All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:25:10
Episode 2188 Scott Adams: Now You Can See The Machinery Behind The Politics & It Changes Everything
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's exactly what you need right now.
So if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that you don't even think are possible, all you need to do Just grab your cup or mug or glass, a tank or gel or cistern, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Now I'll go.
That's what I like.
That's what I like.
Boy, that's some good stuff.
Well, I hear there's some news today.
We'll be talking about that.
But while you're streaming in to watch this wonderful broadcast, here's some interesting things.
There was a new survey that found out that people think their jobs are bullshit.
I don't know if you knew that, but apparently those working in business and finance and sales were more than twice as likely to say their jobs were socially useless.
They think they go to work and their job has no point whatsoever to the world.
That is exactly what created the Dilbert comic.
It was my experience of going to work in corporations and seeing that there was nothing I ever did that made a difference to anybody's life.
By the time I was done, all of my work would be diluted into, you know, just nonsense.
Just none of it affected anybody.
And that's where the Dilbert comic was born.
So it's nice to know that there's some scientific basis to that.
But I hope those people change jobs.
All right.
There's a new Rasmussen poll.
Of course, we're going to be talking about the Trump indictment and the Biden crime family.
Of course.
And I'm going to cheer you up by the end of this broadcast.
You're going to start out feeling, oh my god, my country has fallen apart.
But it hasn't.
You're actually in pretty good shape.
I'll tell you why and I'll make you feel good by the end of this.
So don't leave.
But first, Rasmussen has a poll about trusted media.
Turns out Fox News has taken a hit.
Tucker Carlson was more credible than the network itself.
So when they lost Tucker Carlson, their credibility went down a little bit.
So only 23% of likely U.S.
voters trust Fox News the most, followed by MSNBC.
Now remember, this isn't just conservatives, this is all voters.
So 23% for Fox News, 15% trust MSNBC the most, CNN's down to 14%, and Newsmax at 12.
Well, 7% say CNBC.
CNN is down at 14% and Newsmax at 12, well 7% say CNBC.
Then OAN and Newsmax are down below that.
Now that's how much people trust the news.
It's going to sound like everything I tell you today is bad news.
But when you see it all together, it's going to reverse.
It's going to be the weirdest thing.
It's going to be like an optical illusion, where, you know, from one angle everything looks bad, and you just move a little bit and it changes what it looks like.
You just watch.
All right, so I've suggested That a good TV show would be a show in which people learn the real news for the first time about politics.
Now I jokingly said it'd be funny to see Democrats being exposed to actually real news in context for the first time.
And what would it do?
Don't you think their heads would explode?
Would you watch that all day long?
I would.
I would never get tired of that, watching people being explained, or having it explained to them, what they've missed on the news.
Now, to be fair, to be fair, you can do it with Republicans as well.
To be fair, right?
There are things that Republicans have a blind spot for, and they just don't see, if you don't watch certain kinds of media.
But, I think you would all agree with the following assessment.
Republican, this is a big generality, it doesn't apply to any specific person, but Republicans tend to know what the argument is on the other side.
They disagree with it, but they hear it because that's the dominant news is the other side.
At least there are more outlets, maybe not dominant, but there are more outlets covering the other news.
So they hear the other side.
And then they hear what you might call their side, and then they make a decision.
Usually they side with their side, like everybody.
But at least they've heard it.
I know it's a big generalization, but at least they've heard the other side.
It would be fascinating to see people find out for the first time that they never knew what the news was.
That the news organizations are not real.
And so I introduce to you my theme for today's live stream.
It appears that we're starting to see the machinery.
The machinery.
This week, the hood was lifted, and you no longer just heard that there was an engine under there.
You actually got to see it.
You actually got to see the engine.
That hasn't happened before.
Everything about the Biden crime family, maybe it's all legal.
I don't know.
It's entirely possible that everything that they did is completely legal.
But you got to see the machinery.
You got to see it.
Right?
What about the Trump indictment?
Does the Trump indictment look like a completely ordinary legal process?
No.
No.
It's because it's a pattern they've developed.
Now that it's a pattern, that whenever there's bad news for Biden, there's a new indictment for Trump, you can all see the pattern.
That's the machinery.
You know the entire machinery of the Biden crime family, which again, it might not even be a crime.
I don't know.
I mean, you know, maybe there's a fairer violation or something?
Maybe.
But it's entirely possible the whole thing is legal.
It's possible.
It's also entirely possible that we're going to see in real detail that the moves against Trump are only political and they're not really part of the real justice system as you know it.
You can see it all now.
You can see it all.
And in the next few months, you're going to watch something that will be glorious.
You're going to watch the internet dads, as I call them, the sort of responsible, believable, credible people on the internet, are just going to take the hood off of this fucking thing.
You are going to learn how to drive a stick shift from dad.
You know what I'm talking about?
I don't mean a specific dad, but the dads.
And again, I don't mean, they don't all have to be male.
I would throw Molly Hemingway in with the dads, and that's a compliment, meaning that anybody who can just see the whole system.
I'm talking about anybody who can open the hood and tell you how to change the oil, right?
So if that's men and women, let's not be sexist.
Miranda Devine, another good example.
But you're watching the emergence of the people who know what's happening, trying to explain it to you.
And we'll talk about that as we go.
So there's something really, really good happening That's disguised as something really, really bad happening.
I don't think I've ever been quite this optimistic about the country in several years.
I know it looks like it's the darkest before the dawn situation, doesn't it?
I mean, it looks like they're going to lock Trump up, the country is lost, right?
It looks exactly like that.
But here was the thing that you didn't see.
And it might be because The Democrats didn't see it.
I believe the Democrats had a blind spot.
And you know how, you know, Republicans can't quite fully understand what it's like to be a Democrat.
And I think, for example, the Republicans didn't fully understand how Democrats would react to Trump.
I think that was a little bit of a blind spot.
But likewise, I would say that the Democrats have gotten away with so much right in front of you, That they didn't know what too far looked like.
They just found out.
The latest round of Trump indictments are not the regular game.
You're now off the playing field.
You're actually standing with the spectators now.
If you get off the playing field and you start hanging out with the spectators, the spectators are now part of the game.
Right?
You just brought the country in.
We used to be watching, but now we're playing.
Now we're playing.
The game just started.
It's a new game.
The new game is, we're involved now.
The public's involved.
That's a whole new game.
Because we're going to start paying attention.
And you're going to get it explained to you By the internet dads, in a way that the media never allowed before.
Because before you just saw the news as it was packaged and presented to you.
But now there's an entire industry of people telling you what fuckery they're bringing.
And the industry of people telling you how they're lying to you is now as strong as the media itself.
And that wasn't here before.
Before the media could overwhelm any voice that was a critic.
Now the critics are as strong as the voices.
And you're going to see them rising.
You see it already.
