Episode 2197 Scott Adams: All Kinds Of Weird News Today. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, Elon Musk, X.Com, Imitating Successful People, Wokeness Failing, Flash Shelton, Squatter Removal Service, Embrace & Amplify, Justice Thomas, Ukraine War Support Fading, President Biden, Hunter Biden, Robot Dog Warfare, Max Boot, Maui Wildfires, Election Integrity, 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.
There's never been a better time in the world to be alive.
And if you'd like to enjoy this experience in ways that humans have never even experienced ever anywhere in the history of humanity, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, hit of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the San Antonio Zip.
Go.
Alright, how did one of you know my childhood nickname?
Is there somebody out here who knows me?
Or was that the luckiest guess in the entire world?
Is there somebody here from my hometown?
In Wyndham, New York?
That was too weird.
I'm not going to tell you what it was, because then you'll use it.
Now, it would have been before Hartwick.
It would have been high school.
And there was only one person who used that nickname.
Yes, Skippy.
How in the world did you do that?
All right, we won't talk about that anymore.
Well, apparently, X, which used to be called Twitter, is going to add a calling feature.
So now they're going to replace the phone company, I guess.
So, you know, watching whatever it is that Elon Musk does with Twitter, it's going to be pretty amazing.
Don't you think?
I feel like it's just beginning.
And you haven't seen anything yet?
Which dovetails with an article that was in fizz.org about entrepreneurs and the age at which they make their biggest changes.
And there's some suggestion, based on 2,900 founders that were looked at, that the older founders made more radical innovations.
Does that sound true?
That the older founders consistently made bigger changes.
The young entrepreneurs would do more entrepreneurial stuff.
So young people are definitely more entrepreneurial.
But their improvements seem to be more small improvements on existing things.
Whereas the older people did complete replacement type stuff.
Oh, you think that's true?
Does that match your experience?
Would you say that you notice that?
There are a number of, you know, famous examples people started when they're a little bit older.
But I would say that Elon Musk is now in that category of an older entrepreneur.
True?
Would you say Elon is over, what is he?
What's his age?
40 something?
And look at what he plans to do with X. His plans for X are not some kind of incremental improvement.
He's changing it into a whole different thing.
So he clearly has the extraordinary, you know, huge change gene in him at every age.
Now here's something that I guess I should disclose this.
I realized this morning, you know, you should disclose when you've got monetary connections to anything, if you're talking about the news.
It's good.
I mean, it's not, I don't think it's a legal requirement in my case, but it seems like good form to disclose.
Elon Musk is making me money three different ways now.
And none of this is investment advice, right?
So this is no investment advice.
But during the pandemic, I bought Tesla stock.
And that turned out to be really good.
So it's up 100% since I bought it.
So he's making me money on stock.
And it's actually of the individual stocks I own, which are only a handful, it's my number one, you know, biggest increase.
So he's making me money on stocks for Tesla.
And then you probably know I'm running the Revised, you know, the Dilbert Reborn comic runs on Twitter as well as the Locals platform.
But on Twitter, I'm getting subscription fees now for Dilbert, for the subscribers.
But, and then as you know, if you have an account that has a certain size, you'll get ad revenue when X puts an ad in your comments fields.
So I started getting checks for that.
So if you added the subscriptions and the ad revenue together, it would basically be a middle class income.
And then if you add the stock gains on top of it, it's the number one thing I made money on was Twitter.
Did anybody see that?
Well, actually, Elon Musk, not Twitter.
So the number one thing I made money on in one category so far this year is Elon Musk.
He made me more money than anything else did.
Or he will by the end of the year.
Of course, I got cancelled so that, you know, obviously changed my primary sources of income.
Well, I saw another article that waking up early is white supremacy.
Waking up early.
Did anybody wake up early today?
Yeah.
Oh, you racist.
Racist.
Racist.
Racist?
Racist All right, well, most of you are just ordinary white supremacists, you know, five, five-thirty, that's barely trying.
Yeah.
All right, so, I don't know if I've ever said this directly before, or if you heard me, but have you noticed that having a good argument doesn't change people's minds?
Has anybody ever noticed that?
Have you been alive on the planet Earth and you know that your really tight arguments don't change anybody's minds?
But sometimes, if you can communicate your argument in a simple and persuasive form, then you can get some change.
So would you agree that the quality of the argument is somewhat not as effective as you might imagine, but the quality of the persuasion, let's say taking away the logic part and all the details and the data, but if you can put it into some little tight persuasion package, it could change everything.
I'm going to change the entire character of the United States right now.
Do you think I can do it?
Do you think I can come up with a few words, just a few words, less than a sentence, that would change the course of the United States in a fundamental way?
Challenge accepted.
You ready?
Black Americans are denied the tool of imitation, the only way anybody ever succeeds.
They're denied the tool of imitation.
The only way anybody ever succeeds.
Do you know how I succeed?
I literally looked at other successful people.
They said, what do I got to do?
And I've been studying successful people, both Both directly and rigorously, like actually buying a book, reading how somebody did it, you know, reading about Steve Jobs' biography, of course.
If you haven't read Steve Jobs' biography, are you really trying?
Are you really even trying to be successful?
There's a whole book that tells you how the most successful person did it.
You haven't read that?
Are you even trying?
Are you trying to be successful?
How could you not read that?
Alright, I'm just joking with you.
But you get the point, right?
Have you studied Elon Musk's history?
Of what he did and how it worked?
You haven't?
If you haven't done that, you're not even trying.
It's the most basic thing you should do.
You should look at successful people, find out what they did.
If you work in a big company, do you already have a, let's say you're younger, do you already have a mentor to tell you what works and what doesn't?
