Episode 2207 Scott Adams: Fit To Sip To News. Bring A Beverage But Don't Use A Listless Vessel
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Tropical Storm Hilary, META, Micro-Schools, Fox Fake News, President Biden No Comment, Maui Fire, Maui Child Deaths, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Adam Kinzinger, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, Ukraine Support, Zombie News, Democrat Block Lists, X Block Policy, 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 next highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And today, today I had to rewrite the simultaneous sip.
So it'll be a little different today, and it's not my fault.
It's not my fault.
Events in the world caught up.
But you'll see the change in a minute.
If you'd like to participate, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Well, except a listless vessel.
No listless vessels.
But otherwise, a vessel of any kind, except the listless one.
And fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, it's the dopamine, you know, the day, the thing that makes you and everybody you know better.
Go.
Mmm.
If I added beer to this, no, I'm not gonna do that.
But it would make you look better.
Just sayin'.
Coffee goes only halfway.
Well, I got lots of stories today.
Stories, oh my God, we got stories.
As you know, the Tropical Storm Hillary smashed into California, Southern California yesterday.
The Babylon Bee reports that Hurricane Hillary destroyed 30,000 emails.
So there's already been 30,000 emails destroyed by Hillary.
And we hope that there will be not more damage.
Now, I'm going to reuse a joke that I used on Breitbart Radio with Joel Pollack last night, which you can hear in replay if you go to my Twitter account, or Joel Pollack's Twitter account.
You can see the link.
But as I said on the radio, is it just a coincidence that there was an earthquake at the same time the rainstorm hit, at the same time that Los Angeles is becoming filthy with human excrement and all kinds of outdoor living.
Now, did anybody think that there would have been a good time to just pour a little laundry detergent on the street?
Because you got the shaking.
You got the water.
California has become self-cleaning.
It's self-cleaning.
Yeah.
Just put a little bleach on there and just wait.
It'll shake.
And rinse.
And then the winds will dry it off.
It's really a whole system.
Alright, here's an update on my book, Reframe Your Brain, which is getting amazing reviews.
But still not approved by Amazon for the softcover.
So only the Kindle is there.
But we do now have a reason that it was so far not approved.
The reason is something that their automatic system should have told us the moment we submitted it.
It was, you know, one little box that needs to be checked differently.
But they knew it.
Why did it take five days?
I don't know, four or five days?
So, in theory, once we make this change, I doubt it will automatically be approved.
I suspect it'll go back into a, well, we'll take several days to look at it and see if there's anything else we don't like.
So I don't know.
But in theory it would be available tomorrow-ish.
I'll let you know.
The Threads app.
You know Threads from Meta?
It's the X competitor.
Apparently it's down 85% in traffic since its launch, but now they're launching a browser version.
So before you could only access it with the app, but now you have the browser version.
So now there are two ways to get to the thing you don't want.
When there was only one way to get the thing you don't want, that's not enough.
That's like leaving the job half done.
No.
Zuckerberg finishes the job by giving you two ways to get to the thing you don't want to get to.
Well, there's a thing called micro-schools.
Apparently there's a whole bunch of them popping up.
These are usually tuition-based private schools.
These are alternatives to public schools.
And they have up to 25 kids.
So it could be like 5 to 25 kids.
And they're popping up all over.
I love this.
If you've ever had a teen, can you back me on this statement?
The biggest problem that kids have regarding school is what?
What's the biggest problem kids have regarding public school?
It's the other kids.
It's the other kids, yeah.
Because humans are terrible.
So if you put anybody in any group, a big group of humans, terrible things happen.
It's kind of hard to make friends, too.
Have you ever talked to a teen about how hard it is to make friends in school?
Because if you just walk in, you know, if you're not part of a team or something, you can't just make a friend.
It's really hard.
But imagine you were in a school where the whole school was 25 people who probably lived almost within walking distance.
If you had a school of 25 people, you would almost certainly know all 25.
