Episode 2245 Scott Adams: Debate Opinions, Where I Can Seek Asylum, Lots Of Coffee And Whatnot
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Ukraine Drone War, General Milley, Kari Lake, Mitch McConnell, Funding Ukraine Priority, Mike Pence, Elon Musk, Governor Newsom, Joel Pollack, GOP Debate, Chris Christie, Vivek Ramaswamy, TikTok Sponsored GOP Debate, NIkki Haley, Governor DeSantis, Dana Perino, CNN Reaction Video Ploy, Mar-A-Lago Value, Weaponized Partisan Judiciary, J6 Lectern Guy, Seeking Asylum Country, National Incompetence Crisis, Fauci Allegations, Newsom DeSantis Debate, Doug Burgum, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I'm pretty sure nobody listening to this has ever had a better day.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even imagine, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine journey, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
And yes, I am wearing a colorful shirt.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
So good.
It's the liquid of the gods.
Well, Joe Biden has completely solved the problem of police officers abusing black motorists.
We have had no more George Floyds since Biden has been elected.
Now, I think he should count that as one of his biggest accomplishments, because we went from a massive problem, indeed, maybe the biggest problem in the black community, according to the coverage, and it went from the biggest problem in the world to basically nothing.
That was pretty good.
I think we could solve climate change the same way.
Just elect Republicans and stop watching the news.
You'd never know there was a problem.
Like literally, you would never know.
You'd just think the weather was bad if there was a problem.
Alright, here's a prediction I made that is today in the Wall Street Journal.
Now, I bragged about this before, but the fact that it's a major article in the Wall Street Journal today.
Now, give me a fact check.
When did the Ukraine war start?
About 18 months ago?
Was it a year ago?
So 18, 19 months ago.
All right.
So when that started, my prediction was, if you remember, do you remember my prediction?
That the Russian army would not be successful because of drones.
And that they wouldn't be prepared for a drone defense.
And the Wall Street Journal is reporting today that, huh, it turns out that traditional military operations don't work so well if the other side has a lot of drones.
So the Wall Street Journal pretty much saying that Ukraine's success is drone related.
Now, how many times have I been mocked for not being a military expert?
Which of course I'm not.
But did nobody else realize that this was going to be a drone war?
I was the person who had to bring this up and everybody mocked me and said, Scott, I don't think you understand how strong the Russian army is compared to Ukraine.
They're just going to march in and take everything.
And I said, I don't know.
I think I'd keep an eye on the sky.
Might be some surprises up there.
And that's exactly where we are.
The drone advantage turns out to be maybe the biggest variable in the war.
Maybe not the biggest, but one of the biggest.
So my advice to you is if you have a military question, you should ignore the generals, because you're going to be listening to somebody like Mark Milley.
Let me ask you this question.
I just want to give you an example of how bad things are in the world.
This is an honest question and only my viewers would answer it the way I think you're going to answer it.
If you had a choice of listening to my military opinions versus General Milley, which ones are more credible?
Me or General Milley?
It is me.
It's me because you can't trust that guy and he doesn't look too smart.
And if you look at who's predicted better so far, well, well.
Now, my point is not my brilliance, although I'd like to talk about that too.
My point is that experts have no value anymore.
There are no experts who can predict anything at all.
It's a coin flip.
Well, Carrie Lake is going to announce that she'll run for Senate in Arizona, which will be interesting.
It'll be a three-way race because you'll have Kyrsten Sinema as an independent, Ruben Gallego as the likely Democrat, and so you'd have a three-way race.
Do you think that Carrie Lake would win a three-way race?
I feel like she might.
Seems like she'd have a good chance of that.
I don't know.
Do you think an Independent could win if you had a strong Republican?
I don't know.
I think she's got a good shot at that.
So Mitch McConnell, they propped him up in public and stuck a hand up his ass and moved his lips in a puppet fashion, I assume.
I mean, I don't know for sure, but I'm just making a logical assumption based on what he said.
And he said that, and I quote, providing assistance for the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is our number one priority.
The number one priority.
The United States is funding the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians.
That's your number one priority.
So does that sound like he's operating independently?
Well, we'll talk about the Republican debate, but give me a fact check.
Were there two or three?
How many of the Republicans debating out of the seven?
Would agree with Mitch that, not necessarily the number one priority, but that we have to do Ukraine funding.
Because if we don't fund Ukraine, as Mike Pence said, if we don't fund Ukraine, China will try to attack and take Taiwan.
Does that connect in your mind?