You don't?
Why not?
That's like basic.
You need somebody to tell you what works and what doesn't work.
Have you read my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big?
A whole book that tells you exactly what works and what doesn't to be successful.
You haven't?
Why not?
It's simple.
I mean, relative to other things that you could do to succeed, reading a little book that's, you know, tightly written and kind of fun to read anyway, That's kind of basic.
If you're not doing that, or reading books like it, you know, it's not the only one in the world, but if you're not reading books on success, are you really trying to be successful?
Are you even trying?
Why do I get up early and work usually at least two jobs?
Is it a coincidence that my father woke up early every day and worked two jobs?
He'd go to work at the post office and then come home, change his clothes, put on painting clothes and go paint houses.
So he just had two jobs.
And my mother worked in real estate while she was... She also worked in a factory while she was taking care of the house and stuff.
So why do you think I work hard and usually have two jobs?
I'm either writing a book and doing comics and doing this, It's probably imitation.
I think a lot of it's just imitation.
I just saw what worked, and I said, wow, that looks like a lot of work.
Looks really hard, but I can see that it works.
So why would I do something that didn't work?
Now, black Americans are denied this path that I used.
Because if they were to look at successful people, they would have to act like, what, Steve Jobs?
Does that feel comfortable?
Do you feel comfortable acting like Steve Jobs if you're a black American?
Maybe.
If you're a conservative, for example, you might say, just tell me what works and I'll do it.
If you're not a conservative, you might say, I don't know.
That's sort of a culture with a different set of priorities.
And I feel like I should copy somebody that I emulate, maybe locally.
And the trouble is that if you live where there are not a lot of Steve Jobs, And you've got more, you know, drug dealers and criminals.
You're probably going to imitate them.
Because they might be the only ones with money.
And, you know, money does predict.
So, here's the thing that'll change society.
It comes down to one thing.
Everybody but black Americans can copy successful people.
And black Americans, for whatever reason, I'm not even sure exactly.
You know, I don't want to say culture, because I think that's too dismissive and too easy.
I don't think it's genetics.
I don't think it's a genetic thing.
Because, you know, you see the Nigerians come over and they seem to be doing great.
So there's something going on, and I don't think we need to know what the problem is.
But you can very easily identify what the solution is.
The solution is copy famous people.
Nobody has done it any other way.
Once you realize that nobody has done it any other way, imitation is how you succeed.
That's the phrase.
I haven't quite got it into the perfect few words, but the idea is that imitation is what makes you succeed.
Success is imitation of successful people.
Their process.
Not exactly what they did, but their process.
If you're not copying successful people, when did Steve Jobs sell drugs and go to jail?
Well, I don't think he did.
Don't think he did.
So maybe copy that.
What was Steve Jobs addicted to?
Which substance was he addicted to?
None.
None.
Well, wasn't addicted.
Yeah, so you just go right down the line and you tell me what people who are successful did.
If you look at Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, when they started to get really rich, did you notice that they didn't act rich?
You notice that they all drove like old cars and the story was they wore the same clothes and they didn't really do anything but work.
They slept in the office in some cases, right?
That's all part of the process.
Because they need other people to do work for them to continue getting richer.
And they want to make sure the other people are motivated and they don't feel like they're the only ones working hard.
So they make sure that their life, you know, looks a little bit more like the employees.
Now eventually they all give that up, right?
Eventually they build the billion dollar house.
But you can see that the process It's very much about imitation.
Did anybody notice that Zuckerberg imitated Steve Jobs' dress style and imitated, I would say, Bill Gates' speaking style?
It's all imitation.
And if black Americans, for whatever reason, and part of the reason I don't want to I don't want to speculate or assume that I know what that reason is.
Because I feel like that's just a little bit too much mind reading or assuming too much about a group of people that I don't have special insight into.
So I would say that it's up to black America to figure that out.
But you know exactly what to do.
Copy people who are not like you, who are succeeding, and just keep doing it.
And look into what they did, ask them, get a mentor, read a book about successful people, and just stop copying people who are gonna end up in jail.
It's that simple.
Now, I say it's that simple, but it's available to everybody.
It's not a simple, it's just available to everybody.
So that's my reframe to change the world, that black people are denied, it's almost like a right.
Feels like a right, doesn't it?
The right to imitate.
I mean, it's not a right.
But I feel like I have the right to imitate.
I can just look at anybody and say, all right, I'm going to do what you do.
Keep doing that, I'll do that too.
And if you're black, for some reason, the mechanisms are different.
And as soon as I try to tell you why that's different, then I think I lose all credibility.
I think my credibility stops at the door.
Like, I can tell you what works.
I'm not going to tell you why you're not doing it.
You have to figure that out.
You have to figure out why you're not doing it.
I can only tell you what to do.
And if you don't do it, I don't give a fuck about you.
I just don't give a fuck.
Now, that has nothing to do with race.
That has everything to do with anybody who's not trying.
If you're not trying, and you're not succeeding, well, I don't give a fuck about you.
Not at all.
I have no empathy for that.
Because, you know, the world is full of people with gigantic, real problems.
I mean, I'm basically running on empty for empathy as it is.
I got plenty of empathy, but not for people who are not doing the obvious thing to succeed.
The obvious thing.
Imitate successful people.
In a similar fashion, you may have noticed that I was ignoring the story about the Alabama duck fight.
Do you all know that story?
Because it got way too much press.
And I would echo, you know, what Greg Gottfeld said, which is, why is this local story a story?
But of course, you know, that race was involved.
So it was a big brawl, and it seemed largely white against black.
I could tell from the video.
But I watched the video, and you can tell me if I missed something, but let me tell you what I saw.
