him some kind of legal problems.
And the more they do, the more illegitimate they seem, and probably the more support he gets.
I mean, he can sell that kind of thing.
Let me ask you, have you noticed that Trump has done everything right lately?
I can't think of an exception.
But hasn't he done everything right?
And by that I mean he hasn't caused a new problem.
Right?
There's not a new problem.
And he said he said news making things that people want to hear.
And I believe he is successfully running a general campaign already.
Right?
So he's not just going base, base, base, base.
He's actually already in the general, in terms of his policies.
I don't know what's going to stop him.
It's hard to imagine anything stopping him.
I'll remind you that I'm still supporting Vivek.
I'd rather have the younger, high-quality candidate, if I had a choice.
But I would also love Trump, Viveka as Vice President, and DeSantis as Attorney General.
Or Ted Cruz.
How about Ted Cruz as Attorney General?
Right?
So the big problem that anybody has with Trump as a President, well, one of the big problems, is you worry that he's going to hire good people.
Right?
You worry that he would hire good people.
But I feel like he could hire good people if he wanted to.
I feel like he does have that option now.
Because it feels different.
If he wins again, it's going to be the greatest, well, it'd be one of the greatest comebacks of all time.
But it would also validate, you know, that he wasn't so bad the first time.
So things would look really different if Trump won again.
And since they don't need to worry about him winning re-election, maybe he gets treated differently.
Because they don't have to worry about another four years.
It'd be his last four years.
I doubt they would really go balls to the wall to try to remove him before his term was over.
They might.
So Devin Archer is scheduled to testify to Congress today, I understand.
Now he is or was Hunter's business partner and he's got all the goods on the big guy and where the money went and all that stuff.
There's a fake news report about this that says that the Department of Justice was trying to arrest him to keep him from testifying in front of Congress.
In other words, kind of shut him up by arresting him.
But that appears to be fake news.
So the real news is that the Department of Justice did send him a letter to report to jail, but it's a negotiated time.
It doesn't mean today.
So today he should be fine.
His lawyers say, oh no, no problem.
But there is a separate action on a separate case to which he might go to jail.
Or he has to report to jail, I guess.
All right.
All right.
He's a fine governor.
Yes, he is.
You know, I keep seeing clips of DeSantis.
I'll tell you, he takes boring to the next level.
And I hate to act like being exciting should be a requirement for the job, because it absolutely isn't.
If we ended up with a President DeSantis, I would be completely happy.
I wouldn't have a Wouldn't have a problem in the world with that.
But when he runs against Trump, he just disappears a little bit, doesn't he?
It's just hard to see him.
The light is so blinding you, you just don't even notice him.
All right, so Devin Archer should light things up today.
Now, given that Devin Archer, I would imagine that anybody on the left or right, no matter what you think of Biden, don't you think that they would believe whatever Devin Archer says to Congress?
In other words, if Devin Archer says, oh yeah, totally corrupt situation.
I was right in the middle of it.
I was his business partner.
It's not hearsay.
I was in the room.
I could tell you for sure.
So if it goes that way, do you think even the left will believe it?
If his own business partner just completely rolls over and says, all right, I'll just tell you everything.
I think 25% won't believe it.
But I think we've reached a weird situation.
And the situation is, I believe, that probably a good, I don't know, at least a third of the people who say they don't believe the charges really do.
Or something in that order.
There will be people who never admit they believe the charges.
But they do.
Because they don't want their team to be wrong.
So instead of saying, well, okay, you've convinced me that it was always a Biden crime family, how many of them are going to say, you know, I didn't think that was a thing, but now that you've shown me the evidence, it does look like it was a gigantically unethical situation, at least.
I don't know if it's illegal.
I don't think they will.
I think people will say, you know, Joe Biden's getting up there in age.
And they'll just find some other reason why he's not their first choice.
They'll just find some other reason.
Because it's just too hard for brains to say, it was right in front of me this whole time and I couldn't see it until now.
It's just hard for a brain to do that in public.
So I think that we have way more, we meaning the country, has way more Democrats who understand the Biden crime family situation than will admit it out loud.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think there's even one person in the media, left or right, who believes that these charges are not legitimate?
You know, the accusations about the Biden crime family situation.
Do you think there's anybody in the news business?
No.
No, the people in the news business are all completely aware of what's going on.
It's only their customers, their viewers, that they're fooling.