Does those things make sense?
That China is just watching us and like, if they make one slip in Ukraine, We're gonna take Taiwan.
Does anybody think that China thinks that way?
To me that sounded like the dumbest ass thing I've ever heard in my life.
It sounds exactly like the thing you say.
Here's what it sounds like.
You know how in high school or college sometimes they'll do a fake debate and they'll assign you your position?
And you might be assigned a position you don't believe, but you've got to do the best you can.
Like, well, you're funding Ukraine because a vital national interest.
No, we've got to fund Ukraine because of the wind.
No, we've got to fund Ukraine because of Fund Ukraine because the minds of the Chinese leaders that we don't have access to are clearly thinking that one little slip up in Ukraine and boom, Taiwan's gone.
Can't argue against that because you can't read minds, can you?
I can read minds, so I know that's what China's planning, but you can't.
Oh, no, don't even try.
Don't try.
Don't try.
That's just one of my talents.
I can read minds.
But the rest of you cannot.
Don't even try.
Don't even try.
That felt like that was Pence's argument.
That he could read the minds of the Chinese leaders.
That looks like somebody who's bought, doesn't it?
Does that look like somebody who's thought out their own opinion?
Or does it look like somebody who needs to satisfy their master?
And maybe they want you to know that they're just satisfying their master because they're too embarrassed to act like it's their own opinion.
I mean, that reason is so weak, it's almost like he said, please, I'm under duress.
I'm being forced to say these things, but I want you to know I'm being forced.
You know, I'm going to give you a little signal that this is under duress.
I'll say the dumbest thing anybody could ever say in public.
Oh, we think we'll lose Taiwan.
Yeah.
And then the other Republicans say stuff like, well, this is how we degrade Russia because Russia is our biggest threat.
And all the bad things Russia has done.
Have we not told you of all the bad things Putin has done?
Well, I don't think anybody doubts Putin does bad things.
It feels like we get that.
But that does not necessarily mean you fund a war forever.
I'm not sure that the logic connects it.
Putin is bad, therefore we fund Ukraine forever.
Okay.
And China might take Taiwan if something happens in Ukraine.
I'm not getting it.
Not getting it.
Compare those reasons to we're going broke.
The going broke part is more like we know that's happening.
Money that we, at the very least, we should be spending on ourselves if we have it.
If we don't have it, we shouldn't be spending it.
So...
Yeah, that looks like a lot of weirdness.
But Elon Musk saw a little video of Mitch McConnell saying funding Ukrainians is our number one priority.
And Musk tweets, Mitch lost his marbles.
And then he follows up with a post.
Let's call it a post.
In which he says, in all seriousness, why are we letting somebody who's having aneurysms in public make decisions for the country?
I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said.
Now, I love the fact that Musk is in this privileged position where nobody's going to kick him off of his own platform.
He's the only person who has something close to free speech.
And it's because he owns the platform that does the speaking.
If you don't own it, you're not really guaranteed any free speech, are you?
But he has it.
So apparently the cost of free speech is $22 billion.
So that's what it takes to buy free speech.
$22 billion.
And what will happen if you have your free speech?
Well, apparently the government will target you and try to destroy your businesses, because that's what's happening.
The government is trying to destroy him because he spent $22 billion to have free speech for himself.
You know, ideally for us too, but it works better for him.
Because I could still get kicked off of the platform, but he can't.
That's not going to happen.
So, that's happening.
All right.
Governor Newsom still making news even though there was a Republican debate.
I guess he got in the mix there to cause some trouble and get some news.
But he was asked a question by Joel Pollack for Breitbart News and let me let me read how this exchange went.
Now, in case you wondered if Newsom was A, a good politician, he is.
He's very capable.
And B, the slimiest, slipperiest human you've ever seen in your life.
I believe that he can actually, he can actually grease his own hair with the things that come out of his mouth.
I imagine him in the morning, he wakes up and his hair is all, you know, cattywampus, it's like this.
And then he stands in front of a mirror, And he says just Democrat stuff.
President Trump is basically like Hitler.
MAGA, MAGA, a whole bunch of white supremacists.
Looking good.
Looking good.
Yeah, that's how I imagine it.
I imagine he actually slicks back his own hair with the bullshit coming out of his mouth.
It's my best guess.
I don't know for sure.
I'm just guessing, but it feels like it.
Now, you judge for yourself.
So as Joel Pollack was talking to him, so this is Breitbart News, says, why should parents not know if their kids are transitioning at school?