You're seeing the rise of people who are done and people who will risk anything to fix it.
That's new.
People are going to go to the mat on this one.
So this is serious business.
But when serious business happens, Dad comes home.
And Dad is very much coming home.
And I don't mean Trump.
Although, you know, it could be Trump.
But Dad's coming home.
One way or another, Dad's coming home.
There's nothing that will stop it now.
Let's talk about what else has happened.
So I'd love to see that TV show where essentially it would almost be a campaign ad, but it would be a TV show.
Now it could be a live stream show with a regular time, but wouldn't you love, I mean honestly, wouldn't you love ordinary voters brought in and just say, just want you to listen to some context that you'd never heard before.
Do you know how reaction videos are big on the internet now, on YouTube?
You'll see, for example, a popular form of it is a, let's say, a young black man, maybe with a friend, who's listening to some 70s classic music that's outrageously good, and you hear a young person listening to a genre of music they're not familiar with, and they're hearing it for the first time, and you just see their eyes, like, oh my God!
Are you telling me that my grandfather had amazing music?
Like they're learning it for the first time?
Are you kidding?
Led Zeppelin, who are they?
Just imagine.
Imagine you're 19 or something, and you've never heard of Led Zeppelin.
And somebody says, hey, put on the headphones, see what you think.
And you just hear it for the first time.
That would be like watching a voter, just an ordinary citizen, Being told the actual news, the real news in context, for the first time.
Can you imagine what their face would look like?
It would be amazing!
And then I would finish it off.
Let's say, just for fun, that it's a Democrat who's the subject.
Again, you can do it with a Republican.
But let's say you're doing it with a Democrat.
And at the end of the episode, you've completely changed their understanding of the news.
But then, the last minute of the show, there's a little cap-off.
And the cap-off would be that prior to the beginning of the show, they had to give a DNA sample.
You see where I'm going?
And at the end of the show, the host tells them that they're related, they're descendants of slave owners.
Come on.
Come on.
It's the best show you've ever seen in your life.
Tell me you wouldn't watch that show.
Come on.
That would be the best show you ever saw in your life.
The last minute of the show.
Oh, and Bob, we have a little extra news for you.
While we were doing the show, we did a little research.
We found out that your great-great-great-grandfather, his name was Rooster Cornmire, and he owned 300 slaves.
Thanks for coming.
I'm glad that you were a part of our show.
Tune in tomorrow.
Would that be the best show?
Come on.
You would talk about that all week.
And it is there to be made.
How easy would it be to make that show?
It'd be an easy one.
The timing of the DNA thing might be hard.
All right.
So maybe we see something like that.
That would be a case of entertainment solving.
For the news.
All right.
And let me give you an example of how bad things are.
I tweeted this, I think, two days ago.
So listen to the tweet, and then I'm going to tell you how many views it got, which is a measure of its popularity.
So I tweeted this.
My condolences to the half of the country that doesn't know the biggest story in American politics by far, Broke today.
That was the Biden-Devin Archer stuff.
The biggest story in American politics by far broke today, which was the other day.
This is what they prepped you for.
It worked.
When I say prepped you for, I mean the news has been getting you ready for something.
And so the biggest news in I would say in my entire lifetime of politics, it's by far the biggest news.
The Biden crime family being completely exposed in terms of the machinery.
We'll talk about that.
Jonathan Turley has a good take on that.
But how many people do you think viewed that, which would be a Which would be a proxy for how many times it was retweeted.
Now I've got a million followers on Twitter.
A really solid tweet, if I really hit a nerve, I can get 50,000 people to view it.
Which is a lot.
If I really hit it out of the park, and it's happened a few times, I can get a million people to view a tweet.
A million people.
How many do you think viewed this one so far?
I think it's pushing 10 or 11 million.
There's things around 10 million now.
10 million people agreed with the fact that it was the biggest news in the country and that half of the country wouldn't even see it.
Wouldn't even know it happened.
Oh, it's up to 11.5.
11.5 million people agreed with that.
Now, that's an indication of something that they don't agree with just with their brain.
Do you understand that?
Most of my tweets, if I get, you know, 20, 50,000 people agree with it, or even see it, then I would say, oh, intellectually, like on an intellectual level, they said, okay, one plus one is two.
Yeah, I agree with that.
One plus one is two.
That's not this.
This is something that people are feeling.
In every part of their body.
This goes down to the particle level.
They feel that the biggest thing in the country happened and that the bad guys are actually so good at hiding the news that they're gonna hide it from half of the country.
And it works.
And we're watching it right in front of you.
Now remember the theme.
The theme is watching the, you know, opening the hood and actually seeing the machinery.
That's 11.5 million people who saw the machinery.
They can see that we've developed a news business whose job it is to prevent half of the country from seeing the news.
That's not a joke.
The news industry, the biggest part of it, their purpose now is to prevent you from seeing the news.
And you know that now.
You maybe didn't know that before.
But the hood just lifted, Dad is standing next to you, and Dad is showing you where the oil goes.
We don't have a news business, we have a news concealment business.
I'm not sure if it was always that way, but we were not looking under the hood before.
Before I could hear the engine, and I could get in my car, and I could drive, so I was pretty sure there was an engine in there.
But this is different.
This is new.
This is dad standing next to you and lifting the hood and pointing to where the oil goes.
And he just pointed and told you, the news business is the opposite of what you thought it was.
You thought it was to give you news.
It may have been at one point, but it's definitely not that now.
And you can see it in a way that your own observation confirms it.
You don't have to listen to me explain it to you.
You don't need to read an article.
You just have to lift the hood and have somebody point to it.
And that just happened.
I just lifted the hood and pointed to it.
And you saw it.
It won't be the only machinery you see today.
This is going deeper.
Come with me.
Down the rabbit hole.
Alright.
There is a lot of good news disguised as bad news, and I would say the way to explain this is that because the Democrats didn't understand, and can't understand really, the opposite side of the political world, just as they don't understand Democrats fully, right?
People don't understand themselves.
The problem is that the left didn't know where the line was.
What is too far?
Because you know when things go too far, all the rules change.
You get that, right?
If we're in a normal game, we're going to play normal rules.
You might try cheating a little bit, but somebody will catch you, get you back on air.
Mostly the rules.
But once you go beyond the game, and you've gone beyond the rules of the game, you're trying to put, let's say for example, trying to jail your political opponent for free speech.
Well, let's just use that as an example.
That would be too far.
Once you reach the too far stage, all the rules change.
And nobody knows what happens next.
Except me.
And I'm going to tell you.
Because it's pretty clear at this point.
The future is becoming very clear.
And I can't even imagine it would be different than what we can see at this point.
And I'll tell you as we go.
Yeah.
But we have clearly gone... Let me test your feelings.
Answer this from your feelings, not from your brain.
Turn your brain off for a moment.