But there's nobody who's sitting in the host chair of a major network who has any confusion whatsoever about what happened with the Bidens.
No confusion at all.
Joy Reid, no confusion.
Olbermann completely understands at this point.
They're not going to say it, but they do.
Now this brings us to Jim Gaffigan on Joe Rogan.
I mentioned it before, but he's still trending.
Now the take that a lot of people had is that poor Jim Gaffigan was, you know, deluded by his news sources and, you know, sort of a lefty anti-Trumper, and that he ran into the buzzsaw of Joe Rogan.
He's certainly not a pro-Trumper, per se, but he simply had more accurate information about the very stories that Jim was concerned about.
And watching Joe Rogan explain to Jim Gaffigan things that the people on the left have never heard before was fascinating.
And also interesting to hear Jim say things he thought were true because the news told them they were.
Let me give you an example.
Jim Gaffigan says, or he seemed to indicate on Joe Rogan, that it was obvious, and should be obvious to everyone, that Trump is the most corrupt president ever, and that while Biden might have some issues, there's no competition between who's more corrupt.
Now what do you think he was referring to?
And I thought to myself, corrupt?
Is there even one example of that?
Can you give me one example of something Trump did that would fit the definition of corrupt?
Anything?
There are plenty of things you could say you don't like.
Plenty of things.
You could even say he might be impeachable for some of those things.
But where was the corrupt part?
Where?
So Jim gave some examples.
I missed this part, but I think he mentioned Trump University.
Here's my take on Trump University.
None of that sounded good to me.
I've never once defended anything about Trump University, but didn't we know that whole story before the election?
That was before the election.
So, in my opinion, it was probably a licensing deal where Trump lent his name and didn't really know exactly what was going on.
He had 400 businesses with his name on it, he licenses the name, probably checks once when he makes the deal, you know, is this legitimate, makes the deal.
I don't think he was auditing the classes or looking at the materials.
So, yes.
Trump is fully responsible for that and paid for it.
But that was all that was all known before the election.
It had nothing to do with the election.
And it was just a bad, I would say a bad licensing deal, generally speaking.
But what did he do as president?
Once Trump was president, what would be the example of the corruption?
So, Gaffigan gives this example, that Jared Kushner got a $2 billion contract after Trump left office, from the Middle East.
Do you think that's a real story?
Do you believe that Jared Kushner got a $2 billion contract?
How many think that that actually happened in the real world?
Does anybody think that's a real thing?
No, that's not a real thing.
Is there a $2 billion story about Jared Kushner?
Yes.
Do you know what the story is?
That Jared Kushner has a investment fund, and that the Saudi, you know, the big national fund, Saudi Arabia has a sort of a whole country fund of money that they invest, and $2 billion of that was directed to Jared Kushner's new fund.
They didn't give the money to Jared Kushner.
I think people who don't know much about business imagine somebody wrote him a check.
What, you think he just deposited it and now he's living on his two billion dollars?
That's not what that is.
He's managing a fund.
It's not his money.
Other people give him money to manage.
He hires people to help him manage the fund.
Now, I'm going to get to Still Shady.
So let me be clear.
If you're saying to yourself that Still Shady, I'm on the same page.
Same page.
But let's just continue talking about it.
Did you know that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is a good close personal friend of Jared Kushner?
And it was the prince who made that happen.
How many of you knew that?
They're actually close personal friends.
Do you think that being close personal friends, I think it probably happened during the Middle East negotiations during Trump.
I assume that's when that happened.
How weird is it or unusual that somebody would want to invest with their close personal friend who actually could make them a lot of money too?
Is that unusual?
That's like the most common thing in the world, isn't it?
That people who know people well are more likely to go into business.
Now, the big question is this.
Do you know the Jared Kushner thing was fully transparent, was announced publicly, and there's no hidden elements?
Nobody is even accusing anybody of hiding anything.
It's just right there.
Now, are you comfortable Are you comfortable knowing that somebody that connected to the power structure in the United States is not only good friends with the head of Saudi Arabia, but even they have a big investment that he's managing?
Does that give you a problem?
I don't know that that makes the country less safe.
Doesn't that make us more safe?
Doesn't that make Saudi Arabia far more likely to remain our ally of sorts?
And aren't we more likely to be their ally of sorts if we have big connections and those connections are working well for everybody?