Is that a good question?
Or is that a gotcha question?
Is that a gotcha question?
No, it's not a gotcha question.
It's like directly on point to what a whole bunch of people care about.
How does Newsom answer that?
It's a hell of a thing.
You're talking about 1% of the population.
Climate change.
That's gonna impact 100% of the population.
Wasn't even brought up.
Meaning, at the debate, wasn't even brought up.
And we're talking about trans issues?
Breitbart News.
Here in California, this is an issue.
You know, his own state, California.
And some other reporter chimed in and said, it's a big issue for parents.
Newsom says, This is a front and center issue to America?
Breitbart News.
Instead of going for his question, Cleverly just restates the question.
Why should parents not know?
Which is getting back to the basic question, why should parents not know about their kids transitioning?
Newsom says, it's the great distraction.
This is one of the greatest distractions, and it's classic.
1% of the population of the United States, these kids just want to live!
And he sold that, the last part, that's why I'm selling it.
These kids just want to live!
Now, who else said that?
They just want to live!
Dr. Frankenstein, yeah, or Dr. Frankenstein, depending which movie you watched.
Live!
Live!
It's very similar.
And then Ray Barnu says, again restating the question that he avoided, why can't parents know?
Newsome, the kids just want to live!
And we're having a debate about trans issues at the Reagan Library.
You ought to be ashamed.
And so, once he delivered his kill shot, that you cannot say political things at the Reagan Library, because that would be the worst place to say political stuff during a political debate.
It was a political debate and a lot of it was on topics like this.
But yeah, at the Reagan Library, you should be ashamed.
Now, I like to look at successful politicians and try to pick up techniques that I can incorporate into my own life.
And this one's a good one.
So, at the Reagan Library, you ought to be ashamed.
And I think you could use this technique whether you're at the Reagan Library, or anywhere else.
So, let's say you go to Costco, and you want to get some goods, and you start walking past the cash register without paying, and the cashier says, hey, hey, you need to pay for that.
And you turn around and you look at him and you say, At Costco?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
The kids just won't live!
They won't live!
And then just walk right out.
That's how I'd play it.
Well, there was a Republican debate.
I'm sure you all watched every minute of it.
What exactly happened at the Republican debate?
Well, lots of various and miscellaneous things.
So we're looking for the breakout moments.
Breakout moments.
Chris Christie gave a long answer, which apparently was intended for one purpose only, that the closing line could be his Trump kill shot.
Oh, he went hard.
He went hard.
He actually said that if Trump keeps avoiding debating... Wait for it.
Wait for it.
This is devastating.
Wait for it.
If Trump continues to avoid Debating that he won't be called Donald Trump anymore.
Wait for it.
He'll be called Donald Duck.
Dagger.
He stuck the dagger into Donald Trump.
So I haven't heard the news if Trump has dropped out of the race yet, but one can predict that with that kind of a devastating labeling, I don't know how he's going to survive.
Well, where did Chris Christie get this clever, clever idea?
Was it because Hillary Clinton first invented the nickname during the 2016 election?
Or was it because when I wrote about her coming up with the terrible nickname in my book, Winn-Bigley, I mocked it for half a chapter?
Could it be that it was so well mocked that he thought, well, this would be the time to whip that out?
Because it worked so well for Hillary Clinton.
I think I'll do that.
But the worst part about it was the look on his face when he delivered it.
The look like he was pretty sure he He really made a moment.
So you have to play it back and watch the look on his face when he delivers it.
They'll call you Donald Duck!
And he was waiting for the giant applause that was like... So not really the moment he was expecting.
But did the news pick it up and report it like it was a moment?
Yes.
Yeah, that's how boring the debate was.
The debate was so boring that that actually made the news, just like he planned.
Now, unfortunately, it made the news for being a stupid thing, but at least you made the news.
All right, we'll talk about all the players.
Vivek.
Yeah, so Vivek.
Let me give you my overall, and then we'll talk about some specific things.
I thought he disappeared a little bit.
Did anybody else have that impression?
That Vivek disappeared a little bit?
He didn't seem like the big winner.
And that was just sort of a feeling, right?
It has nothing to do with how the final outcome will be, because I don't think the debate settled anything.
But I thought he pulled back a little bit.
Still, It's worth noting, he made the biggest news.
I think he made the biggest news, of real news.
You know, not the gotcha stuff.
So here are some of the things that he said.
He said, transgenderism, especially in kids, is a mental health disorder.
Has anybody said that directly who is running for president?