You would almost certainly get invited to at least half of their birthday parties.
Right?
It would really, I would think that that's almost the perfect size for a school.
25 kids.
It seems like you'd always have somebody that you could hang around with because you'd know them better than you knew anybody.
So that's good news, there's your free market working the way it was supposed to.
Apparently Trump is not going to debate, maybe at all, certainly during the primaries, but maybe he doesn't need to debate anybody.
And I don't think there's anybody that less needs to debate than Trump.
Is there anything about Trump's opinion you don't already know?
Or anything about the way he operates that you don't already know.
Do you suspect that if he did a debate, do you suspect there would be any fact-checking?
Probably.
Do you think he'd come out really good on the fact-checking?
Well, history suggests that that might be a problem.
So, why would he debate?
I've heard people say it would be an insult to his supporters if he doesn't debate.
But, you know, I'm backing Vivek Ramaswamy, but it seems to me that not debating would be the smartest thing to do.
Why would his supporters want him to do something that would degrade his chances of winning?
That's the least reasonable take on this, is that his supporters will be unhappy if he does the smartest strategic thing that everybody can see.
You don't have to be a genius to know that it creates a reason for him to get in trouble, because they take something out of context, but it doesn't give him any upside.
Yeah, the primary is going to go the way it goes.
So I think he's making the right choice.
We'll jabber about it, but it doesn't matter.
And more generally, I would say, here's something I learned a long time ago.
If you're the star, you don't share the stage with seven people who are not the star.
Never.
If you can avoid it, you'd never, ever do it.
When Trump was first running, let's say 2015-16, he wasn't really the star yet.
I mean, in a sense he was, but, you know, the other candidates were equal, you know, at least equal weight.
But once you're the gigantic one, you don't hang around with the seven dwarves.
You know what I mean?
Sorry, I just stole your comment.
I saw it there.
I was kind of heading there, but you beat me.
Yeah.
So every part about this is the right decision.
If there's one thing that Trump gets right consistently, it's the show.
I like to call it that.
The show.
You know, it's separate from the politics and the managing and the governing.
There's the show.
And the primaries are about the show.
He knows the show.
That wouldn't be the right show.
So he'll be counter-programming that.
Which is the smart play.
Alright, I'd like to call out some fake news from Fox News.
I think.
So this is an opinion, not a fact.
Do you remember the news that when Biden was on vacation and he was riding his bike With the other people.
And as he rode his bike somewhat at a little bit of a distance from the press, and the press were yelling questions presumably, but one of the questions was, do you have a comment about the Maui fires?
Because they were happening at the time.
And then Biden yelled back, no comment.
And the news reported that on the question about Maui, when Maui was burning, that he said no comment.
Is that true?
Do you think that really happened?
You saw it yourself.
It's right on video.
Right?
There's no question.
There's Biden.
There's the question.
Hey, what about Maui?
Biden says, in direct response, no comment.
So he said no comment to Maui.
Right?
That's obvious.
He was asked about Maui.
He said no comment.
I don't think so.
I'm sorry.
That's not what I saw.
I did not see that.
I saw somebody saying no comment in a general way without regard to what the question was.
Because that's what you would do in that situation.
You would not choose one thing to give a no comment to as you're riding your bicycle by.
You would simply see reporters.
You're on vacation.
They're going blah, blah, blah.
And you say, no comment.
And you keep riding your bike.
In my opinion, that's fake news.
Who agrees with me?
Let's see how many agree.
Do you think that was fake news?
I'm seeing lots of yeses.
Some nos.
See, the trouble is that the no is too on the nose.
You should have picked this up right away.
If I haven't taught you the on the nose trick yet, what have I done?
Nothing.
Yeah, it's a little too on the nose that the President of the United States would say no comment about a natural disaster.
That's not really a thing that happens anywhere in the world ever.
So when you see something that doesn't happen anywhere in the world ever, and the news says it just happened, that's too on the nose.