If you were the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and you wanted to put $2 billion into something that would probably make money, but also might have a strategic political advantage, Can you think of anything better than putting money into a Jared Kushner fund?
Don't you think Jared Kushner has really good access to deals and people who can manage the fund?
You don't think he would have like the best access in the world to basically everything?
That's exactly what I'd want in my managed fund.
So, should you feel uncomfortable that somebody that attached to the Trump White House, and still attached by family, right?
Because Ivanka to Trump.
So that attached has that big a deal that looks like you could argue is sweetheartish.
But it's sweetheartish in the most transparent way.
Yeah, Saudi Arabia likes America today.
Not so much under Biden.
And yes, they know each other personally.
And yes, publicly, we've just announced this big deal.
Now, I'm not comfortable with it.
How many of you would agree?
I'm not comfortable with that.
That's a little too much connection, but it's also completely legal.
It was announced when it happened, and it's completely transparent, and it's also ordinary business.
But I'm uncomfortable with it.
How many would agree with that assessment?
That it's all legal, it's all transparent, but I'm a little uncomfortable with it.
And if you were to factor that into any of your decisions, I would say that's fair.
I'll give you that.
If you think that that discomfort, which is real, gives you some pause, I think it's entirely possible that Jared was not expecting Trump to have a second term.
I mean, I can't read his mind, but he may have thought this will never have any impact on anything in politics.
This is just, you know, me using my current situation in the world to build business that makes everybody some money, in all likelihood.
But now it's very, it's kind of awkward now, isn't it?
So I'll give you that.
I'll give you that it's awkward.
But do you compare that to the Biden crime family?
Do you think those are comparable?
The fact that $2 billion is a much larger amount of money doesn't seem too relevant to the comparison.
Because one is 100% legal and transparent, and probably everybody will make money.
And the other one is completely sketchy from top to bottom, and the opposite of transparent.
Those are not comparable.
But I think the Jim Gaffigan story, if you think it's about Jim Gaffigan, I would say that's totally unfair.
The little bit I know about Jim, because I did get to spend some time talking to him, and I think this context is completely useful.
When I spent, I don't know, probably an hour just talking to Jim Gaffigan about politics, he listened to everything I said that was sort of the, I would say, the Trump framing of the world.
And he asked good questions.
And he told me what he thought about some things, and I gave him my context on those things.
And I would say that the entire conversation was 100% respectful, Curious and genuine.
He has a genuine interest in politics.
He's genuinely curious.
He's genuinely paying attention.
And when I talked to him with a completely alternative view of the world, he listened intently.
And we had just a good conversation, and that was it.
Now, I didn't get the sense of changing his mind or anything.
That wasn't really anybody's intention.
But we had an exchange in which he was fully open, and at no point did he say, oh, you crazy white supremacist or anything like that.
He was just listening to another citizen who had a little different information and view of things.
He incorporated it, and that's all I asked.
So, if you're giving him trouble, I think you're directing your fire in completely the wrong place.
I see him, and I hate to say this, but he looks like a victim of the news.
And I do think there are victims.
And there may be victims on both sides.
I don't know if it's just on the left.
But when you hear somebody say that Trump was the most corrupt president, and there's literally not an example of anything that happened in office, anything, There are things you don't like, but none of them go toward corruption at all.
He's the most checked out president of all time.
So that is such a big point.
Such a big point.
How could you possibly have the right opinion on the Biden crime family alleged activities if you thought that Trump was way worse?
That would change everything about how you saw that situation.
But it just isn't based on any facts.
So I'd give Jim Gaffigan a break on that, but it was fascinating.
I loved the interaction.
Wouldn't you love to see more of that?
Wouldn't you love to see a Joe Rogan or just somebody who can explain something clearly and credibly?
Now one of the things that Joe Rogan has going for him is that nobody thinks he's lying.
Isn't that like a superpower?
Think about how few people can fit into that situation.
I'll just name some names of my favorites, right?
These are just some of my favorites.
If Thomas Massey tweets something, it might be accurate or inaccurate, you know, because anybody can be accurate or inaccurate, but he's never lying.
Like, I'm sure of it.
I don't think he has it in him.
I just don't think he has any incentive.
It's just nothing in his character that would cause him to just lie about something.
And I think there are a few people in that same category.
I think Joe Rogan is very comfortably in the category where he has no incentive to lie, he has no history of ever doing it, and nobody's even accusing him of it.
How useful is that?