Has anybody ever said that directly?
Don't remember if anybody has.
Can you give me a fact check?
Now, I am not a doctor.
I'm not an expert on this topic.
So I feel like it's a little bit of word thinking, a little bit of trying to win by a definition.
Because I don't know.
Well, what makes something a mental health disorder versus something you're just thinking?
What would be the dividing line between thinking differently and having a mental health disorder?
Would it be how much it affects your life?
Isn't that the standard?
The standard would be how much it affects your life, right?
So if everyone who has the same is in the same situation, their life is affected.
Is that a mental disorder?
And would it be fair to say that it's a mental disorder if your body and your brain are just not matched?
What if your body and your brain are just not matched?
Is that a disorder?
Or is that just bad luck?
I feel like as soon as you put a word on it, you're changing how people think about it, and that doesn't seem fair.
So I'm going to defend the transgender community a little bit by saying, I don't think every situation is the same.
I feel like that's too far.
A little too far.
But if you said, do you think anybody who says they are transgender is primarily working off of a mental disorder, I would say, yeah, obviously.
To me, it's obvious that some percentage of transgender, I'll talk about the adults.
Children are a whole different topic.
But if you talk about the adults, some percentage of them are clearly just having a mental disorder.
I just don't know what percentage.
If it's 99%, then Vivek is basically right.
If it's 50% then I think that's a little harsh.
I don't know.
I know I'm a little uncomfortable with a political figure having a medical opinion.
A little uncomfortable with that.
But he made news and he probably delighted his base.
So from a political perspective was it wrong?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think the If you say to yourself, well Scott he only lost the transgenders and they're not enough of them and they weren't gonna vote for him anyway.
I would say you're wrong because there's so many people who would support that community and might in fact change their vote based on that.
Because certainly there are Republicans who have transgender family members.
So I feel like I feel like that might have been something that lost him more votes than it gained.
No way to know.
He has good instincts and he could be entirely right about this.
Right, right in terms of it working politically.
I'm not talking about his medical opinion.
But this one's tough.
But I do like the fact that it was bold.
I do like the fact that he was clear about it.
And I do like the fact that, you know, he separates the children policy from the adult policy.
And he's still, you know, adults let adults do what they want to do if it's not bothering you.
So I do like the boldness.
I like the boldness.
Not sure it's where I would have been bold, but I like the fact he's bold.
When questioned about Hughes, this is the weirdest thing about the night.
If you didn't notice, the debate was sponsored by TikTok.
Did you notice that?
Now, I don't know how many other sponsors there were, commercials, but at least some of the commercials were TikTok commercials.
So in that context, I think Nikki Haley was mocking him, Vivek, for using TikTok for his political message.
And Vivek has a good line.
He says he wants to try something unique for Republicans, which is winning elections.
It's a good line.
Says exactly what he wants it to say, and you understand it immediately.
So I get it, he's being strategic.
And then he does say that TikTok and other addictive platforms should not be available before age 16.
Would that include video games?
Because video games are all addictive, and they're not good for you, are they?
Would he ban all video games before 16?
No.
If your standard is that it's addictive, you've got a problem.
If your standard is that it's addictive and another country controls it, then I'm all on board with that.
You don't want your nemesis to have control of your minds.
But if some video game made in America has control of your mind by wasting your time, that might be different.
But they're both addictive.
So maybe that needs a extra clarification on his ban before 16.
He's in the right direction on that.
However, I should say that Nikki Haley says directly TikTok should be banned in the United States.
And I prefer that view over Vakes.
Like, a lot.
I prefer it a lot.
And she says it directly and without any hesitation.
Just ban it.
That's the clearest, rightest statement about TikTok.
However, when Nikki Haley says why you should ban it, she uses the bullshit propaganda reason that it's because data security.
So even though she wants to ban it, she can't tell you why in an accurate way, which is very distressing.
That you could be running for president and not know that the risk of TikTok is the influence Way more than the data.
I mean, the data is an issue, but it's maybe, on a scale of 1 to 10, the data is like a 1.
Most of that data you can buy in the free market.
And the risk of persuasion is a 10.
It's actually, you know, the persuasion could eliminate reproduction in the United States and get it below the survival level, which it looks like it's doing, by the way.
That looks like exactly what's happening.
So everybody lost on TikTok.
So I'd say everybody was a loser on that topic.
Then Vivek also called for an end of birthright citizenship.
So that's the thing where if somebody is not a citizen but they can get to the United States illegally and their kid is born here, the kid is a citizen even when the parents are not.