Because that would be bad for one team in a really unusual way.
Now, am I 100% sure?
No.
Because that would require mind reading, right?
I would actually have to know what was in Biden's mind when he said it.
But you know what else would require mind reading?
To imagine that he meant that the no comment only about Maui.
That would be mind reading.
So I'm saying, if it would be mind reading in either interpretation, And one of the interpretations is absurd.
It's absurd that he would have said no comment about a national disaster that was in the making.
You know, it was current.
It's absurd.
So you have to accept something absurd to accept that that's a true story.
Now I haven't even looked it up to see what the Democrats say, but I'm sure it's that.
I don't have to look it up to know that that's what they would say.
All right, so by the way, the reason I do this kind of content is so when I say something that sounds like I'm a team player, then you can at least say, OK, he doesn't always just back that one side.
Because I call out the fake news on CNN and MSNBC just all the time.
It's not all on one side.
It's very much not all on one side.
This is basically a root bar situation, a slight variant of it.
All right.
Biden, I guess, will visit Maui.
There are reports that he'll be bringing his beach chair and sunscreen and he'll be on the beach enjoying the weather.
No, that's not true.
He will be talking to the locals, we think.
Anyway, I saw Jason Chaffetz also on Fox News.
He had an article, the five signs that Biden is not really running.
And you can see him too, right?
So one of the signs is his campaign is way understaffed for what you would expect for a presidential campaign for this time of the cycle.
So he's not even staffing the way you would staff.
He's not going to battleground states.
The very thing you would absolutely be doing right now, go to Battleground States, and staff up, and then Kamala Harris is nowhere.
You know, you could probably add five things to this list yourself, but at what point does it become super glaringly obvious that, and there's a little uncertainty here, because I'm sure that he's been told he's not running.
And when I say he's been told, I mean he's been told.
I mean that literally.
I mean it's not his decision.
I mean that Jill told him he's not running and he can't do it without her.
That's what I think.
Now again, that would be, you know, mind reading.
I'm not a psychic.
I wasn't in the room.
But all signals are pointing in the same direction.
That this vacationing he's doing, Probably has a lot to do with transitioning him out of the office.
That's what I think.
I think that's mostly about that.
So we'll see.
There's a technology now, there's a paper published and a device built, an electrolyzer device that can turn CO2 into propane.
And apparently it's somewhat existing technology that could be scaled.
In other words, you don't have to invent anything else.
They've already invented it.
It uses materials that exist.
It looks scalable.
Maybe.
Maybe.
If we could make energy out of CO2, and apparently it would be economical and doable.
So it's viable.
Again I say, which climate model anticipated turning CO2 into energy?
None.
None.
All right.
There's some thought that video games, if they were optimized a little differently, could replace Adderall.
So that people who have HD, well ADD, ADHD, so that if there's an Adderall shortage or they just didn't want to use a pill, that they could use a video game that had the qualities that would cause them to focus and maybe learn to focus so there would be a lasting benefit.
It's almost like a drug.
So in a sense, the experts are saying that a video game can operate the same way as a drug.
Meaning that whatever chemical change happens within the person, you could chemically change it with the video experience in a way that might be similar, you know, not the same, but similar to how a drug might help.
Now I would like to add to that to say that all forms of art are drugs.
All art is a drug.
Music makes you feel a different way.
What does that?
A pill.
Drugs.
Music can motivate you, make you work out harder.
What does that?
Some drugs.
Music can make you sad and down.
What does that?
Some drugs.
So basically, the best way to think of all art is that it's a, it's a useful drug.
But like every drug, every legal drug, let's just talk about legal ones.
Like every legal drug, if you use it for the wrong purpose, you would get a bad result.
So if you match your music with the wrong kind of mood to whatever you're trying to accomplish, that would be like taking the wrong pill.
Now this is something I've been saying forever, but I don't think I've ever gotten through.
I think people say, yeah, yeah, yeah, some people like music.
I hear what you're saying.