Think about what an asset that is.
Now, would you say the same?
Pick your favorite news host.
Pick your favorite one from Fox, or your favorite one from another place.
How many of them can you say, well, they might be wrong, but I know they didn't lie about anything?
Right?
Now, I'll give you Gutfeld as someone, to the best of my knowledge, I've never seen anything that even slightly looked like he was trying to lie about anything.
Not once.
Tucker, probably the same thing.
But you might be able to come up with some names on both the left and the right, who you say to yourself.
You know, I'm not sure they're always telling you the truth as they see it.
But some are definitely.
Yeah.
I think Bongino tells you the truth every time.
Yeah.
So there should be some kind of accounting for the fact that some people are believable by almost everybody.
And that that's got to be worth something.
Don't you think?
Yeah, I think if you were sort of a casual observer of politics, imagine how useful it would be to know the list of people who could be wrong, and they might even disagree with you on priorities and stuff like that, but they're never lying to you.
Wouldn't you love to have that list?
I'll put Joe Rogan at the top of my list.
Might disagree with him.
Never lied.
In fact, I'll put Jim Gaffigan on the same list.
Jim Gaffigan might disagree with him.
I do.
He might have wrong information in some cases.
But I don't think there's any indication he's ever lied to anybody.
Right?
Would you agree?
There's no indication he's ever lied.
So he probably is just getting different news.
And that should be the end of the story.
So I don't like to see individuals get attacked for something that's clearly just part of the system.
Smirkonish?
I think he's very honest as well.
Yeah, no indication he's ever lied about anything.
All right.
Do you remember my prediction that AI might run into a legal buzzsaw?
And that you think AI is going to take over the world, but you haven't met a lawyer yet?
Because lawyers like to Stop things from happening.
So sure enough, AI is, you know, the lawsuits are starting to come because AI scours the intellectual property of people like me.
And then can create art based on our art, and some say that's copyright, and that's bad, and that's illegal.
Now, I don't know what is and what isn't true or legal, and I don't know where it's going to shake out, and I'm not even sure where it should shake out.
I don't even know what's best for the world.
I don't even know if the world is better off with or without copyright in the world of AI.
I don't know.
I guess we'll figure it out.
I know it's bad for the artists in the short run, but that doesn't mean it's bad for the world.
Sometimes some industries have some uncomfortable changes, or it might be one of them.
But now there's a report, so the Wall Street Journal's got a big piece that is essentially confirming my prediction.
Did anybody else make that prediction?
Did you hear anybody else say, AI might be kneecapped by copyright.
Was I the first one you heard?
I think I was the first one.
Maybe you heard.
Not the first one in the world.
Jack Posobiec said it.
All right.
He's usually early on stuff.
All right, good news, more good news for you.
Do you like good news, everybody?
I know you like good news.
So here's some good news.
If you were worried about vague and miscellaneous problems in this country, you don't have to worry anymore.
Because we had a lot of people who were already working on the specific problems.
So for example, we had, you know, people working on What do you do about Ukraine?
What do you do about the border?
We're not happy with the results, but we had people working on those projects.
But that left a lot of stuff that nobody was working on.
But the good news is that Vice President Kamala Harris is really leaning into fighting against Miscellaneous things, such as things that would reduce your freedoms and your rights.
So if you're worried about losing your miscellaneous freedoms and rights in places that, I don't know, I'm not sure what categories, but it's sort of the miscellaneous freedoms and rights.
And she says she's fighting for you every day.
So if you woke up today and you said, I feel like I have most of my rights, Yeah, I have most of my rights, but I'm a little bit concerned about the miscellaneous stuff.
Can you be more specific?
No, just miscellaneous rights and freedoms.
I'm losing my miscellaneous rights and freedoms.
Kamala Harris is fighting to get them back for you, and I think she's doing a good job, because can any of you... Did any of you had a problem with your miscellaneous rights today?
Anybody?
Did anybody try to go to work and you just couldn't?
Because you were lacking some miscellaneous rights?
Yeah, she's got the miscellaneous rights taken care of.
So, that's good.
All right, question for you.
I need a fact check on this.
Fact check, number one.
Did BlackRock recently say they were going to buy a lot of Bitcoin?
Did that happen?
I saw that in the news, I didn't have time to check just before I went live.
Can anybody confirm, did BlackRock go heavy into Bitcoin?
Somebody says yes.