Now he didn't specify but I assume that would not be retroactive.
Because I would not be on board with somebody who's a 25-year-old citizen of the United States being told suddenly that they're not, right?
Now, he didn't specify, so I'm sure he doesn't mean retroactively, because that would be evil on a level that I couldn't even imagine.
I mean, that would just be pure evil, to take somebody's citizenship away from them after they already have it.
Now that is pure evil.
So I don't think that's what he has in mind.
He should specify.
Because if he said going forward, from this point on, strong argument.
Strong argument.
Because the argument for it was based on trying to do something that made sense for slaves, freed slaves, so that they would be citizens for sure, especially if they were born here.
It doesn't really apply to illegal immigration.
It was never meant for that.
And so it probably wouldn't be that hard to do an executive order and change it.
Maybe it would survive the Supreme Court.
I think it might.
So that's another bold thing from Vivek.
So he's got two bold things.
Boldness usually is a good play.
So he has a lot of good instincts.
All right, let's talk about Nikki Haley.
In my opinion, she won the debate.
Anybody want to tell me who they think won?
I think Nikki Haley won.
I'll tell you why in a moment.
But let me see your takes.
Yeah, we could say Trump won.
Yeah, we get it.
We get it.
Trump won.
Got it.
Got it.
Like Tim Scott, No Winners, DeSantis, Vivek.
Yeah, I think everybody liked their favorites.
But let me tell you what I did like.
I thought Nikki Haley's presentation was really sharp.
Meaning that she looked powerful and presidential.
And oh my God, whoever dressed her, whoever dressed her, like I don't know if she had help, Picking her, I guess it looked like a dress, but we only saw the top.
Perfect.
She looked really, really good and presidential at the same time, which is tough.
I mean, Hillary Clinton never once pulled off looking presidential and also stylish.
Never once.
Not a single time did she pull that off.
But Nikki Haley did.
She looked female presidential, sold it.
Totally sold the look.
Now if you think the look doesn't matter, of course it does.
We're totally influenced by the look.
In fact, I might be influenced by the look right now.
She just looked really professional.
Nailed it.
All right, but things I liked were her TikTok ban.
I liked it even though she doesn't understand why.
She said she'd use special forces to take out the cartels.
I think that's the cleanest answer on the cartels.
Both DeSantis... DeSantis says he would militarize the border, which is the wrong answer because it still puts the military on our side of the border.
Vivek says he would use the military against the cartels, but when people hear that, they imagine a proper military invasion of Mexico.
That's not what he has in mind.
We're not talking about marching the army across the border, necessarily.
When Nikki Haley talks about it, she says, I'll use special forces to go after the cartels.
Now, when you say that, I have a perfect picture in my head.
Oh, I get it.
You're not necessarily going to ask for permission.
Because it's special forces, they work in secret.
And you're going to go directly after the leadership of the cartels and try to have the least amount of, you know, innocent deaths.
And you're going to put the same pressure on the cartels as they're putting on the country.
I like it.
Yeah.
Saying you're going to send special forces in is a clean, clear, smart, Way to say it.
I think Vivek's way might actually be what he has in mind.
You know, more of a general military, I don't know.
But he needs to clarify.
Are you really talking about moving the army across the border?
If he is, just say so.
Because I don't mind the boldness at all.
But say so.
All right.
Maybe he has, and I've never heard it.
So I'm sure he's been asked that question.
So there might be a clarification out there that I'm not aware of.
One of the things that Nikki Haley said to Vivek was, I think it might have been on the discussion about the TikTok.
She said, "Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber." Wow.
Now, I think it was because his TikTok answer didn't seem coherent, or at least that's how she was going to frame it as incoherent.
It's coherent.
It is coherent.
But you could make the case that he's being inconsistent.
I thought that was a memorable line.
It did seem rude and a little too much.
Maybe somebody said, oh, you know, women shouldn't be so nasty because you're sexist.
I know.
Yeah.
So maybe our prejudices are guiding us on that one.
I thought DeSantis was totally solid.
Would you agree with that answer?
DeSantis was solid.
He didn't hurt himself, may have helped himself.
I thought he was better than the first one, but he had a few high points.
One was, I couldn't even believe this happened, But Dana Perino, one of the three hosts, asked the group to write down on a piece of paper and then show it at the same time who they think should be voted off the stage.
Now, that might be the worst cringy thing I've ever seen in a debate.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's no way in the world that Dana Perino came up with that idea on her own.