It looked to me like there was some disagreement about a dock parking space, and it looked to me like a white guy threw the first punch.
Did I see it right?
Did you see a white guy throw the first punch?
Fuck that guy.
Fuck that guy.
Do I care if the black people beat him to death?
Nope.
Nope.
No, that's not the way it went.
But if it had gone that way, if some drunk white guy threw the first punch, and the end result was that black people beat him to death, go black people.
Yeah.
Totally on the side of the black people.
This didn't happen, but hypothetically.
If you throw the first punch, I don't have any sympathy for you.
If you threaten Biden and the FBI shoot your ass, I don't care about you.
I don't care about you at all.
Don't threaten my president.
Don't punch my citizens.
Stop punching my citizens.
And then maybe I'll have some empathy for you, right?
But I was totally on the side of the black guys who fought back.
Is there a second way to look at this?
I don't think there's a appropriate second way to look at this.
But I don't think it should have been a story either.
We're turning it into a story because we're imagining it's a story of the whole world.
It's probably not.
It's probably a story about a drunk guy who may have been under a misunderstanding or something.
I don't know what it's about, but it doesn't have any national relevance.
So let's stop coddling people who start fights and resist arrest and threaten presidents.
Fuck all of them.
We don't have to coddle any of them.
All right.
Victoria's Secrets is allegedly changing their, let's say, approach from everybody is beautiful, you know, with overweight models and such.
And now they're going back to some kind of a Classic model look, including some older ones.
Naomi Campbell, who's over 50.
They're bringing her back.
Giselle Bundich, over 40.
So she'll be part of it.
So they're going to have some classics, but then they're bringing in some younger, famous people who are also attractive.
Now, they're not fully un-woke.
In the sense that they seem to be changing their approach to include much older models.
You know, I don't think anybody has a problem with that because the older models they're using look like younger models and that seems to be on brand.
Now, you know, I think I agree with most of you.
I'm reading your minds to know that you agree with me before I ask.
But if your entire business is about a physical female beauty, It doesn't really make sense if you run away from it.
You know, it's more of a question, should you exist at all?
Right?
If we agree they should exist, that it's legal and moral and ethical, they should do it any way they want.
Because the rest of the world can sell to anybody else the way they want.
They've got this little niche.
So I think that, you This is yet another evidence of ESG and mostly ESG, I guess.
But any kind of wokeness looks like it's failing.
So we're seeing wokeness failing everywhere.
Yeah.
Anyway, that's just another example of that.
Allegedly, the Colosseum in Rome might be a venue for the Musk versus Zuckerberg fight.
I still don't know if the fight's going to happen.
It's possible, you know, it won't.
Because I guess Elon Musk has some back problems.
He has to get remedied before he can fight.
So that seems like a pretty big risk.
I mean, I don't know how bad the back thing is.
It looks pretty bad.
But, you know, you wouldn't want him to fight if that's a risk.
But I love the fact that people are talking about a billion dollars in revenue.
Raising a billion dollars.
And it makes me wonder, how much would Dana White make, so I think he would be organizing it, how much would Dana White make for organizing a fight that brought in a billion dollars?
Obviously that doesn't go to him.
I don't know.
He might do it for free.
He might do it for free.
Because my understanding is the money would go to charity, right?
If he organizes it and it makes a billion dollars for charity, can he really take a cut?
Do you think he would?
I'm going to make you a prediction.
I don't know this for sure, but I think he would only pay his expenses.
I can't guarantee that's the way it'll go.
But I'm going to make a read on a stranger, because I don't know Dana White.
So this is me just reading his head.
I don't believe that a man There's the key sentence.
A man, not just in the biologically male sense, but he's not just a man, he's sort of a man's man.
If you're a man's man, and you're the one organizing the biggest charity event of all time, you don't take a cut.
You don't.
You just don't.
You just don't take a cut.
So I'll be curious.
Now if he does take a cut, I wouldn't criticize him.
I wouldn't criticize him.
Because it's a business and it's all transparent.
It's a legal, transparent business.
He runs it.
He does a lot of work.
It would be a tremendous amount of work.
So given that his organization, that he would do a tremendous amount of work, yeah, they should get some money.
But I'm going to predict that he won't.
I think he would just cover his costs, because it's a charity event.
Which would be one of the smartest business plays, a non-financial play, I guess.
But in terms of your view of what his His company does and who he is.
It'd be pretty amazing.
So we'll just watch that.
It's sort of a big question to me.
Like how does he play that?
Because he's played everything else pretty smart.
So you expect him to do something smart.
Just wonder what it is.
All right.
My favorite story of the day.
Thank you Fox News for bringing this to my attention.
There's a handyman named Flash Shelton.
Okay, that should be the story itself.
There's a handyman named Flash.
That's just a perfect handyman's name.
Do you think you can get this done quickly?
Well, they don't call me Flash for nothing.
I don't know.
I just love that name.
Anyway, he founded the United Handyman Association.
But he's also working as a squatter removal.
Now, this is the funniest thing.
And the reason I think it's so funny is that I can so easily see myself doing this exact thing if I were him.
You know, not as me, but if I were him.
The way he removes squatters Is he just walks in and he lives with him.
He just walks in the door and makes himself at home, brings in his stuff, and he just moves in.
And he's like, how you doing?
You know, I'm Flash.
And then every time they come into the living room, he's sitting on their couch.
He likes to leave their refrigerator open.
Oh, sorry, did I leave the refrigerator open again?
And then it gets better.
He installs ring cameras in every room of the house.
Because he actually gets a lease with the owner of the house before he goes in.
So he's the only legal resident.
So as the only legal resident, he just puts up ring cameras.