Alright, so some people are saying yes.
Now, I'm just going to point out the timing.
Apparently the Department of Justice, I think it was, or whoever it was, said Coinbase, which is a big exchange that has all kinds of cryptocurrencies, you can trade one for the other, says they have to get rid of everything except Bitcoin.
Did that happen?
Did Coinbase, somebody told Coinbase that the SEC, it was the SEC, right?
So the SEC said that all crypto is bad except Bitcoin.
And did this happen right after BlackRock loaded up on Bitcoin?
Does that seem like a coincidence?
And what's Bitcoin doing right now?
Does that go up or down?
Bitcoin's up.
Point and a half.
Alright, Bitcoin's up.
So, isn't that a little suspicious to you?
That you worry that BlackRock is really running everything because they own so much of everything and they have so much money?
And then, you're saying Bitcoin isn't up?
I was looking at a stock.
A Bitcoin stock is up.
How could a stock that holds nothing but Bitcoin be up if Bitcoin's down?
Or is it moving quickly?
Maybe it's just quickly up and down.
I haven't seen the change yet.
Bitcoin is flat.
Interesting.
It's flat, but the fund that owns only Bitcoin is up.
Okay.
I have some questions about how that could work.
But maybe.
Maybe.
So I don't know what's happening with crypto, but it looks like there's a direction that's formed.
All right.
I'm almost positive there was something else I was going to talk about that somehow I didn't.
Oh.
Do you think Hunter Biden is lucky or skilled?
Is Hunter Biden lucky or skilled?
Because I'm going to point out one thing that was really lucky.
So if I were to ask you, you know, what kind of skills do you have in life?
You might say, oh, I'm good at pickleball, and I'm good at flower arranging, and stuff like that.
But have you noticed that most of your hobby things you're good at don't have any economic value?
Right?
You're like, oh yeah, I can trim a bush like crazy.
I'm so good with my lawn care.
But you're not a lawn care professional, so it doesn't really help you.
So I would say you're all unlucky.
Right.
You're unlucky because you have a set of skills.
They just don't line up with something that's going to make a lot of money.
Very unlucky.
But imagine you're Hunter Biden and you happen, coincidentally, you're, you know, you're a trained lawyer, but coincidentally you're also a world-class painter and artist.
And isn't it lucky That painting pictures, which could be valued at millions or zero, very subjective, isn't it sort of lucky of all the skills you could have in the world, he got the one kind of skill that matches perfectly a money laundering scheme for influence.
Isn't that lucky?
Just the only talent he had What's that one?
Suppose he had only been talented as a cartoonist.
Suppose he could draw really good cartoons.
What is the top market for a well-drawn comic that's fresh, not something that's historical?
Oh, I'd say hundreds of dollars.
I could sell, before I got cancelled, I could sell an original Dilbert art for $200 to $400.
That'd be sort of the market for that.
So, isn't it lucky that his specific art was in a category that's highly monetizable?
You know, if he'd been a cartoonist, I don't know, he wouldn't make much money.
If he'd been a figure skater, or if he had, let's say, athletic skills, well, he'd be too old, so that wouldn't be useful.
What if he had great musical ability?
Well, if he had great musical ability, he would only make as much as people were willing to listen to it.
So he couldn't hide anything in that case, because people would either buy it because they wanted to hear it or not.
Nobody would be buying a million dollars worth of his albums.
So music, even if he had this great skill, it would be hard to monetize it.
But of all the skills you could have in the entire world, lucky, lucky, Hunter Biden got the one skill that could make you millions of dollars without anybody being entirely sure it was worth it.
It's hard to imagine a luckier situation than that.
Lucky, lucky.
Anyway, I saw Mike Kucernovich tweeted one of my tweets on this topic, and he was sort of castigating himself for not realizing that the question should be, has anybody ever seen Hunter make a painting?
I think there's a video of him using a straw to blow paint on a modern art piece.
Now let me ask you this, if you were going to pretend you could make art, But you couldn't make art?
Would you pretend it with a brush, which would be really hard to fake?
Or would you pretend it by blowing some paint through a straw on a painting that was largely already done, so you could see that if somebody added like a little blow on the straw, it would fit with the composition?
It's kind of interesting, isn't it?
Another coincidence, another coincidence that the only video, or maybe it's only just a photo, is the only thing an artist who works at a, let's say, a world-class art level, as he allegedly does, it's the only thing that you could do if you were him.