I will go further and say, there's no way in the world she didn't push back, you know, to not do it.
I will go further.
I'm not a mind reader, but common sense.
I will go further and say she must have been forced.
She must have been forced by producers or bosses because it would make a moment.
It would make a TV moment that's good for replay.
It would make a good viral clip.
We talk about it all day long.
Do you think that Dana Perino was in favor of that?
If you've watched her?
I don't think so.
I think she was under duress.
And how did it go?
Well, it went the way it should have gone.
The first adult in the room said, no.
And that was DeSantis.
This is the second time DeSantis has immediately stopped stupidity at a debate.
Second time in a row.
He says, nope, nope.
I'm not going to do the thing where we all raise our hands.
Why don't we just answer the question instead of fall into the gotcha?
Perfect.
And I called him out the first time he did it.
The second time he does it, Makes me want to be in a meeting with him.
Can you imagine being in the room with him?
Somebody starts talking their bullshit and you just let them go normally?
Oh God, is this ever going to stop?
Stop it!
Stop your talking!
I want to talk!
But I feel like DeSantis would just say, no, you're done.
He looks like he doesn't take bullshit.
Like, if there's one thing he's presenting best of all, that what he did in Florida was not take the bullshit.
And then he gets on stage, and there's some more bullshit.
Who stopped it first?
DeSantis.
He stopped it first.
The others just sort of, oh yeah, we agree with that.
Both times.
Twice in a row, he stopped the bullshit as soon as he smelled it.
He didn't wait to see it.
He just smelled it.
He's like, nope, that's bullshit.
So A+++, for DeSantis being the one, to me, that was the moment.
To me, that was the only moment I learned something, right?
The other gotcha moments are about, oh, Chris Christie had somebody write him a joke that they stole from the Democrats.
It's not really a moment, right?
But DeSantis showed you who he is.
That was what you were tuning in for.
You didn't want to hear their clever answers.
You wanted to know who are these people, like, you know, under the hood.
The rapidity, you know, the speed with which DeSantis shut that shit down, that tells you, number one, he's the boss in the room, even when he's not the boss in the room.
This is one of the reframes in my book, by the way.
One of the reframes in my book, Reframe Your Brain, is exactly that.
That sometimes we think we're not in charge because there's somebody in charge.
There's a host, well the host is in charge.
Or there's a boss, well the boss is in charge.
You always think somebody's in charge, but not DeSantis.
And I teach you this and reframe your brain.
The best idea is always in charge.
Let me say it again.
The person with the best idea is always in charge, no matter what the structure is.
Because if other people recognize it as the best idea, they will do that.
So when Dana Perino mentioned, you know, doing this thing, who should you vote off the island?
The best idea came from DeSantis.
The idea of doing in the first place, bad idea, the idea of going along with it, Bad idea.
The idea of shutting that shit down right away, and showing some respect for the people.
And by the way, and then he sold it by saying it would be disrespectful.
Perfect.
Perfect.
To me, this was the only useful part of the entire event, was to watch him shut that shit down.
Now, I'm not saying that the others wouldn't have, but he beat them.
He got there first, and it's the second time.
The second time, you've got to pay attention.
The first time, maybe you got lucky.
Maybe it was just instinct.
You got lucky.
The second time, yeah.
The second time, you saw some character.
So I'm very, quite impressed by DeSantis' performance.
All right, let's see what else happened.
The way CNN covered it was, have you ever seen on YouTube They have reaction videos.
There'll be somebody, often, one of the most common forms is it'll be a young person, might be a young black person, who's listening to some old white music from the 70s that was awesome.
Let's say Led Zeppelin or something.
And it's the first time they've heard it.
And then you watch it, not for the music, you're watching it to watch the face of the person who's experiencing something amazing.
And they're like, You know, and it's just fun to watch the reaction.
CNN has become a reaction video.
So I would like to model how they covered Mike Pence saying that he'd been sleeping with a teacher for 30 years.
What he meant was his wife is a teacher.
Now, I think everybody got that.
But this was the, they cut to the CNN host, I forget who she was, and she's just like, And if you watch Jake Tapper, you know, interviewing anybody he doesn't like, he does the Tapper tilt.
You know, to show you that the news is the reaction.
So, once you realize that CNN is not about the news, it's just reaction video, they'll just show you a video that everybody has access to.
It's not even CNN's own video, most of the time.
It's just something everybody has access to, like YouTube.
And then they'll just show what the faces of the people will look like.
you know, around the table.