Now, I assume they try to take them down.
I don't know.
But he's a handyman.
So if you're a handyman, you can probably install them so they're a little harder to take down.
And can you imagine him doing his work?
You know, his handyman work while they're trying to sleep?
I don't know, I'm just putting up the ring camera.
What time is it?
3 a.m.?
Yeah, I just have different hours.
All right, go back to bed.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Now, how many of you, how many of you put yourself in the situation and said, I could do that?
I could play that seriously from beginning to end.
Yep, I could do that.
I could absolutely do that.
But here's my racially charged comment on that.
Am I wrong that this is a real white guy thing to do?
It's not even a white woman thing to do.
This is so white guy.
It's like the most white guy thing I've ever seen in my life.
Am I right?
Can I hear it from my older white guys?
This is such an older, well it's even older.
It's not even a young white guy thing to do.
It's an older white guy.
It's a dad.
It's a dad joke.
It's basically one long dad joke that serves a function of getting rid of a squatter.
Am I right?
It's a dad joke.
It's a dad joke from beginning to end and it gets rid of your squatters.
So if you ever need anybody to do a dad joke, call an old white guy.
We love that shit.
We love that shit.
Best story I'd have.
All right, so congratulations to Flash.
I've said this before, but I keep thinking about it.
I keep seeing these films of shoplifters.
And as you know, it would be illegal for the shop owner to employ any violence.
So shop owners can't do that.
But could a shop owner have an arrangement with somebody else who did?
So for example, could you hire some scary people to just hang around outside your store?
But let's say they're not on salary, so they're not working for you officially.
So you can't really give them orders, can you?
Because they don't work for you officially.
So whatever they do on the sidewalk, that's not your problem.
That's just something that happened on the sidewalk from people who do not work for me.
But suppose you had to deal with them.
We'll buy back the merchandise for 10%.
Yeah.
So if my merchandise leaves the store and it was worth $100, and let's just say, hypothetically, somebody on the sidewalk who was not employed by me stole it back.
Now that seems so illegal.
Stealing.
I'm not in favor of it all.
But if somebody did it, You know, on their own.
And then they came back in the store and said, yeah, hey, I've got this product.
Would you pay me 10% of the dollar to get it back?
I'd say, well, stranger, person who does not work for me and is not on my payroll at all, I'm up for that.
Here's 10%.
Or something like that.
Or you can keep 10% of the stuff you steal back.
But when I saw the story about the The squatter remover guy.
What I loved about this story is he used the law against the law.
So the law is that squatters have all kinds of rights.
And if you're a citizen and the law is not on your side, you're helpless.
Because you can't physically remove them, you'd be arrested.
So instead of being thwarted by the law, he did, tell me the phrase.
Say it.
You know where I'm going.
Embrace and amplify.
Embrace and amplify.
How do you destroy a rule or a law that is absurd?
But you can't get it changed in ordinary ways.
You use the law.
You use it yourself.
That's what he did.
Because he was a squatter, too, in a way.
I mean, he was a legal squatter because he had a lease.
But he just acted like a squatter, and nobody could remove him.
He just used the law.
Perfect.
So it makes me wonder if there's some way shop owners can use the law that says apparently you can rob people with impunity all day long.
But the shop owners can't stop a, if you're the shop owner, you can't stop a crime.
So instead of stopping a crime, you become a criminal.
Now I don't think the store owner could stand outside the store and stop somebody and rob it back, because that would look like the store owner stopping.
But as long as there were some people who were willing to do it for you, and they knew there was a market for the goods once they stole them, a 10% market, would they not be willing to rob that person as they left the store?
Maybe?
Maybe?
Now this isn't the best idea I've ever had, but I'll give you the concept.
The concept is, is there a way to use the law to thwart the law?
I don't know if there is exactly, but something in that neighborhood.
Somehow humans have to stop the criminals without themselves getting in trouble.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that waiting for law enforcement is now a stupid strategy?
I mean, waiting for them to improve their game, or waiting for them to show up.
That's ridiculous.
So it has to be human on human, citizen on citizen.
And, I mean, what I'd love to see is snipers.
But, you know, I hate to see violence.
But I wouldn't mind seeing snipers killing I just wouldn't mind it.
I wouldn't mind seeing snipers killing shoplifters.
Because you wouldn't have to kill that many, you know, once the word got around.
Probably 20 shoplifters and everybody get the message.
But I say the same thing about at the border.
You know, DeSantis says he's gonna stop the bad guys at the border with using violence, you know, using the military.
And I'm thinking, at the border, You're going to wait for them to get on our territory before you stop them?
Why do we even train snipers?
We have all this video where you can actually see the coyote.
It's obvious who the cartel employee is.
They're the one with the guns.
And they're standing in the stream directing people.
Are you telling me our military doesn't have anybody who can take that guy out from our side?
Because we should.
Yeah, the snipers should be taking them out on their side.
They should be dropping them in the water.
Does anybody disagree?
You don't think we should be snipering the coyotes from our side of the border?
Because you don't have to clean it up if they die on the other side.
If they die on our side, we get all this paperwork.
If a sniper takes them out on their side, there's no paperwork.
It's a perfect solution.
Yeah.
And I'd like videos of it, too.
I'd like the military to take them out with snipers, and then I'd like lots of video of the actual event.
So you can see the coyote's head explode.
Yeah.
We're way beyond playing nice.
So I believe I can say you should take somebody's head off, and I'm well within the moral and ethical bounds of what I'm doing here.
So, let's use the law that we have.
All right.
Have you noticed that X Which used to be called Twitter.
Have you noticed it's the only place you can get context about news?
Am I wrong about that?