You pick the only thing that you could have done.
Suck some paint into a straw and blow it without thinking too much about what it's going to look like, because the randomness is the art.
It's the only thing you could have done, too.
Interesting.
Aren't you a little bit suspicious if he can paint?
I mean, as well as the paintings look.
Because the paintings he produced, to me, look like really good paintings.
To me it looks like he has skill.
Or whoever is painting it has skill, if you know what I mean.
Alright.
Is there any story I missed?
I think I covered the synchronized whales, Hunter's amazing talents, Joe Biden not possibly going to be the next president.
Where's Mayor Pete?
Scott, do you have bad taste in art?
No offense.
No, I wouldn't put any of it on my wall.
I'm saying that as an objective, objectively it looks like good art.
It honestly does.
No joke, it looks like the paintings are done by somebody who knows how to do art really well.
The other thing I look for is if Hunter draws any, if Hunter makes any paintings that involve real people, count the number of fingers.
Just a little suggestion.
The first time that Hunter produces art with a human in it, just count the number of fingers.
You know what I mean?
Wink, wink, wink, wink.
And I don't mean because it's Purgosian.
That's a different story.
Imagine a VP debate between Kamala Harris and Vivek.
Oh, that would be too good.
That alone is a reason to have Vivek as a VP on the ticket if he doesn't get the top spot.
Does a rising stock market and no recession get Biden re-elected?
I doubt it.
I don't feel like people think that Biden did anything that makes a difference to the economy.
Do you think they do?
I mean, I realize it's tradition to give credit to the president, whether it goes up or down, right?
So it's tradition that the president gets the blame and the credit, even when they don't do anything.
But I feel like Biden, more than other people, did less.
When Trump was president, he would loosen up energy regulations, and then a whole bunch of energy stuff happens, and then he says, look at this energy stuff.
It's part of the reason the economy is doing well.
And you say to yourself, well, that does sound like that would have made a difference.
Or if he says, I negotiated this or dropped out of this treaty or this, you say, oh, I don't really understand that, but it sounds like that would make a difference.
But what did Biden do that makes a difference?
He did the infrastructure bill that nobody can think of any impact it had on their life.
So he's got a conceptual problem.
And I don't think the economy will improve enough that inflation won't still hurt.
I don't think the stock market is going to make people feel good about inflation.
Because most people don't own stock, right?
Most people are living paycheck to paycheck, if that.
Yeah, so I don't think the economy is going to work.
I think that Trump will be able to point to a number of things that Biden did that would be objectively and obviously bad for the economy.
Maybe, arguably, they would be good for the environment.
That would be the reason he did some of them.
But I think Trump can make the case it's bad for the economy, and then people will go, OK, that's all I want to hear.
All right.
I see Matt McConaughey's interview on this week.
Now, you know what?
No offense to Matthew McConaughey, who I enjoy very much in movies.
I hate listening to him talk about anything that's not a line written in a movie.
Although if he's just talking about himself, he's also entertaining.
But when he talks about politics, I just get the cringe attack of all cringe attacks.
Because I'm sure he doesn't understand the topics.
I'm sure he doesn't understand the topics.
Now, to his credit, I'm sure he's looked into it more than the average Hollywood actor.
But he's nowhere near the level that any of you are, right?
Almost any one of you could sit down with Matthew McConaughey and teach him things he'd never heard.
I'm sure of it.
But because he's got that, you know, Hollywood actor vibe, he sells his sincerity in a way that looks like acting to me.
You know what I mean?
He looks like he's playing an actor who's pretending to be sincere.
He doesn't look like a real person to me.
I don't think, yeah.
So, I just can't listen to him when he does his commercials or when he talks about politics.
He's just hard to listen to.
But I think he's an awesome guy.
I think he's a good American.
Glad he's interested.
Glad he's interested in politics.
Certainly welcome him to be completely involved as much as he likes.
But just find him hard to listen to.
Alright, but a good guy.
Alright, anything else?
Are there any topics I've been missing?
Did you all enjoy finding out about the UFOs?
I feel like the UFO thing was a turning point.
I feel like much of the country looked at the UFO thing and they said, oh, I get it.
The news is no longer even trying.
They're not really even trying to sell real news anymore.
Basically, I think the UFO story Made the difference between a tabloid makeup story thing from the 60s, or whenever the tabloids started, to today.