Do you feel that the latest indictments against Trump are too far?
How many would say that's too far?
Right?
Yeah.
Now, I felt a little bit like that when, you know, in prior, prior indictments, etc.
I thought that went too far with the fake impeachments and stuff.
But this does feel different.
This feels, let me tell you why it feels different.
The current polling The current polling for Trump shows he has a dominant, really probably insurmountable lead in the primary.
Correct?
So far?
Likewise, this week we also saw the Biden crime family completely exposed.
And while I don't think that means anybody's going to jail, because it just doesn't work that way, can you imagine getting into the general election with Trump having that in his toolbox?
You wouldn't have to talk about anything else.
He would just describe the Biden crime family thing until you couldn't think about anything else.
In my opinion, Biden has no chance of re-election, and for all practical purposes, he's off the field.
He's off the field.
You know what's more interesting?
So is DeSantis.
DeSantis was taken off the field by this week.
And the reason is that as soon as this news came out of this new set of indictments, Vivek Ramaswamy, and I'm not positive of this, I could use a fact check on this.
I think he did it, just give me, this is my impression, so I'll take a fact check on this.
It looked to me like he turned on the camera, Stood in front of it and for 10 minutes spoke perfectly about how he would pardon Trump for this and other things, and that it's purely political, and that this is too far, this is the end.
Now, when you see somebody who can just turn on a camera and give you 10 minutes of the best Perfectly engineered and composed speech that's right on target.
It hits the moment perfectly.
And here's the best part.
He's been nailing his campaign for a week.
How many months has he been campaigning?
Do you remember the mistakes he's made?
None.
None.
Do you remember the awesome things he's done during that time?
A whole bunch of things.
Going on CNN.
He's fought against the enemies.
He's ripping up the podcasting world.
Even Trump is running against him.
And even Trump had to say, yeah, he's doing a great job.
Right?
Vivek is killing it.
But here's the other thing he killed.
DeSantis.
Because he created a moment of contrast like you've never seen so far.
And here's the way I would put it.
If Trump goes down for this, or he's taken off the field, the Republicans are not going to be looking for a memo.
They're going to be looking for a sword.
Vivek is a sword.
He's a sword.
DeSantis also responded with a text message that looked like a corporate memo.
Nobody wants the corporate memo.
You want the sword.
Vivek said he'll bring the sword.
He's not just gonna...
Free the people who are being, as many of us believe, unfairly targeted.
January 6th people as well as Trump.
He's not only going to protect them, he's going to take a sword and pull up from the roots every corrupt entity in the United States from the Education Department or whatever it is, to Department of Justice, FBI.
That takes DeSantis right out of the game.
Do you agree?
Let me just check your temperature.
Biden is off the field and so is DeSantis.
And that happened yesterday.
That happened yesterday.
Do you think anybody noticed?
The news won't report it.
Do you know why the news won't report it?
Because the news is not in the business of telling you what's true or useful.
They're in the business of concealing the news from you.
So they're not going to tell you that yesterday both Biden and DeSantis became unviable candidates.
There are two in the race right now.
Maybe there'll be a Newsom.
I mean, if Newsom comes in, you'll be a competitor.
But right now it's down to Trump and Vivek.
Because there isn't any way the Republicans are going to lose this one.
They're not going to let it happen.
Because this one is personal.
This is not politics anymore.
If they take Trump out, they're taking his voters out.
And they're not ready for that.
They might be ready to lose a political campaign.
Yeah, that's America.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
But they're not ready to be targeted themselves.
And when they look at the January 6th people, they say, Oh, that could have been me.
How many of you have said to yourself, you know, I wasn't inclined to go to that January 6th, but I easily could have been there, and I easily could have been walking through the Rotunda, and I easily could be in jail right now for expressing my political preferences in a physical form.
Yeah.
You feel this like it's you.
That's not the same.
That is not politics.
When you feel it like it's you, You act like it's you.
You're gonna show up.
You might get 100% voting from Republicans this year.
What's it normally?
60%?
Well, what would be a normal, like a good year?
65% of registered voters, or adults maybe, voting?
Is that about it?
You might see something like you've never seen before.
Oh, it's even lower.
It's like 55%.
You might see something you've never seen.
I'll even go further, that Trump could possibly win the black vote.
Now that sounds stupid, doesn't it?
Like, that's too far?
I'd like you all to disagree with me really solidly before I give you my argument.
Everybody disagree, please.
Please disagree, it's not possible, he's Republican, he's been branded a racist, blah blah blah, not possible.
Alright, here's the argument.
Suppose Trump says, The justice system is broken.
It's broken for you, Black America, and it's broken even for me.
I'll fix it for both of you.
Here's what I'm gonna do for you, and here's what I'm gonna do for everybody else.
You're right.
You know, I gotta admit, I really didn't think the justice system was as broken as I've been hearing for years.
But Black America, let me tell you this, I commit to fixing this.
I don't believe this system could be working for you.
If it's not working for me, there's no way it's working for you.
Let's figure out what's wrong, let's take it down by the roots, and let's fix this.
Now, that might all be bullshit, right?
Because what exactly are you going to do?
You know, you need some details.
But he could actually sell this as having a common enemy.
He could do a common enemy.
And he could sell it.
Do you know who else could sell that message?
Do you know who else could sell that message?
Give me a-- who else could sell that message?
Well, you know, Vivek could, if you imagine he's the vice president, he could sell anything.
But only Trump.
Trump is the only politician... No.
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
Trump is the only one in the world.
Trump is the only one in the world who could sell that message, that he is on the same side with the young black men in the streets who have a problem with law enforcement.
He could sell it.
There's nobody else who could sell it.
RFK?
No, no, no, no.
RFK couldn't sell it.
Vivek?
I doubt it.
I mean, he's great, but I don't think he could sell it.
Only Trump could sell that.
You would need the greatest salesperson in the history of America, but you haven't.
That would be Trump.
All right.
Let's give you a Biden Crime Family Update, this is the Jonathan Turley quote.
Alright, so this is from a tweet, Jonathan Turley, which if you're not following Jonathan Turley as you're trying to navigate through these news stories, you're really missing a lot.
I think the people you need to be following are Mike Cernovich is required.
That's just required.
You've got to follow Cernovich.
When stuff like this happens, follow Cernovich.
You've got to have your Jonathan Turles, Dershowitz might be on vacation, but when he's back, follow him.
Watch your Elon Musk, your David Sachs.
I could name ten more, but you know how to watch.
Your Molly Hemingways, your Miranda Devines.
They're the ones you've got to follow.
You've got to follow them if you want to know what's going on.
All right, so Jonathan Turley says, in DC, influence peddling is an art form and the Bidens are its Rembrandts.
Demands are conveyed through as few people as possible.
That is how it is done.
Not on the speakerphone in the middle of Cafe Milano while ordering more breadsticks.