I only know of one place where I have a chance of seeing both arguments.
Now, you know, I can get my own little silo and maybe sometimes miss some arguments, but at least if the silo I'm in has an argument that's just complete bullshit, there will at least be a community note.
And there will almost certainly be some Democrat who comes over with a link to the opposite point.
You're not going to see that on CNN, you're not going to see it on Fox News, you're not going to see it anywhere.
I don't believe Instagram is showing you both sides.
I don't know what Facebook looks like because why would anybody use Facebook?
Facebook is still, well no, it's called meta.
Why would anybody use meta for anything?
Honestly, I haven't even opened it in so long, I can't remember.
Do you remember threads?
Does anybody remember threads?
For about a minute and a half, it was a competitor to X. And now it's a thing you sort of vaguely remember, but you don't know anybody who uses it.
I don't know why anybody would own their stock, honestly.
Well, why would anybody own a stock that no young person uses, and therefore you can pretty much predict the end of the company?
The only thing they have going for them, well, they do have Instagram, that's right.
They have Instagram and WhatsApp is doing fine, but the whole meta virtual reality, it looks like it's going nowhere.
And the Facebook, you know, the old Facebook classic, I don't know how that survives.
I just don't understand it.
It's so useless.
I guess it's just families with kids or something, but you couldn't just put that on Instagram.
I don't know.
So anyway, It's the only place with context, and here's an example of that.
So there's a bunch of stories about Justice Thomas, who took a bunch of trips, including international trips.
He took 109 reported trips since 1991, and five international trips.
And I guess the story is that he has a rich friend who brings him along on trips.
Now, I don't know why I thought about this, but the rich friend is a conservative, and Justice Thomas is a conservative.
And the concern Is that Justice Thomas would be influenced by his friend because he's getting a lot of monetary benefit from traveling with him.
And then somebody else said, and I don't know why this wasn't the first thing that came to my mind, but it made me feel stupid for not saying it first.
And somebody said, do you really think that Justice Thomas needs to be bribed to have conservative opinions?
And I thought, okay, that makes sense.
He's literally unbribable.
Because his opinions have always been the same.
You can see a whole history of his opinion never changing, basically.
And it's always been on one side.
You could predict it a year in advance.
What would giving him money change?
What, was he going to become a liberal because you didn't bribe him enough?
He's basically unbribable by his existence.
He might be the least bribable human being, On the planet.
Because no matter how much money you give him, you can still predict a year in advance what he would have voted.
Am I wrong?
Isn't he the most predictable vote on the court?
Am I wrong?
Well, I'm sure the liberals are as predictable.
There's only what?
Two swing justices?
Are there three?
Or are there two swing justices now?
It's Roberts?
Or is it just Roberts?
You think Kavanaugh in some cases?
Maybe?
All right.
Well, if he's not a swing voter, how in the world can you... How?
How could you possibly bribe somebody who's always going to act the same no matter what?
Now, I would agree that I don't like the look of it, and I'll say the same thing that I said about Biden and his situation with foreign benefit.
Even if there are no laws broken, if you're a public servant, you kind of have to adhere to the appearance of impropriety.
I feel like at that level they have to manage to appearance.
What do you say?
It's obviously his right, and he didn't break any laws.
Nobody's accusing him of breaking a law.
So he has every right to do it, and I support him in his right to do it, as he would support me.
There's your reciprocity right there.
I'm pretty sure that Justice Thomas would support me if my freedom were taken away in some unconstitutional way.
So I'm going to support him.
I guess I'll do the same.
As long as it's legal.
Apparently it's transparent because we know the actual numbers.
And he's traveling around with somebody who just happens to agree with him on everything.
He has that right.
I might not like it.
It makes me a little uncomfortable.
Makes me a little uncomfortable.
But you know what?
If I were doing something that made Justice Thomas a little bit uncomfortable, he'd still back me.
As long as I was within the law.
Right?
So the fact that he makes me uncomfortable with that association, not good enough.
I'm going to back him on the law, same as he would for me.
I think.
All right, but here's the context that Steve Guest helpfully provided.
Sure, Justice Thomas took 109 trips, including five international since 1991.
I wonder if anybody else acted that way.
Well, as Steve Guest points out, RBG.
Who was appointed in 1993, took 157 trips and 28 international.
Stephen Stephan, or Stephen Breyer, appointed in 1994, took 233 trips and 63 international trips.
So apparently Justice Thomas is not traveling nearly as much as those two had.
Does that matter to you?
I don't know.
I guess I'm similarly uncomfortable.
But I also believe that RBG and Stephen Breyer probably were not influenced in any way.
But I'm not super happy with it.
Now, the Biden standard is different because we saw the flow of money.
The fact that he may or may not have done something illegal is a little less important than the fact that we can see the flow of money.
It's one thing to go on a trip with a rich person.
And I think I've explained this before.
The rich person needs other people to go with them on trips or they don't have fun.
Right?
It's part of the fun.
Other people that you like being with you.
But if the other people can't go on a luxury vacation because they can't afford it, and you can afford it for a million people, it doesn't really make sense for you not to pay for their trip.
Because you're just basically buying yourself a friend.
So I don't mind that people buy themselves friends to go on trips.
It's just a fun trip.
I don't think that any of these people changed their votes because of it.
And it's very different to me that somebody goes along on a private plane that was going to go there anyway, and then gets on the yacht that was already bought and already owned.
That's different than somebody actually sending cash.
Sending cash is a whole different animal.
And so Biden's in a different conversation there.
CNN is reporting that support for funding Ukraine is starting to erode.
I wonder why?
Is anything happening over there that would erode your confidence in funding?