It does seem to me like people's minds were changed by that.
I feel it.
I just feel like people finally understood That the stories are almost all made up in the news.
The news is almost all made up.
Yeah.
Yeah, it was a good way to sell commercials, I guess.
Everybody keeps telling me I should watch Tucker and Ice Cube, and I've been resisting it.
You know why?
I just don't think it's news that two smart people got along.
People are acting amazed.
Wow.
Tucker had a lot in common and really got along with this guy who you imagine would be very different from him.
Would you like to know a secret of the universe?
That in person, most people get along.
The amazing thing would be if they didn't get along.
That would have been amazing.
The fact that they had some things in common about freedom, basically, that's not a surprise.
I just didn't feel I needed to see it.
I'm sure it was good entertainment, but watching two reasonable people agree with each other is not what I call entertainment.
That should be everybody all the time.
Honestly, if I have a conversation about politics with somebody who is just a reasonable and smart person, It never goes wrong.
The only time it did was during the height of TDS, when people actually couldn't have a regular conversation.
They were just too flipped out.
Then you couldn't talk to anybody.
But in a normal situation, I think we're close to normal at the moment.
If you think about it, I would say that the TDS is the lowest it's ever been.
It's still high, but it's the lowest it's ever been.
And at this moment, I think you could have a civil conversation with anybody about politics, no matter where you came from.
I mean, I'm literally canceled.
You don't think I could sit down with the Breakfast Club or any black Americans and have just a great conversation in which we largely agree on stuff?
We wouldn't.
We would mostly agree.
You think that's not true?
You're totally wrong.
You could put me in any environment, on a one-on-one, in-person situation, and it would go fine.
Every time.
Because I don't say things that are crazy.
Do I?
Do I say things that would trigger people?
No.
I mean, what I don't know for sure, I do what Joe Rogan did.
I love Joe Rogan's discussion of REAPS.
He simply said what we know and what we don't know, and you have to leave it at that.
That's the only respectful way to treat a fellow citizen who might in fact be completely innocent of everything, REAPS.
You say what you know and what you don't know, and you've got to stop at that.
And he stopped exactly at that.
He gave the context, he gave the facts, and he stopped right there.
That's as good as you can get discussing politics or anything in the news.
The best you can do is to say what you know and what you don't know and just let it lay there.
Alright.
Hollywood nightclub guy was stomped to death by a crowd.
I didn't see that story.
Some liberals can't admit being wrong.
Oh, that's not fair.
Is that fair?
Some liberals can't admit to being wrong.
Well, you're acting like that's a problem on one side.
You don't think that's exactly the same problem on both sides.
Do you think that's something that only liberals have?
Because you'd be totally wrong about that.
Cognitive dissonance does not go by party affiliation.
It doesn't go by intelligence.
You are not protected from cognitive dissonance by intelligence, information, party affiliation, training, credentials, expertise.
Almost none of them help.
The cognitive dissonance wouldn't even exist if you could reason your way past it.
All right.
I told a friend I made a Trump donation, almost fell on the floor laughing, saying I still don't get it.
So you had a friend fall on the floor laughing because you gave Trump a political donation.
Well, that's somebody who's having some, probably some problems.
But I would support your friend if your friend was simply Reacting to the fact that giving money to politicians is a bad idea.
I'm not big on donating to politics.
I feel like if a politician needs my money to win, they're doing something wrong.
Right?
Yeah, I wouldn't, no, I wouldn't, I would not donate to Vivek or anybody else.
No, donating, I think, donating made sense before social media.
Vivek is proving, as is RFK Jr., they're both proving, and Trump proved it before, you can get all the free attention you want.
There's no limit to how much free attention you can get.
Now, Vivek probably doesn't have the funding that he could, say, pay for a big rally.
Because rallies must be really expensive.
You've got to rent the venue and security and all that.
So, but does he need it?
I mean, that happens to be a thing that works really well for Trump, but Vivek doesn't need that.
He's doing great on earned media.
So, I just don't believe in giving money to politicians.
I just think they should do it without any money.
If you can't do it without any money, you probably shouldn't be running things where money is involved.
Now, if you have money, you should spend it, right?
Trump can get money.
He should absolutely spend it in smart ways.
But if you don't, I don't want to hold that against you.
Yeah, it's other people's money.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I think we've done what we can do for today, and I will talk to you. - Yeah.