Jonathan Turley is an internet dad.
He's not just an attorney who's got some points of view that are fun to watch.
He's dad.
He actually just opened the hood and pointed to where the oil goes, right?
He described to you the actual machinery of how people can be in possibly a completely legal form doing things you wish they weren't doing.
You can see the machinery.
Elon Musk Tweeting about, this is sort of a related topic, I guess there's some kind of anti-hate speech bill.
Is Congress doing something like that?
Some kind of anti-hate speech?
Anyway, Musk was tweeting about it and he said this, you can tell it's propaganda when they choose terms that are impossible to invert.
Who is pro-hate speech?
Right?
So if they do an anti-hate speech bill, and you're on the other side, they turn you into the pro-hate speech?
He says that's the tell for propaganda.
And then he says, their actual goals have nothing to do with hate speech, and everything to do with censorship of public dialogue.
That's an internet dad, who's lifting up the hood, and pointing to where the oil goes.
He's telling you the machinery.
The machinery is when they use this term, a non-reversible term, you are not having a political conversation, somebody's trying to screw you, and your dad just told you to watch out for that.
Again, dads don't have to be women in this context.
All right.
Here's what's different, and I'm not sure if I said this or I started to say it earlier.
Now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, he's also not running against anybody.
Because Biden can't possibly be a candidate.
Well, he's not a viable candidate in the sense that he couldn't win at this point against Trump.
It wouldn't be close.
Now, polls, polls, polls.
Don't tell me the polls.
I don't want to hear about the polls.
You have not seen Trump take his big old pit bull jaw and tweet about it and true thing about it, I mean, bite on it yet.
At the moment, Houston Because the whole half of the country can ignore him and anything they want.
But once he's on the stage, imagine him on a debate stage with Biden.
Just hold that in your head.
If you're wondering if Biden is still viable, just close your eyes for a minute.
Imagine it's every month in the future.
And let's imagine it's just Trump and just Biden on the stage.
And that's after we know everything about the so-called Biden crime family and Hunter Biden.
Just imagine it.
Who wins?
Biden would be up there mumbling or maybe they'd juice him up with some Adderall or whatever the hell they're giving him.
Maybe he would be coherent for a little while.
But there's no way Trump loses that debate.
He's going to destroy.
He's going to destroy the whole Biden family.
And let me be clear, I don't think Trump is going to just take out Joe Biden.
I think the whole Biden situation is going to look pretty bad.
Now, because Trump is the dominant candidate on the Republican side, and also because he's basically running almost unopposed, in my mind, and I would imagine some of you are starting to think the same way, it's no longer about trying to stop a candidate from getting a little foothold in a race.
If they had done these indictments much earlier, When people were still talking about who's going to run besides Trump, and you know, you're just forming your opinions.
If they'd gotten him early, and they had succeeded, that might have been a good play.
But they waited too long.
By waiting until after the Biden crime family stuff comes out, the Devon Archer testimony, by waiting that long, they guaranteed that Trump was no longer one of the people running for president, But rather, in your mind, he's already the president.
The next president.
Meaning that it's hard for me to imagine any outcome except that.
Unless they stop him with a legal trick.
So now it doesn't feel like they're just trying to stymie some candidate, one of many.
Now it feels like they're coming for the king.
Doesn't it?
Now they're coming for the king.
If you come for the king, you better finish him off.
Because he's going to be really angry.
He's going to be really, really angry.
And I don't know what he does in his normal world.
I mean, that could be pretty interesting to watch on its own.
But if you actually try to put him in jail, and you come close, and by the way, one of the charges has a potential death penalty.
Did you know that?
One of the charges has a potential death penalty.
So one of the new charges about January 6th, if you add on top of it that people died because of his actions, you could make the argument that people did die and therefore it's because of his actions, Ashley Babbitt, etc.
If you made that argument, you could actually put him in jeopardy of the death penalty.
For free speech.
For free speech.
The death penalty.
Just think about that.
The death penalty.
Mary Lou, I just told you Ashley Babbitt died.
That's all it requires.
It doesn't require that the deaths be police officers, and it doesn't require that they die the same day.
If somebody died, and you can just make the argument because of it, that might be enough.
Now, Joel Pollack pointed this out in Breitbart, that the death penalty is on the table.
Now imagine you're Trump, and you're the presumptive next president.
At this point I call him the presumptive next president.
I'm still backing Vivek, but I also can't ignore the polls.
If they come for the presumptive president with bullshit, and it includes a potential for the death penalty, I don't think they realize how much too far it looks like.
That's so far beyond too far that you can barely hold it in your head.
It almost makes your head explode.
It's way too far.
And it changes everything.
All right.
So here, I'm no lawyer, so I'll give you just a basic idea of what he's being indicted for, the latest ones.
The topic is the January 6th stuff.
So here in the Elon Musk way, let me explain the following.
New York Times says that Trump is being indicted for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Overturn the election.
Wall Street Journal, reporting on the same story, says that he's being indicted for his attempts to reverse, reverse the election.
Which one is propaganda and which one is news?
Overturn or reverse?
Do they sound like synonyms?
The way you feel about them, just the same.
Just two words that mean about the same.
Overturn.
Reverse.
Both the same, right?
No.
Overturn.
You tell me if I'm wrong.
You hear overturn and you think that the person who's trying to overturn it is the bad guy.
Am I right?
The overturner is the bad person.
You just assume it.
It's just baked into the word.
Now let's say that somebody was trying to reverse something.
If you're somebody who's trying to reverse something, are you the bad guy or the good guy?
You might be the good guy.
It's unstated.
So if you say that he tried to reverse it, you've reported the news, and I'd like to give Wall Street Journal a little ovation.
A little ovation for the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal reported the news.
That's the news.
He tried to reverse an outcome.
Overturn is propaganda, right?
So I'm doing what Elon Musk did for you, which is Elon Musk showed you the machinery, and now I'm showing you the machinery as well.
Overturn is not a news organization word.
That's somebody who's trying to conceal from you the news.
They're trying to conceal from you that you ever had an argument or a point.
Reverse doesn't tell you anything except somebody had an intention of things going a different way.
Very different.
So look for the choice of words in the headlines and you can tell who's telling you the news.
Or even trying to tell you the news.
And who's trying to conceal the news from you.
Very clear.
Very clear.
And I would say that the news as we're learning it is also revealing the networks of bad people, the bad actors.
Because as you watch the indictments and also the defense of the Biden crime family, given that you know for sure that the Biden crime family stuff is real, there's nobody who doubts that, right?
Again, we don't know what's illegal.
Don't know what's illegal.
I don't even have an opinion on it.
But you can see the machinery.
The machinery is now completely clear.
So, if you're looking at that, Well, you're certainly in a lot better shape than you were in understanding what's going on.
All right, so I would say that Trump expressed free speech and they're trying to assassinate him with illegal means.