Could it be learning about the Biden criminal enterprise?
Could it be that now we are not so sure this is all about making America safer?
Because it doesn't look like it's making America safer.
It doesn't look like it at all.
It looks expensive.
And here's the question that I ask you.
Would you support a war, funding a war, that could be ended in a day with any president except Joe Biden?
Now I don't know that that's true, but I can tell you it feels true.
It feels true.
Do you know why?
Because I'm pretty sure that a capable person could end this in a day.
Now Trump famously said that first, but I think Ramaswamy could do it.
I think DeSantis could do it.
I think RFK Jr.
could do it.
I think they all could end it in a day.
I believe the only person who can't Is the one that you have some questions about his loyalty to the country versus his checking account.
And you have good reason to believe that.
Because he had a lot of trips to Ukraine and they got a lot of money from Ukraine that doesn't seem related.
Well it does seem related to policy actually.
All right.
So I don't know why.
I think these two things should be separated.
I think monetary support for Ukraine, which might have a good argument.
There might be some argument for it that I'm not aware of.
So let's just say there's an argument for and against supporting Ukraine.
Here's what you have to say is a no-go.
Here's what's a no-go for me.
Sending massive money to Ukraine at the same time that Joe Biden is president.
You have to pick one.
Pick one.
Because the war has no credibility when the only person who is gained financially from the situation is in charge.
Right?
You need somebody that you have confidence does not have a monetary interest to be in that job, and then you can ask me for money.
All right, let me act this out for you.
Scott, would you like to give some money to support Ukraine?
I'd be like, you know, I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people.
I don't like Putin.
You know, I'm actually open to that.
I might want to give some money to help the Ukrainians defend themselves.
And then I say, great, give us some money and we'll run this through the government, through Joe Biden.
I go, what?
Oh, you're saying that some of my money will have, in some way, indirectly be controlled by the president, or maybe there's some way that they can make money off of this?
And then I say, OK, then I change my mind.
I still love the Ukrainian people.
I want them to do well.
Don't want Russia to take over the country.
But I'm not going to give a penny to the guy who's being bribed by Ukraine, apparently.
Now, I don't know that he is, but I would say it looks like it.
So this is one of those appearance of conflict problems.
Do I know for sure that Joe Biden has ever made a decision that was because he was making money or Hunter was making money that could also benefit him?
Do I know for sure?
Well, you know, that prosecutor situation looks really sketchy, doesn't it?
But do you think you know anything for sure about Ukraine?
If you asked me to, you know, gun to my head, Scott, do you think the prosecutor's situation was legit?
Or do you think Biden was doing it for, you know, Hunter's situation there?
I would say probably for Hunter's situation.
It seems, I'm going to say 60-40.
60% likely it's exactly what you thought it was.
That he was doing a favor for Burisma because Hunter was on the board.
60% chance.
But the 40% that I'm completely wrong about that, and maybe he was just a bad guy who needed to go or something, it seems unlikely.
Now, I'm going to change it 80-20.
As I'm thinking about it, I had to go to 80-20.
80% chance it's exactly what it looks like.
That there was essentially bribery.
Because I can't think of any case where the Vice President of the United States was dealing with anybody else's prosecutor.
I mean, it's kind of an unusual situation.
So that should be your big red flag there.
It's like, why is he even in that business at all?
Why is that even a conversation?
You know, we're not doing it anywhere else, are we?
Except Pakistan.
Apparently we removed the head of Pakistan.
It's a separate story.
Anyway, so the bottom line is no money for Ukraine as long as Biden's the one in charge of the money.
And maybe no money for Ukraine no matter who, but I'm not going to listen to the argument as long as Biden's in charge.
Does that sound fair?
You don't have to even listen to the argument.
You do not have to listen to why it's good or bad to give money to Ukraine.
You only have to know that the person who's asking for it is clearly the only person on the planet Earth who can't ask me for that.
There are 8 billion people on Earth.
I'm not going to name them.
That would take too long.
But every one of those fucking 8 billion people, every one of them, As more credibility asking for money for Ukraine than that one fucking asshole Joe Biden.
He's the only asshole in the world that I wouldn't trust when he says give me money for Ukraine.
The only one.
There's nobody else.
Not even another Democrat.
You could put Adam Schiff or Eric Swalwell in those jobs, my least favorite Democrats, and I would still say, okay, make your argument, I'll listen to your argument.
But I'm not going to listen to Joe Biden's argument.
He has completely sacrificed his right to even ask for the money.
I won't hear it from him.
Anybody else, I'll listen.
I might not give you money, but I'll listen to it.
All right.
So yeah, I guess there's a reason why that support for Ukrainian funding is eroded.
That and the fact that the counteroffensive is now non-existent.
You see a lot of reporting about that old counteroffensive?
No.
There's no counteroffensive.
I mean, there might be some actions that they call a counteroffensive, but there's nothing happening.
You know, no territories changing hands.
You know, nobody's at the edge of surrender.
Nothing.
So why would you give money to that?
Why would you give money to that?
I don't get it.
There's a technology that's coming along pretty fast.
Have you seen the robot dogs?
I'm going to tie this into Ukraine in a moment.
The robot dogs.
Apparently somebody has made a little robot dog that will follow you around and shake hands and roll over and stuff.
And I thought to myself, that little robot dog, if you sent a fleet of them across the ground at dug-in Russian positions, imagine how scary that would be.
Imagine being in a trench, and you look over, you look over the trench, and you see coming over the hill a stampede of robot dogs that are suicide dogs.
They just run toward the trench, recognize a human, and they recognize that the human's in whatever the GPS attack zone is, so they don't get the wrong humans.
They just run at it, they see a trench, they jump in the trench, boom.