No, no.
It's the same power as drugs.
And if you treat it as a drug, you can use it in its most useful form to cheer you up, to make you happy, make you think differently, maybe concentrate better in this case.
So it's just a good reframe to think of all art as a medicinal thing or something that could maybe be a performance enhancer.
But if you use it wrong, playing sad music when you're sad, for example, Don't do it.
All right.
You know, the word from Maui is that the governors, there's a, I guess there's a head of Maui and then the governor of Hawaii, and neither of them are willing to say the number of missing people who are children.
They say it's gonna be bad, it's a big number, but they're very, very vague, and at this point, we've all figured out that they know the answer.
It's very clear that they're not telling us what they know, because, in case there's anybody here who's got a low IQ, let's say under 80, let me explain this.
They're not waiting to identify the bodies.
That has nothing to do with not giving you the information.
Counting and identifying bodies is not how you find out what the death count is.
That's not what's going on.
They have to do that because they have to do that, right?
We have to treat the remains with respect and handle them, you know, in the most... in the safest way.
So everything's about respect so that don't confuse our knowledge of who died With the cleaning up the remains.
They're just completely different.
We know exactly who's missing.
It's a small island and the people who live there are the locals, right?
There were probably very few tourists who died in the fire.
I don't know that actually.
I'm speculating that Lahaina was mostly locals, because if you were a tourist, you just drove away.
So I think most of the tourists probably got out.
I think probably the locals had the toughest time.
Mostly.
Now clearly there were vacationers who were victims.
I just don't know the percentage.
Anyway, here's what I'm getting at.
By now, The number of missing is a full list with actual full names, their ages, and even contacts of who their family is.
They have a full list of who's missing.
It's Maui.
If it's been a week and you're still missing on Maui, you can't explain that by cell phones not being good, right?
On Maui, you can walk from one side of the island to the other in a week.
I mean, not that anybody would do that.
But it's not that big a place.
If the thousand-ish people, I think they're saying 1,050, if those people are all on a physical list, we know their names and ages and who the contact is when we find remains.
So if the governor is not telling you what percentage are children, it's not because they don't know.
It's not because they don't know.
Do you all get that?
You all get that they do know.
You know, within probably just a few, you know, within a few people, they do know how many were children.
And they're very pointedly telling you they're not going to tell you the answer to the question.
There's only one reason for that.
It's not that they don't know, right?
I don't believe it's exactly political.
You know, you're thinking that.
I don't think it's exactly a political thing.
I think it's safety.
Let's just say the obvious.
It's safety.
I don't believe the locals could handle the news.
And I don't want to say that something kinetic would happen if they heard the news.
But you would certainly have to worry about that.
You know what I mean?
So I don't want to say as directly as I could that this is a dangerous situation.
Now when you say to me, Scott, they're acting like we can't handle the truth.
Let me say as clearly as possible, you can't handle this truth.
You cannot handle this truth.
If it's what I think it is, and every sign says it's going to be bad, the locals are not going to be able to handle it.
Now maybe you and I can, because we have some distance, perhaps.
But let me tell you, if it was your kid, and you hear what you don't want to hear, that's a very dangerous situation when people are working as hard as they can to remediate the situation.
So I'm not going to say that I agree with them not telling you.
I'm not going to say I agree with it.
But if you think that it would be safe, To tell the public right away.
I would disagree with that.
It's not safe.
It's definitely not safe to tell the public what they know.
Would it be better if they waited a little bit?
Probably.
Because if they wait a little bit, they're going to get a better feel for the locals.
Because the locals are absolutely dangerous at this point.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Presumably, the locals are completely weaponized at this point.
Now, Hawaii is a pretty laid-back place, but everybody has their limit, right?
Everybody's laid back until they're not, and when they're not, they're not.
It's kind of binary sometimes.
And I think we've reached the point where the locals... I don't know if we can even generate enough empathy For what this situation is going to deserve.
I don't think we have the capacity.