To me, this looks like an assassination.
I think Cernovich said the same thing.
Do you get the sense?
This doesn't feel like a legal action, and it doesn't feel like a political action.
With the death penalty on the table, it feels like an assassination attempt.
Now, I don't think they expect a death penalty, but they know what they're doing, and they would certainly be aware of all the ramifications, at least the legal people would.
Alright, so the things that Trump did was he followed lawyers' advice, even though the lawyers were giving him a long shot advice.
Well, you've got a shot at this.
Also, by the way, you should be following Joel Pollack.
I think he has actually the best takes on this topic so far.
I should have mentioned him in the first list.
Because Joel has a legal background as well as a writer background.
So he's very quickly producing the takes that you haven't heard from anybody else yet.
So if you want to be like a day ahead of the, probably a full day ahead of the news process, follow Joel.
So, let's see.
We've got the death penalty on there for free speech and following his lawyer's advice.
What do you think would have happened in the, let's say, just play this through.
Let's say that Trump had prevailed and some alternative, you know, electors had been picked and they came out with the decision that Trump was the real president.
But other people said, no, there's something wrong with that process.
Really, Biden's a real president.
What happens next?
In our system, what happens next?
It goes to the Supreme Court, right?
Am I wrong about that?
Doesn't the Supreme Court say, all right, let's take a look at it.
And then the Supreme Court would decide what's legal and what's not legal.
And then we would regroup.
We would regroup under that understanding, and then there would be a decision, which probably would have picked who the president was.
Would that be a civil war?
Why would you have a civil war?
You have the Supreme Court for exactly that.
That's maybe an appellate court first.
But we have a system that sorts out exactly that sort of thing.
Why didn't we let the system do it?
Why do we have to arrest somebody, or arrest lots of people I guess, why do we have to arrest people or indict them for something that's normal business that the Supreme Court works out in the normal course of things?
People disagreeing on what is the legal process is just normal business.
The fact that it happened to be Trump and it happened to be a presidential election does not take it from a normal amount of business to some crime.
It's not a crime to do something that is gray area enough that you need a Supreme Court to tell you what was true and what wasn't.
All right.
But basically, following a lawyer's advice, it was probably bad advice, but if you follow a lawyer's advice, typically that's enough to make it seem like you're not the criminal.
At worst, you took some bad advice, usually.
And the free speech argument, to me that's a slam dunk.
If you can put him in jail or possibly execute Trump for saying what he thinks is true, which is that he believed that the election was rigged, We're in bad shape.
Now, have you seen anybody in the news refer to the latest indictments, at least the free speech part, where they say that the claim is that Trump knew his claims about the election were a lie.
How would they know that?
How does the legal system prove what Trump thinks in his private thoughts?
Can they do that?
I suppose if there were a body of evidence where he talked about it with different people, sure.
But is there anything like that?
Is there any body of evidence where he said, you know, I don't believe anything I'm saying, but I'm going to say it anyway.
No.
There is one documented thing where there was a specific claim about election irregularity among a sea of different claims.
There was one specific one that he reportedly didn't think was likely to be true.
But he didn't know.
He just thought, maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
But that doesn't mean he didn't think the whole system was rigged in some way.
Now, how many of you remember, I guess it was a few years ago, when I introduced the idea that when somebody's trying to mind read, in other words, imagine what somebody else is thinking, that that's never valid?
How many of you remember hearing for the first time from me this thing called mind reading in politics?
And you never really noticed it before, did you?
It's like before you didn't notice they were doing it, but somehow it seemed valid.
It just seemed like what people do.
But as soon as I told you people can't read minds, so if your entire argument depends on knowing what somebody's thinking, and worse, and worse, not only do you imagine you know what they're thinking, But you imagine what they're thinking is an absurdity and then you blame them for it.
Right?
Do you think that Trump would have tried to reverse the election if he genuinely believed the outcome was valid?
Do you think he would?
How the hell would any of us know?
We don't know.
I doubt it.
To me, that seems very unlikely.
But I know that whether I believed he would or believed he wouldn't, I wouldn't want him to go to jail for what I imagine, literally imagine, is in a stranger's head.
Well, he's not a stranger, but in somebody else's head.
We don't have a country where you should go to jail because strangers imagined what you were thinking.
No, that's not good enough.
Strangers cannot imagine what you're thinking and send you to jail.
But that's what it looked like.
And now we have this situation where Trump is literally being at risk of being, well, really at risk of being executed.
He's at risk of being executed because Democrats are trying to tell you they can read his thoughts.
Is that an exaggeration on my part?
Did I just exaggerate?
I'm going to say it again.
You tell me if this is hyperbole or exaggeration.
There is a risk of execution in the charges.
Yes or no?
There's a risk of execution.
Yes.
And they're telling you that the main thing you would have to believe, the main thing, the most important part to believe that he should be put in jail or executed, the most important part is what he was thinking, his intentions.
And there's no documentation and there are no eyewitnesses to suggest that he thought the election was fair but decided he would lie about it.
None.
You have to completely believe that you can read his thoughts for this to be wrong.
You have to believe that.
Now, before I told you that mind reading wasn't a thing, and yet it's a widespread phenomenon, you didn't have a framework for which this new thing could easily be mapped onto.
The moment people saw these charges, People said, that's mind reading.
In other words, I created a mental frame that was available for you, that the moment this happened, you said, ah, that's one of those.
And as soon as you could put it on that frame, that mind reading frame, then suddenly everything made sense to you, didn't it?
In other words, I lifted up the hood, I pointed to the engine, and I showed you where the oil goes in.
I'm showing you the machinery.
The machinery is one side pretends they can mind read and hopes you don't notice.
That's the machinery.
That's the bad, bad acting.
That's the way it's done.
So, Musk is telling you how to spot propaganda.
Turley is telling you how to spot this crime family activity.
I'm telling you how to spot mind reading.
Do you see the pattern?
The internet dads are not gonna let this happen.
We're not gonna let it happen.
So while you think the worst-case scenario looks like it's about to happen, it does look like the worst-case scenario.
The thing you're missing is that they went too far.
Too far changes all the rules.
Too far activates the dads.
And when the dads enter, you don't know what that's going to do yet.
The dads are now strong enough to move the needle.
And they are.
You're watching it happen.
So watch for this pattern as you see it.
As you watch the news coverage, you'll see some pundits who are just foolish idiots, right?
Republican and Democrats.
You're gonna see the pundits who are just like, fa-fa-fa-fa, you know, talking point.
I'm not talking about any of the talking point people.
They're not the dads.
They're just clowns.
They're just clowns.
Ignore the clowns.
Who just are, oh, my side, my side.
Just a clown.
Look at the people who clearly know how to take a different position if it's warranted.
Those are the only ones you should listen to.