They basically be suicide dogs.
Do you think that trench warfare would even work if you had a wave of robot dogs?
Because the robot dogs would be, you know, blowing up the landmines as they go, but you have lots of them.
So the first wave just takes out, you know, most of the first wave gets blown up by landmines.
And, you know, machine guns and stuff.
Let's say half of them get through.
Now there are only half as many machine guns the next time they send the second wave, and a lot of the mines have been exploded.
So the first wave of robot dogs would just be to attract fire and, you know, blow up the landmines.
But by the third or fourth wave of robot dogs, I would think you could clear all the trenches.
Doesn't it seem like that's the technology that Ukraine needs?
So they've got lots of stuff in the air, but I think the stuff in the air has a limited benefit against a trench.
Just guessing.
I mean, you wouldn't want a drone overhead of your trench either, but there are fewer drones in the air.
You would need like, you know, let's say you had a thousand robot dogs.
You don't think that would be enough to punch through the front lines?
I think a thousand exploding robot dogs would be able to punch through the Russian lines.
That's what I think.
A thousand robot dogs and Ukraine's back in business.
But I think the war is over.
It's just a negotiation at this point.
Waiting for Trump.
Or Ramaswamy.
Or waiting for something.
All right, Max Boot.
You all know Max Boot.
He's sort of a Clinton loyalist Democrat absurd figure.
There are some figures that are more absurd than others because they've made ridiculous claims in the past.
But I thought this was a fake.
I thought somebody had mocked up an image.
And I thought, this can't possibly actually be happening.
But if you don't know this, Max Boot went on CNN with a big chart with the 18 reasons Trump might be a Russian asset.
That really happened?
Oh my God!
And I said to myself, we're not dumb enough to fall for that again, are we?
And then I thought, his base is.
His base is absolutely dumb enough to believe that a revived Russia collusion is real.
And when you say to yourself, well, we're not going to get fooled again, sure we will.
I mean, not the people on the political right.
They weren't fooled last time.
But the people on the left absolutely will be fooled.
Yeah.
Max Bu has 18 reasons why Trump might be a Russian asset.
You don't think that convinced 20% of his base that it's probably true?
I'll bet it did.
I'll bet it did.
And to me, the crossover line between parody and humour, I actually thought it might have been from the Babylon Bee satire.
Because when I saw that In 2023, that Max Boo, who's, you know, a ridiculous character to begin with, that he would actually go on TV with 18 reasons why Trump might, might be a Russian asset?
And CNN aired that.
CNN allowed that on the air, like that was of value.
Oh my God.
I mean, doesn't that seem more like a joke than reality?
That he'd have That he would be re-upping the Russia collusion thing.
The most debunked hoax of all time.
And he would just shamelessly revive it.
Because it's another election.
Amazing!
I hate to even talk about this kind of news.
Because I don't have anything to say about it.
Except my head explodes when I say it.
So it's not much commentary.
Trump's been indicted for the Hawaii wildfires.
That's not real, but could you tell?
Right?
Parody sounds... I mean, if you told me there was a play where Trump could be indicted for the Hawaii wildfires, I'd probably say it sounds real.
Sounds real.
Well, speaking of campaigning, Vivek Ramaswamy, he's on Russell Brand, which that just dropped.
And also he's answering questions on Candace Owens.
So, I'll say it again.
It's another news cycle where Vivek owns the news cycle.
For the primary, anyway.
And, you know, Trump's perpetually in the news, no matter what the news is.
But Vivek is just killing it.
And I feel like there's an energy shift.
I think Vivek has broken the seal.
I felt like he was in a bubble that he couldn't get out of.
Because all the so-called minor candidates, they're all subsidiary to DeSantis and to Trump.
But because DeSantis faltered, and it's always more fun to talk about who might be in second place, as soon as second place was in play, I think his message started gaining power.
But like I told you before, You can't have one candidate who's absolutely massacring the news cycle day after day with innovative, well-executed, quick content that is right on the news.
You can't do that every day for months at a time before all the smart people notice.
Am I right?
It's really... No he didn't.
I saw the Ron Watkins exposing... Look into that.
That was all bullshit.
All that's been debunked and you should be ashamed of yourself if you bought into it.
Really.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Use your tools of discernment on the Vivek stuff.
Just use everything I taught you.
It'll all be clear.
It's all bullshit.
Anyway, it feels like Vivek is rising and he's broken out of his little captured news bubble.
What do you say?
Do you think he's reached, like, just this week?
Do you feel like he's reached another level?
Seeing some yeses.
Because it's all about how you feel about it, right?
You know, forget the data.
How you feel about it.
I feel that's changed.
She just destroyed him on her podcast, didn't she?
Well, I'm sure that that would be a subjective opinion.
All right, I have an update from Hawaii.
It's not a good one, but I didn't think I could not tell you.
It is not reported on the news, so I have a source.
I won't mention the source, just an individual who has strong connections there, and this is the part, it's so horrible I almost wasn't going to say it, but somebody knows well, who's reporting that he drove from Pouamana to Waikouli, which I think is basically through Lahaina, and he said that
There's cars with dead bodies all the way.
So I hope that's an exaggeration, but I don't think it is.
I don't think it is.
I think there's five miles of dead bodies in cars.
I hate to say it.
It might actually be true.
So I think people are expecting the body count to soar.
Because right now they just don't have the services to find everybody and count them.
I mean it's just too much chaos there.
So it couldn't get much worse.
So I don't know what the governments are doing to help.
I assume people are getting at least food and water.
At least food and water.
But, you know, the good news about Hawaii is you don't need shelter.
It's the only place I know of where you literally don't need shelter.