I think this is going to be beyond our imagination, unfortunately.
So the reason I'm telling you is to warn you.
You need to start getting your brain ready for what's coming.
Just get ready for it.
The knowing it's coming is going to help.
Because you don't want the shock to hit you.
It's sort of the cats-on-the-roof situation, breaking it to you slowly.
Sometimes it makes sense to break it to you slowly.
I will say this with 100% confidence.
The authorities will tell us the numbers.
They're not going to keep it from you.
They're making sure that they tell you when it's the right time to tell you.
That's not a horrible instinct.
I'm not sure I would have done it.
I might have played it differently.
But give them a little bit of consideration.
I think we should give everybody a little bit of consideration here.
Not everybody's evil.
People are trying to do the best they can, certainly now.
And I think this is a super tough situation for the authorities.
Imagine them trying to do what they need to do With the extra pressure of what might happen if the full truth came out right away when emotions are at their peak.
So I think that they might want the energy to come down a little bit before they tell you what they know.
I hate it, but I don't know that it's the worst situation.
All right, let's talk about Vivek again.
There's another Every day you wake up, Vivek is trending on X again.
He's got another video saying awesome, amusing, interesting things you want to hear.
Funniest thing was he was asked about the WEF and he had this hilarious routine in which he hypothesizes that everything with an acronym is bad.
He goes through the list and it just gets funnier and funnier because you're agreeing with him.
He's like, well, you know, you get everything from the WEF to the FBI.
He had a whole list of acronym places that sound bad.
He, of course, is railing against the WEF and about ESG in particular, and I couldn't love him more for going against ESG directly and hard and effectively the way he is.
But when I tweet anything about him, there's a type of comment I get from people who are clearly identified with the right, and they're creeping me out.
And I don't quite understand what I'm seeing.
So I want to see if you have some insight for me.
All right?
I'll tell you the nature of the comments.
So here are a few.
I still have a bad feeling about him.
With nothing else.
I still have a bad feeling about him.
He, quote, came out of nowhere, so I don't trust him.
Because nobody comes out of nowhere.
OK?
He's a WEF and Soros puppet, despite the fact that his brand is speaking against them.
That's his brand.
He's against ESG.
It's the most basic part of his campaign, is that he's against these things.
And people are saying, I think he's working for them.
Where does that come from, exactly?
And then somebody today, just a few moments ago, said, I smell a fink.
So there's some number of people on the right who suspect he's some kind of a trick or a puppet or something like that.
Now let's talk about this one where he came out of nowhere.
Is that true?
Did he come out of nowhere?
He's 37.
He's 37 and he's already done more than almost all of you.
He's already a successful author, entrepreneur, And he's a candidate who went from 1% to 11%, whatever the numbers are, it's about that, by pure performance.
Now, does anybody think that I work for the WEF?
Does anybody think I'm a Soros puppet?
Some do.
Some do.
They say yes.
I'm going to assume you're joking.
I'm going to assume you're joking.
But why do I like him?
So, and then somebody said that there's no way he could be doing this well unless he was backed by powerful forces.
That the tweeter doesn't know who they are.
Is Vivek backed by powerful forces?
Yes or no?
Vivek Ramaswamy, is he backed by powerful forces?
Yes, he is.
Of course he is.
The internet dads.
Yeah, the internet dads back him.
Not every one of them.
But there are people that other people take seriously who are taking him seriously.
For example, Elon Musk recently tweeted that he's a candidate with a lot of potential or something like that.
He didn't endorse him.
He just noted his great potential.
I, of course, have been supporting him.
And I think you're going to slowly see some other crop of Internet dads at least say, take a look at him.
At least say, take a look at him.
And you don't think that's a powerful force?
I do.
I think I'm a powerful force.
And I back him.
So we'll see.
Anyway, it all feels racist, honestly.
My bottom line is the people saying, I've got a bad feeling.
I smell a fink.
He's a Soros puppet.