This is why your Mike Cernovich's are worth gold.
Because you know he'll take the position that's unpopular, and he does, when he thinks the facts go that way.
That's why you listen to him.
Because you know he's not going to be just in the bag for somebody.
Right?
Same with Turley, same with Musk.
They're not in the bag for anybody.
They're just trying to show you the engine.
They're just pulling up the hood.
They're just showing you where the oil goes.
That's it.
You get to do what you want.
You can put your oil in your car or not put your oil in your car, but you know where it goes now.
You know where it goes now.
They're showing you.
All right.
So also, Joel Pollack points out that there might be a weird double jeopardy thing happening with Trump.
So Trump was impeached for, I'm not going to do a good job of explaining this, so I'll refer you to Breitbart and look for Joel's article, or you can see the retweet in my Twitter feed.
The argument is that our system does not allow double jeopardy.
So if there had been a federal case against Trump for the same crimes...
You wouldn't be able to charge him a second time, no matter if he had been innocent or not found guilty the first time.
So our system does not allow you to be tried twice for the same federal crime anyway.
If there was a federal and a state crime, then that would still be allowed.
But as Joel points out, And here's where I'm not going to do as good a job of explaining it.
So I'll just give you the idiot's non-lawyer view.
That the impeachment is a process similar enough, I hope I'm close on this, is a process similar enough to a legal process that you might need the Supreme Court to tell you if there were two trials.
Which is pretty interesting.
It's entirely possible that double jeopardy would be the reason these get thrown out.
It's like we've already shown the evidence, we've done it in, you know, there were risks of the outcomes, very similar, not the same, but in some ways similar standard of collecting information and showing it to everybody.
Now, of course, it's not as rigorous as a regular court situation, which would be far more fair and better.
But it might be close enough that, let's say, a Supreme Court would look at it and say, you know, you just can't do this to the same person over and over.
And I would have some sympathy for that.
In fact, I think I would have some sympathy for that if it happened to Biden or anybody else.
Because there's a reason that double jeopardy is such an important part of our system.
The reason is that bad people can abuse the ability to just, you know, keep trying somebody over and over and it wouldn't be fair by anybody's sense of fairness.
So, this will be really interesting.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Well, in Let's see.
In other news, a study came out that said that big companies, they have high ESG scores.
In other words, they're the ones who are good on environmental, social, and governance issues, diversity especially.
But in terms of the environmental part, the companies with high ESG scores pollute about the same as everybody else.
In other words, ESG is complete bullshit.
That's right.
Lift up the hood, point to the engine, show you where the oil goes in.
ESG was never real.
ESG was always bullshit.
It could only be bullshit.
It never had the possibility of being anything but bullshit.
It was always a power play.
It was always about somebody thought they could collect power by, you know, being the champion of ESG.
Some people thought they could get jobs because what would be easier than being the manager of ESG?
I mean, really?
It's barely a real job.
Harking back to the first thing I read to you about people realizing that their jobs don't have real meaning.
Just think about that.
There are a whole bunch of people who think that their job, the thing they do every day for money, doesn't have any good purpose in the world.
How would you like to be the head of the ESG process in your company?
Feel good about that?
Do you go home every day and say, well I killed it today?
No.
Because if you're the head of the ESG department, do you know what your real job is?
To conceal what your company is doing.
Just like the news.
The ESG is not about making your company better at ESG.
It's about figuring out how they can look better.
Have you ever worked for a corporation?
No corporation cares as much about doing right as looking right.
Because if they can look right, they're kind of done with that problem, right?
Then they can go make some money.
So they need to look right, they don't need to be right.
And anybody who had even a little bit of corporate experience knew that the minute ESG became this exterior, let's say, from the outside thing that was layered onto companies, and as long as they were required to do it, You knew it was going to be bullshit.
Why?
Because 100% of things that have that quality, something from the outside that's imposed, causes people in corporations to act like criminals.
Because they didn't ask for it, they don't like it, they probably don't think it's a good idea.
In that situation, you just try to make it look like you were pretending to play along.
It's just about playing along.
It never had a real benefit or even a potential for one.
And it was clear that people would try to monetize it.
BlackRock would try to make it their brand.
And it was also clear that it would fail on its own merits.
Of course it would.
Because, and this study is the beginning of what you'll see, I believe somebody said that Philip Morris had a better ESG score than Tesla.
I don't know if that's true, but it's within the family of things that are true, meaning that if Tesla has a bad ESG score, what are you going to do?
That does show that the system is not designed to do what they say it's designed to do.
It's a bunch of people chasing money, chasing power, and not understanding how anything in the real world works.
You cannot Impose ESG or anything like it on a real company and expect to get a good outcome.
That's not a thing.
You can't do it.
It's not about how well they implemented it.
It's not about their good intentions.
It just can't be done.
And they could have asked me.
If they had said in the beginning, hey, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, What do you think would happen if we took three unrelated things and put them together?
Environment, social things, and diversity.
What do you think is the likely outcome of putting environment and diversity into the same package, and then putting somebody in charge of it, and then saying that the companies have to do it or else?
What do you think?
Hey, Dilberg guy, give me a prediction.
Well, what I would predict is it would go exactly the way it is.
That you would wait a little while and everybody would bow to it.
Ooh, ESG!
Because corporations want to first play along.
Oh, play along!
Oh, I love your ESG!
I'm so ESG!
I'm way more ESG than you are!
And then eventually, as it becomes more and more ridiculous and absurd, as the As the internet dads start to talk about it, and the dads say, you know, that ESG isn't bothering me much, but it's bullshit.
But then it starts bothering you.
Then it starts affecting your portfolio.
Then you see it's distorting the whole country.
And then you see that your son can't get a job at that corporation.
Huh.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
And now it's real.
As soon as ESG mattered, and it wasn't just bullshit that people talked about, as long as it was just bullshit people talked about, everybody's in favor of it.
Oh, I love that bullshit.
Can you give me another bowl of bullshit?
I love it.
In fact, I love it more than you do.
You're probably a racist.
Yeah.
Why do you hate the country?
Why do you hate the world?
I like good environments and diversity and equity.
Eat that bullshit!
But as time goes by, you have to live the bullshit.
You gotta live it.
Somebody doesn't get a job.
Company can't do something that makes sense.
Tesla gets a lower grade than Philip Morris.
And you realize, how much money and time and energy are we spending on bullshit?
And then the internet dads come in and say, you know what?
How would you like your son to be able to get a job, or your daughter, based on their qualifications?
How about that?
And people go, oh, that's not bad.
Or how about we, you know, We do as good as we can on the environment, but we don't act as if we can compare two companies on their environmental record.
Because, you know, unless one is disgusting, you really can't pick two companies and tell me which one's better for the environment.
I don't know.
Do you think anybody can measure that?
Because they'd have to measure your entire supply chain.
Just think about this from a data perspective.