Now, you're going to enjoy CNN so much more when you start to think of it as a reaction video. - Thank you.
Just watch.
Next time you see it, you're going to laugh out loud.
You're going to go, there it is!
That's a reaction video.
The news is the reaction.
Am I right?
If you watch CNN, they try to make the news how they react, not the news.
It's true.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
All right, well, if you're looking at the, we'll talk about Trump's legal problems again.
So the judge has ruled that Mar-a-Lago might be worth closer to $18 million, and that's one of the main pieces of evidence to show that Trump is a big old liar, because he had apparently told banks, I guess, that it was worth a lot more.
What is the actual estimate?
Well, the news is finally doing something that the news should do, which is tell you what the actual worth of Mar-a-Lago is.
Now, it's highly subjective, but if you just look at other properties right along the same area, smaller ones could be worth well over $100 million.
Smaller ones, worth way less.
So, one estimate is $300 million from somebody who actually knows real estate.
The lowest would be like $150, but $300 is probably reasonably good.
Now, what do you make of a judge who rules that Mar-a-Lago is worth maybe $18 million, when it couldn't possibly be true?
And you know that the judge has to know that, because nobody would be so dumb that they don't know that.
I mean, I don't know real estate.
But I immediately looked at that number and said, well, I've seen photographs of Mar-a-Lago from the air, and there's no fucking way that's $18 million.
There's just no way.
You don't have to be an expert in anything to know that they missed it by a factor of 10 or 20 or 30 or something.
So, as Mike Cernovich points out, we might expect that judges from now on Will simply lie to convict people that are their political enemies, and that they will do it in public, right in front of you, like they are with Trump.
This is in public.
We all watched the judge effectively lie.
Now, I can't read his mind, so there's still the possibility he's stupid, or had been misled in some weird way.
But it sure looks like he lied.
It looks like he had always meant to get Trump, and then did.
I believe there's some history of anti-Trump statements before this from the judge.
So, I'm going to add on to Mike Cervic's view that the rule of law basically doesn't exist for Republicans.
If you have a Democrat judge and prosecutor, it really isn't going to matter what the facts are.
And I think January 6th proved that.
You want a little more evidence?
Do you remember the lectern guy?
The guy who stole the lectern?
Well, the lectern guy who was wandering around on January 6th and stole the lectern, he got He had to wear an ankle monitor, he was drug tested at random, he had to surrender his passports, and he was restricted to Middle District of Florida and given a nightly curfew.
A nightly curfew?
What?
How does a nightly curfew have anything to do with anything?
Alright.
However, the person who prosecuted him, the prosecutor, recently was arrested himself for stabbing a man repeatedly in public.
That's right.
The guy who wandered around got a pretty weird and strange sentence because he took a lectern.
And the guy who prosecuted him allegedly stabbed somebody repeatedly in public.
Do you think the guy who stabbed somebody repeatedly in public, if he gets a Democrat judge, is he going to get a hard sentence?
Or will he be released?
I don't know.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
But let's get back to this rule of law situation.
As I've said before, and I think it bears repeating, If the entire national media, with the exception of Fox News and Breitbart and a few people, if the main major media is saying that Trump is Hitler, what do you expect to happen?
There's only one way that can go, which is that Trump and his supporters will be abused in every way that you can abuse somebody, whether it's legal or not.
Because when it comes to killing Hitler, there are no rules.
There's no law that stops you from killing Hitler.
You're not going to let the law stop you from doing something that would damage Hitler.
So the law simply doesn't matter if it's a Republican who is Trump or supports Trump.
And you can see that very clearly, that there's no will to obey the law where Trump is involved, and that makes sense.
I'd love to tell you it's nonsensical, but it's not.
If you had been brainwashed to believe that you're the threat to the country and you're all going to be in, I don't know, camps or something, of course you would act violently.
Wouldn't you?
And you would do everything you could to thwart this evil.
So I would not expect that we have anything that I would call a legitimate legal system when it comes to Trump supporters.
Would you agree?
That we literally, in this country, we don't have a credible legal system at the moment for this group of people.
Now, it's not the first time, is it?
You could go back in history, you know, however many years you want to do it, and wouldn't you say, and you would be right, that if you were black and the legal system got a hold of you, you were fucked, right?
And wasn't it because people had an idea in their mind about black people.
And it was the idea in their mind that made them completely ignore the basic standards of justice.
And they probably thought they weren't even doing anything bad.
Because they have been, you know, socialized, I guess, to think that this was somehow good for the world or something, I suppose.