He came out of nowhere.
I just don't trust him.
Honestly, that all feels racist to me.
I'm not reading any minds.
I'm not reading minds, so I don't know.
I'll tell you how it feels.
All right.
So as a feeling, it feels like it's coming from someplace unpleasant.
You know what I mean?
I don't feel like it's coming from this part of your head.
I think it's coming from somewhere down here.
And it's not pleasant to see.
So I'm not going to blame you all being racist if you've got these vague concerns about them.
Maybe there are some other source.
It feels creepy to me.
It just feels creepy.
I don't mind that people push back, but you need to push back a little with a little more meat, right?
You need to go after the policies.
But this whole there's something wrong with him situation is not feeling comfortable to me.
I think that's coming from the wrong place.
Speaking of coming from the wrong place, Andy McCarthy, you all know him.
Very respectable, conservative lawyer type.
And generally one of the people that we, you'll see quoted as his good takes.
So he's sort of a good take person.
Probably one of the better, maybe a top 10.
I'd say he's a top 10 good take person.
Even if you disagree with him, he has like really well thought out takes.
So it's important to know that he's very credible.
When I tell you this.
He tweeted, very simple, Trump can't win.
65% already against him.
That's before the Dems launched barrage after getting him nominated.
If we finally grasp that, his support will collapse.
If not, we lose everything and Dems use majorities to remake Supreme Court.
Nominate him if you want, but that's reality.
Now, do you agree with that take?
I hadn't heard the 65% number before, but, you know, it's at least 50.
So, here's what I think.
This sounds a lot like 2015.
Remember 2015?
Trump's negatives were so negative that there's no way he could win?
Do you remember what I said when people said his negatives are way too high, he can't win?
Do you remember what I said?
He doesn't have to outrun the bear.
He only has to outrun Hillary.
Right?
So all he had to do was make Hillary look worse.
And so he did.
And then he won.
So when you say that there's this huge negative against Trump, that ignores the fact that whoever gets nominated to run against him has to deal with Trump.
How has that worked out before?
I think Biden was clearly an anomaly.
I don't think Biden could have won in a non-pandemic, weird, hoax-filled year.
I mean, almost everything was weird about it.
But Trump is the ultimate insulter and brander and minimizer of other people.
Once it becomes a choice between This Trump guy that so many people don't like versus any Democrat?
What do you think Republicans are going to do?
Stay home?
And let Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris become president?
Is that your read of Republicans?
Republicans would be like, You know, definitely I'd rather Trump over these other ones, but I guess I'm just going to stay home.
That doesn't sound like a Republican at all.
It sounds like they would see, you know, complete danger if Trump didn't win.
So they would act like they're actually at risk.
They would act out of fear.
There would be actual fear that Democrat control is literally dangerous.
Feels like it.
It feels literally dangerous.
Now we certainly think so.
All right.
So we'll see.
We'll see.
I just give you the 2015 caution that we've been here before with Trump.
Doesn't mean it will repeat, because you know what I say.
History never repeats.
Do you know why history never repeats?
It can't.
It's not even possible.
It can't repeat.
Because you're always starting from a different place.
If you're saying that you always get the same result no matter what the situation when you start from, that would just be nonsense.
History cannot repeat.
It's not even an option.
I'll tell you what can repeat.
People will always be people.
Follow the money is probably going to work in the future.
Follow the money, right?
That stuff repeats.
People will be selfish, devious weasels?
Yes.
That will repeat.
But you can't know exactly what the outcome is of the weasel-ness.
That part is unpredictable.
All right.
I'm getting now the Amazon reviews for my new book, Reframe Your Brain.
And there's always a few types of reviews that I look for.
My favorites I'm smarter than the author review.
I always get them and they always look the same.
It's somebody saying, oh, when I read this book, there were so many things that I already knew that for me, it was a three out of five stars because of the already knowing everything in the book.
But if I may, if you were young, let's say you were 13, this might be quite a book for you because you, unlike me, would not know everything in the book before I read it.