You're trying to figure out what company Is better on ESG.
So you look at how much they pollute, right?
Obvious.
How much CO2 they're giving out, you know, or are they putting anything in the water?
So that's good.
So far.
But what about all their suppliers?
What about the suppliers?
Suppose the company isn't doing any big polluting, but they can't make their product without getting materials from the biggest polluters in the world.
How do you measure it?
Do you say to yourself, well, that's really the other companies, so we'll give them an ESG score, but, you know, that's different than this company who's not doing any real polluting.
Is it?
Is that different?
If the only reason that product is made in China and they're, you know, dumping crap into their own water supply, if the only reason China made that product is to put it as a component of yours, why isn't that your problem?
So the point is, ESG could never be measured from the start.
From the start, it couldn't be measured.
Anybody disagree?
I did, you know, my job in corporations was mostly trying to figure out what was real by looking at the data.
And what I discovered is the data never tells you what's real.
You end up making an assumption about what data you think is valid, and it's the assumption.
That drives the decisions.
It's not the data.
First you assume a bunch of stuff, and then you gather data that falls under the umbrella of your assumptions.
And then your assumptions plus the data, which of course just supports the assumptions, is given to management.
And management says, oh, it looks like you did an analysis, because you've got some assumptions.
You need those.
You've got some data.
You did some analysis.
You wrote it up.
I guess that's an analysis.
So sign off approved.
But your assumptions...
Or what drove the decision, not the data.
So did you ever think that ESG is something you can measure and then compare to another company?
How many of you thought that was ever a thing?
Admit it.
How many of you thought that ESG, the environmental part, could be measured, even in a real general sense, so you could tell which company was better than another company?
Now, nobody with actual experience in the world Nobody believes that you could quantify or measure that stuff.
Nobody.
Nobody who's done that kind of work.
Nobody who's been involved in data.
Nobody who's been involved in economics.
Nobody with any business experience whatsoever believed that you could measure that stuff.
And if you can't measure it accurately in a way that everybody agrees, what do you do instead?
What's your fallback?
You're a big corporation.
It's your job.
You've got to get paid.
You've got to do a thing.
They told you to do a thing.
You've got to do the thing.
But it can't be done.
So what do you do when you're paid to do a thing that can't be done?
It's always the same.
You do not quit your job in protest.
Do you?
No.
That's what you should do.
Like if you're a real honorable person.
Okay, I am the director of ESG and honestly, I thought this would be a good job.
But the more I look into it, I can see that it's based on data and none of the data could be reliable because you can't really collect data on that sort of thing and compare it.
So therefore, I resign because this is a stupid and unproductive process.
I would like to tender my resignation.
Zero people have done that.
Well, maybe somebody has.
But, you know, only if they had another job lined up.
You know, real people don't do that.
Do you know what they do?
They lie.
Because you're paying them to lie.
You're paying the ESG director to lie to you.
Because he doesn't, or she doesn't, or they don't, have a choice.
Why do all the ESG directors have to lie to you with data?
There isn't another alternative.
They don't have, there's no second path.
They only have unreliable data, so they're going to dress it up and, you know, slap some paint on the pig and show you.
ESG has always been absurd and ridiculous.
But it had to run its course before the internet dads got interested and did what I'm doing for you right now.
There isn't a single person who's going to leave this livestream with the idea that ESG was a good idea.
Not one.
And all it took was... and how hard was it to convince you?
If you were a little on the fence or you weren't really thinking about it one way or another, which would be most of you.
Most of you were not putting any real thought into ESG.
But after this thing, how hard was it to convince you simply by lifting the lid, pointing to the engine, and showing you where the oil went in?
Every one of you said, yeah, you're right.
There's no way that could have ever been a good idea from the start.
Every one of you.
And that's what's different about what I'll call the dad view.
The dad view is the one that people go, ah, yeah, you're right.
It just ends all the conversation.
It's like, do you think that we should have fewer police and don't lock people up for crimes?
What do you think will happen?
Well, the dads are setting it out.
Maybe they say some things, but they're not too involved.
And then, of course, the city goes to complete hell.
Complete hell.
And then the internet dads get interested.
Theoretically.
And they come in and say, you know what?
I can fix this, but you're gonna have to hire more police.
And you're gonna have to, you know, stop letting people out of jail for multiple crimes.
And then what do people say?
Do they say, well, that's crazy.
Get out of here, you internet dads, who might also be women.
Get out of here with your opinions.
No.
If your city is falling apart, you know, to crime, The internet does says, how about, you know, more police and, you know, fixes bail situation.
Everybody in the city goes, ah, okay, we'll try your way.
Do we have to get rid of Karen?
Her actual name was Karen.
All right.
Here's another thing I'd like to ask, and tell me if I said this on the live stream yesterday.
I can't remember if I said this on the man cave, which is a separate live stream.
Remember we heard that the Burisma prosecutor being fired or being removed with Biden's push Remember we heard that that was all legal and copacetic because the other countries also wanted that prosecutor gone.
Do you remember that?
Did I talk about this yesterday?
Because if I did, I'm going to talk about it again.
Did you ever say to yourself, who are those other countries and which member of the country?
Yeah, I think I did talk about it, but I'm going to do it again.
I'd like to see a little reporting on that, wouldn't you?
If the news business were in the job of giving you information, don't you think it'd be pretty easy to Google it, see who wrote about it, and find out exactly who?
Exactly who?
Was it the leaders of other countries?
Was it the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
Do you think the Prime Minister of Great Britain Was up to date on the issue of the Ukrainian prosecutor and Burisma.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe it was the Prime Minister of Great Britain was like, oh, you know, I've been doing a lot of thinking about that Ukrainian Prime Minister and that Burisma situation.
Because that's what the news, the news, the news told you that the other countries were begging for this.
Do you think it might have been?
That Biden's and Obama's appointed diplomats were simply asked to tell their country to agree with them.
Do you think if we said to the diplomat, hey, go to somebody in your country who's got some government job and tell them that this prosecutor guy they've never heard of in this country they don't care about, that America really says he's dirty and we've got to get rid of him.
See if we can get some agreement from New Zealand.
I'm just making up New Zealand.
And then somebody in New Zealand's, I don't know, Department of whatever, says, all right, well, I don't know anything about this Ukraine, Burisma, prosecutor situation, but you sound pretty convincing, so sure, I'll sign off on it.
Yeah, you can tell New Zealand wants him gone too.
In the real world, in the real world that you live in, do you believe there were multiple other countries They were engaged in the question of the Ukrainian prosecutor and Burisma, specifically Burisma.
Do you think so?
Because we were all told that.
We were all told that this, and therefore it's no story.
No, this is no story.
Everybody wanted him gone.
The United States was just one of many.
He was just doing the bidding of the international community, has nothing to do with a Biden crime family thing.