You know, you could sleep outside under a palm tree if you had a blanket.
That's all you need.
You need shade.
Yeah, you need shade.
So you want to get under a tree, probably.
Yeah, it's just the worst thing.
So anyway, Keep your good vibes up for Maui.
Yeah.
I think I only told my tsunami story on the man cave.
I'll do the brief version.
So I happened to visit Maui when the tsunami, this was a number of years ago.
I landed on the day that the tsunami was announced.
It was headed toward the island.
So I had to stay in the seventh floor of the place we were staying.
This was with my first wife and two kids.
And the bottom of the building was evacuated because they thought that the wave would be at least that high.
That's right.
I was told to stay in a building on the beach as the tsunami came, and they weren't quite sure how big it would be.
And then it goes completely dark.
Because it was going to come in the middle of the night.
They can predict because they know where it is and how fast it's traveling, but they don't know how big it'll be because it depends on the topography below the ocean, you know, of where it hits.
So I spent the night waiting for a tsunami that was going to hit my building downstairs, and we were on the 7th, but the 4th floor and down were evacuated because it was too dangerous.
And I did a lot of engineering in my head.
I'm like, all right, this building isn't going to fall down, right?
I'm still going to be able to get from the seventh floor to the bottom floor when this is over, right?
I didn't know exactly what could happen when a tsunami hits the bottom of your building.
So what did happen?
Thankfully, it was less than it could have been.
So the tsunami probably took out the first floor.
So I think the first floor got pretty much wiped out.
But they recovered quickly.
But the next day, when you wake up, the only food we had was the stuff that we didn't eat on the plane.
Some snacks we had in our bags.
That's it.
And there wasn't any place else to get food.
Family of four, there was no place to get food.
And so we did what everybody was doing.
We foraged.
We actually had to go find if there was a way to find food.
So we had, you know, gas in their rental cars.
We drove around and, you know, everything was closed and there was just no food.
Now we found a place that had some pastries, like a coffee shop.
And like we're like eating a little pastries because we don't know the next time we'll have food.
You know, there's like a line around the corner for just the pastries.
So we had just sit there in line.
So I had, uh, I would say my experience and then by the, by the end of the day, you know, things were getting back to normal.
So, so my experience was, you know, 1% as bad as what's happening right now, just 1%.
It was just inconvenient.
And I, you know, lost half a pound for not eating for half a day, but, I can't even imagine what it would be like to be on an island with no water, no phone, no electricity, and whatever you had in your refrigerator is probably starting to spoil.
And that's a scary fucking thing.
And you don't even know where family members are.
Remember, they don't have phones.
There are people who don't know where members of their family are even today.
They don't know.
It's bad beyond even imagination there.
All right, so I don't want to bring you down, but that's the real world, real world.
Well, there's a lot of places that didn't burn down that don't have electricity.
Regarding emission election.
Let me say this about the election integrity.
I may have said this only also on the Man Cave, but I'll say it publicly.
For reasons I don't understand, reality does seem to follow a three-act, most amusing script.
It shouldn't.
There's no reason it should.
But it seems to.
I don't know why.
And so Trump's third act would clearly be January 6th.
Meaning the thing that, if you were viewing it as a movie, you would say, well, that's the end of him for sure.
He lost his second term, and not only did he lose it, he could end up in jail.
And if he doesn't end up in jail, at the very least, he couldn't possibly run for president again.
That's the third act.
He's leading in the polls.
There's one thing he needs to guarantee victory.
And there's one thing he needs to make this a proper movie.
At the moment, it's just a series of things that happened.
There's one thing he needs to turn it into a movie.
You know what that is, right?
Just one thing.
He needs to find verified proof, or somebody does, that the election was in fact rigged.
Now, I do not have evidence, personally, that anything was rigged.
I've not seen anything that I find credible.
All of the latest news, it could be true, but I don't find it credible.
And the reason I don't find it credible is that nothing else was.
Every single thing you got excited about turned out to be bullshit.
You know, if you thought you were looking for fraud.
So maybe it's real.
Maybe Michigan is the real deal.
So whether or not Michigan is the real deal, I'm not going to make a judgment about anything that's in the news at the moment.
I don't think the credibility is high of any election story.
Any story.
I also don't think the credibility is high when they say it was fair.
So I have about equal credibility for the people who say it was unfair, as the people who are sure it was fair.
Neither of those seem like credible points.
It's just people don't know.
It's more fair to say we don't know.
But in the context of not knowing, I'm still going to predict that because life takes a third act form for reasons I don't know, And I'm just going to observe it.
The most likely outcome, karma, nature, the simulation, God, every single one of them wants Trump to find the actual fraud that changed the election result.
Every one of them.
Every force of the world seems to be pushing toward finding out it was real.
You know, the fraud.
And again, let me say clearly, I'm not aware of any evidence of that.
So it would be kind of a shocking revelation if something like that ever happened.
But it would be the perfect movie.
And that would follow a, and of course he would sweep into office.
And then the end of the movie is him closing the border as we all want and ending the Ukraine war.
And one month after he takes office, everything except debt has been solved.
Crime in the streets is over.
Basically, they just solve everything in one month, which he could do.
It would be the greatest movie of all time.
Am I wrong that if you didn't live through it, and let's say it's 20 years from now, and you just saw the movie of it, it would be the greatest movie ever.
There would never be a better movie than that.
It's like the social network strong.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to say today.
Thanks for joining on YouTube.
And remember, imitation is the only way anybody ever succeeded.
Imitation.
If you remember that, all of your future difficult conversations will be easier.
You don't need any racism to talk about imitation.
It's available to everybody, but it's not implemented by everybody.