Every book I've written has that guy.
And he just appeared today.
I was like, hey, the guy.
That guy.
It's about time for that guy.
Basically, all authors have this.
All non-fiction authors have this.
There's always that guy who knows more than the author, and the important thing is not the review of the book, but that this person tells you they know more than the author.
That's the point of the review.
So, it's just such a narcissist kind of thing.
It's very predictable, you always get it.
The other one you always get, I saw Tim Ferriss doing a reel about this recently, but all authors get this, and it goes like this.
You'll recognize this one.
I used to like Scott for the other things he did.
But I must say, right?
The, the, uh, I used to like him.
The I used to like him guy always shows up.
They never stay home.
They always show up.
And the used to like him guy is, it's just, you wouldn't want to run into this one at a party.
Like you don't want to be their friend in real life.
Oh, I used to like him, but now.
And then there's also the political ones, the people who use reviews just to get revenge because there's something I did once that they didn't like.
And those you can recognize.
For example, somebody called my current book, Advice.
Advice?
And he said it was like common sense.
It was common sense advice.
It literally is a book that says this is not advice.
It says that much of the reframes are nonsense, but they work.
It's how to program your brain.
It's literally how to rearrange the structure of your brain.
And his take was, I've heard this advice before.
No, it's about the reframe.
The reframe is what makes the advice active.
How do you read the whole book and miss the biggest part of the book, which everybody else seemed to see pretty easily?
Now, the reason is he didn't read the book.
It's a negative review of somebody who picked up the book.
Here, I'll use Greg Gutfeld's new book as my example.
This is how this review gets written.
All right.
Oh yeah, he's saying that people don't succeed every time.
Oh, I knew that people didn't succeed every time.
So I guess this is a book full of things that I don't need.
And then he writes a review.
So that guy always shows up.
All right.
No one else.
I saw Adam Kinzinger tweeted that Tucker is a traitor to the U.S.
So Adam Kinzinger, he's in Congress and says Tucker's a traitor to the U.S.
because Tucker was going to talk to some Serbians for an interview.
Here's what would, this is just some advice for Adam.
I gave him some advice.
If you want to call somebody a traitor, there's a way to do it.
And then there's a way not to do it.
A way not to call somebody a traitor is if your profile has a Ukrainian flag sitting equally to an American flag.
If you're going to call somebody else a traitor, you should at least temporarily remove the Ukrainian flag.
And if that's not good enough, you should also get rid of the phrase that he has that I believe is Slava Ukraine.
Slava Ukraine.
You know, you might want to put in like a God bless America.
Something like that.
And then just temporarily get rid of the Ukrainian flag and then the praise for Ukraine.
Just only for the purpose of calling other people traitors.
Then, let a little time go by, you can put it back, nobody will even make the connection.
But don't do it at the same time that you're promoting another country while you're sitting in Congress in the United States.
I think I've made my point.
Alright, I saw this comment from Glenn Greenwald who was looking at somebody else's tweet and I had never considered this and therefore I feel myself lacking.
So I'm chastising myself for not understanding this take.
And it goes like this.
This is Glenn Greenwald.
The group that by far most supports US fueling of the war in Ukraine is self-identified liberal Democrats.
Even as Western media admits the counter-offensive is failing.
Here's the key part.
One major reason is that they loathe Russia due to 2016 and are thus willing to destroy Ukraine to harm Moscow.
Holy shit.
That's it.
That's it.
To the left, it looks like Russia got Trump elected.
To the left, Trump and Russia are the same orange monster.
They're the same thing.
That never even occurred to me.
Which, you know, I actually am apologizing for, because it's kind of obvious after you hear it.
It wasn't until I read it That my brain said, what?
Oh my God, that's true.
Right?
Now, I'm not saying every person is having this, you know, specific thought, oh, Russia, Trump.