It's everybody, everybody wanted him gone.
That was always bullshit.
I didn't think about it too much until recently.
But now you look at it and you say to yourself, seriously, do you think it was the prime ministers?
The presidents?
Presidents?
They were all engaged and came up with a big national opinion about this one prosecutor.
No.
There isn't the slightest chance that any other country was even interested.
Maybe one other or something.
Yeah.
So here's what it looks like.
It looks like the Biden crime family had enough power to make other countries agree on something they didn't care about one way or another.
So they're just like, yeah, whatever.
If you know what you're talking about, we'll just sign into that.
And that the news sold it to you as a universally wanted thing that that prosecutor would be removed.
But now we know that Burisma was actually asking for the prosecutor to be removed.
They believed they were paying the Bidens to get it done.
They asked them to get it done, and then they did it.
And then the news told you that everybody wanted it done, and you believed it.
Maybe not you, because you're smart.
But the Democrats believed it.
They still say it.
And even today, Even today, I don't believe you'll see any reporting about all those other countries that wanted that prosecutor removed.
Do you know why you won't see it?
Because if it were true, if that story would hold up, you don't think that would be all over the news?
You don't think CNN would say, look, we've got the Prime Minister of Great Britain, let's just ask.
Did you say you want this prosecutor removed and why?
Oh yes, I totally did.
He was bad for the country, bad for the world.
Even though it's just a prosecutor, I don't know, his impact was global, and so yeah, I really cared about that.
If that existed, you don't think you'd see it?
You don't think that dog is not barking so fucking loud that it's making you deaf?
No, that dog is not barking.
Lift up the hood.
Look at the engine.
I'm pointing to where the oil goes in.
Right?
I'm pointing to it.
You can see it.
If you didn't see that mechanism before, that all those other countries who wanted him gone were clearly fake from the start.
The other countries are as fake as the 50 people who signed the laptop letter saying, you can get 50 professionals to say anything.
They just have to be on your team.
That's it.
If they're on your side, you can sign anything.
Unfortunately, that's the world we live in.
Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite political figures.
Which is not to say I agree with everything she says, right?
That's not my game.
I'm not about agreeing with everybody.
But as just a personality and a force to be reckoned with.
And... I'm just gonna say it.
She's weirdly sexy.
Am I alone on that?
I've developed kind of a Marjorie Taylor Greene crush.
Does anybody else see it?
I'm getting nosy in the essence.
I don't know.
There's just something about her spunky personality that's very appealing.
So I'll just say it.
She's super sexy as a politician.
It's just my opinion.
You don't have to agree with me.
But she points out that there's a thing called expungement of impeachment.
Have you ever heard of that?
So in theory, let's say if Republicans, you know, captured the Congress back in the presidency, apparently there's a process where you can expunge a past impeachment.
So we might end up, this is really possible, with a second term of President Trump, and it could end with no impeachments.
No impeachments in the past or the future or the present.
That's actually possible.
And I would say it's the most likely outcome.
Do you know why?
Why is that the most likely outcome?
Because it would be the most entertaining outcome from the perspective of an observer who's not directly involved.
Ask Elon Musk.
He's already showed you that machinery.
This is the weirdest part of the engine.
You know, you open the engine, there's always at least one part that you're confused about, you know, unless you're a mechanic or something.
But there's always like, I don't even know what this part does.
What about catalytic converter?
What the hell is a catalytic converter?
I didn't know I had a catalytic, and I didn't know it needed to be turned into anything at all.
I could explain a spark plug.
Regulator.
Yeah, I could explain most parts.
I don't really know what a catalytic converter is.
I don't know.
So there are some things in the engine that are mysterious.
And one of them is, as Elon Musk points out, That reality does, for reasons I don't understand, like I don't understand the catalytic converter, reality does seem to be biased toward the most entertaining outcome.
It might just be confirmation bias, but if you use it as a predictor, Maybe that'll tell you something.
So let's use it as a predictor.
My prediction is a second Trump term is by far the most entertaining outcome and expungement of his impeachments by far the most entertaining outcome.
Let's see how it goes.
Let's see if the most entertaining one works out.
All right.
Scott went to school back when they actually taught science.
Yeah, he retains nothing.
Were we talking about science?
What kind of weird—the trolls got really weird this week.
So have you noticed the return of the five-follower troll?
The troll that literally just started their account yesterday.
So a troll came in yesterday to tell me that my political opinions were flawed and that's why I let my stepson die.
Somebody actually signed up for Twitter to come tell me personally that my political opinions are the same reason my stepson died.
Now, do you not wonder what is the motivation of such people?
What was that person thinking?
Because I don't know if these are real people.
I speculate that there's some number of people whose only job is to make you use Twitter less, or X less.
It feels like their only job is to discourage you from wanting to open your Twitter, or X, That's what it feels like.
And they pop up whenever the politics turns against the Democrats.
At least they pop up in my account.
So that kind of troll I hadn't seen for months.
And then suddenly, well there he is, just at exactly the time where I, you know, like I told you, I had one tweet that got, it's probably pushing 12 million views now.
You don't think that Democrats have noticed that a little less of me would be good for them?
Of course they have.
A little less of me would be a little bit better for Democrats.
And then suddenly a troll pops up who appears to be, their only purpose was to make me not want to use Twitter.
Didn't work, but it's what it looks like.
So I don't know if that's what's happening.
It could be just bad people attracted to, I don't know, energy.
They're just like energy moths.
Could be that.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you again my theme and ask you if I have accomplished it.
So the theme is that the events of this week Have opened the hood so that you can see the machinery.
And once you see the machinery, they can't do to you what they've been doing before.
They can only abuse you until you see how they do it.
Once you see the toolbox and the machinery, you say, ah, you're doing that?
Was he overturning an election?
Or was he reversing it because he thought it was bad in the first place?
Did Trump really think that or are you mind reading right now?
Are you mind reading?
Are you really anti-hate speech?
Or are you really just creating a situation where you're trying to make your enemies look like they're in favor of speech?
And is it a coincidence that we get a new indictment On Trump, at exactly the same time that they need to get rid of this Biden crime family Archer Devin story that's all over the news.
Oh, what a coincidence.
Open up the hood.
Look at the engine.
That's where the oil goes.
So that Concludes my live stream for YouTube today.
I think it's the best thing you've ever seen.
We'll probably change the direction of humanity itself.
But I'm done for today and I'll talk to you YouTube tomorrow.
I'm gonna go talk to the Locals Platform separately.
I give them all the good stuff.
I mean, this is good.
But wait till you, well, you won't see.
But the stuff I give to the Locals Platform, oh my god.
Insights, laughter, fellowship, I mean it's, it's just like better than anything.
But you wouldn't know if you're just over there on YouTube just trying to Get some free entertainment, but that's okay too.
That's okay too.
▲
Export Selection