But if you ask Democrats, they'll say that Russia got Trump elected and that he was trying to be their friend and, you know, Russia and Trump are good buddies.
Because their news has abused them to the degree that they actually believe that.
Now, my blind spot is that since I know that's baloney, It never occurred to me that anybody would see Trump and Russia as somehow connected in 2023, because it's all been debunked.
But on the left, they don't get real news.
They get the zombie news that never gets debunked.
It's like, well, we said it, so I guess we'll just keep saying it.
And even though people are debunking it outside your bubble, you'll never know, because you never leave your bubble.
So I really think there's something to that.
How many would agree?
JFK.
Scott hasn't had any good ideas in years.
But how many agree that Russia may look like the big bad enemy to the left because they think it's Trump?
And they don't even know that they think it's all one big thing.
Yeah, that does make sense.
But it also makes me wonder if there's some way to fix that.
And I doubt it, because the hoaxes that drive it, they all believe.
And how do you get them out of their bubble?
Now, I saw some speculation.
That one of the reasons that Elon Musk wants to get rid of blocking is that it would disable mass blocking lists, which apparently exists.
I've never seen one or participated in one, but I might be on one.
And I know... Could somebody fill in the new guy on locals?
Could you fill them in?
Please?
Thank you.
What was I talking about?
Which is why I'm asking you to fill them in.
See it derails me.
There's some kinds of comments that derail me.
So anything about the process.
Ruins the show.
So if I'm in the middle of talking something and you tell me about the lighting being inadequate, the sound being inadequate, or I haven't hit the private button, then my mind goes to process.
If my mind is in process, then I can't do the show.
Just don't do that.
So I'd ask the other locals, people, just to let the other people know, don't do that during the show.
I mean, if you do it during the man cave or something, then that's different.
But don't do it right in the middle of the show.
That's a bad idea.
All right, The Block Lists.
Thank you.
Do they exist?
I'm not sure that's real.
Do Democrats have big block lists?
And let me ask it the other way.
Is there anybody who's ever used a block list?
I've never even seen one.
I'm seeing some yeses.
Answer me, have you used one?
Has anybody used one?
Some have used one, it looks like.
Well, it can't be a big thing.
Now, so the question I have is, I heard that you've seen studies that the people on the left don't see tweets from people on the right, and vice versa.
But is that because of block lists?
I don't think it is.
I think that's just organic.
All right, well, I have a question on fact about that.
To me, it seems like the division or the silos of information have more to do with the fact that you don't follow people you don't want to follow.
It seems like if you don't follow the other side, you're not going to see their stuff.
So I don't think that has anything to do with the blocking stuff.
And then keep in mind, it's not just about blocking and muting.
Linda Iaccarino, Maybe it is.
I'll wait and see.
is saying that they're working on something that would be better than blocking and muting.
Maybe it is.
I'll wait and see.
I'm in favor of any kind of experimenting that can be reversed, and this would be exactly that kind.
It sounds like it would be bad for me.
It sounds like it.
But like I've said before, I would not want X to base its policy on what's good for a thin slice of specific kind of users at a certain size, you know.
It should be for everybody.
I hate to say it, but my personal preferences should not have anything to do with policy at X. What are my top leftist follows?
Good question.
I follow Joe Biden.
I think I follow some White House accounts.
That's a good question.
I know there have been a number of people... I think I follow George Takai.
I don't know.
But, you know, some of the people I follow are just flamethrowers.
You know, George Takai is like a really interesting leftist.
His tweets are really good.
I think I follow AOC.
I think I follow Soros.
Yeah, I mean, I think I follow Cenk.
I think I follow him.
Krasenstein's I blocked.
I couldn't handle them.
Olbermann, I still see.
I don't block him.
I don't remember if I follow him.
I don't think I follow him.
But, yeah.
Obama, probably.
I think I follow Obama.
All right.
So, if anybody has, you know, I'll tell you what.
Ben Garrison.
I'll tell you what.
If there are Democrats you think That I should follow.