But we just now have a different victim class in which the general public thinks that ignoring the law to get these guys would be a reasonable choice.
Just like they might have thought about black Americans a hundred years ago.
Or fewer.
Fewer years ago.
So I started looking around for a country that I could move to for asylum.
And no, I'm not joking.
I want to make clear this is not a joke.
I think I'm close to the point where I need a backup plan, as in a country where I won't be arrested for bullshit.
Because I feel like I'm at risk of getting arrested for anything.
For anything.
Nothing real, but anything.
It would be a last resort, right?
So we're not quite there, but you can see all the elements starting to come together where a normal American would think that I should go to jail for my opinions.
We're very close to where somebody would want me literally in jail for my opinions.
I think we're right on the edge of that.
Now, I very much want to live in the United States.
It's my first choice.
I am American above all, right?
But there is a self-defense element to this that's real.
And situational awareness requires that you have a backup plan every time you walk into a room.
All right, we've talked about this, have we not?
If you're male, every new room you walk into, you evaluate for entry and exits and threats.
But I'm doing that with the United States.
And so people recommended, let's see, Iceland, Hungary, Switzerland, Portugal, Sweden, or Poland.
Costa Rica too.
But it's really tough to figure out a new country to go to, because here are the things that are positive about the United States.
Number one, at least in my state, weed is legal.
Kind of matters to me.
I don't want to have to change my lifestyle that much, right?
And I don't want to be doing something illegal in another country.
That's just a bad play.
Number two, I like living in a country that has the strongest military, because I think there's the smallest chance of invasion.
There is some chance of a nuclear war, but everybody's dead if that happens.
So I like being in the country that's got the most badass military, even when we misuse them.
Even if we do it wrong, I'd still rather be here.
And the other thing is susceptibility to and recovery from natural disasters.
I think the United States is probably still the top, maybe Japan's pretty awesome too, but among the top in disaster recovery.
I think we'd be among the top.
And there are always disasters.
You know, there's always a Rogue hurricane or earthquake or something.
So I do like living where there's a better chance of surviving a major calamity.
And I like the weather.
One of the reasons I live where I live is that I very carefully determined where you would most likely die from reasons that were not your own.
Yeah, things you didn't cause on your own.
So the reason I live where I live is that it would be almost impossible to die from being too cold or too hot.
Because if it's too hot, I could go take a nap in the shade.
I'd probably be fine.
Drink a lot of water on the hottest day.
On the coldest day, I could probably start a fire, you know, keep myself warm until I figured it out.
Put on a jacket.
Like you're not going to die in Northern California on a cold day.
So I don't want to go somewhere where if the heat goes out, I'll just die.
The scariest thing in the world to me is to be in a winter zone And you've got this one little electrical line that runs to your cabin or wherever you are.
And as that one little electrical line goes down...
Well, you might die.
Like, to me, that's scary.
So I picked a place that has almost no chance of earthquake because I'm not near any earthquake zones.
I built a house that is specifically the highest earthquake standard, and I've literally never even felt one.
I mean, there have been a whole bunch of earthquakes in the general area I live.
I haven't felt a single one.
House doesn't move.
I built a house with a Spanish architecture Because it would be the least burnable.
I've got tiles in the house, and I've got a lot of things set up that would be hard to even get an ember to get inside.
Now, nothing is completely fireproof, so I can't say it's fireproof, but it was built from the ground up to survive a fire if the entire neighborhood burned down.
It was built that way.
It was also built So it would run itself even if I ran out of money.
Like it doesn't really require too much in maintenance.
You know, I wouldn't need heating and cooling if, you know, if I had to live there without it, I could for an extended period of time.
And then I also have a swimming pool, so I'm not going to run out of water right away.
So everything about my house, I mean I'd have to boil it or something, but But I wouldn't run out.
And so everything about my house is sort of planning for big problems.
Oh, I'm also at high ground, so I have no risk of floods.
No flood could get me where I am.
And there's typically no hurricanes.
So I did pick what I think is the safest part of the country for my lifestyle as well as disasters.
It's one reason I have a swimming pool.
It legitimately is one reason.
That is not a joke.
I might have one just because I like swimming or I like how it looks.
So that might be a full reason.
But I absolutely was thinking about it in the emergency sense.
Very much so.
All right.
So we are at a lawless situation.
I've talked about the national incompetence crisis, and do you all agree that there is a national incompetence crisis, that you can't really even get simple things done?
You've all seen it, right?
Now, I'm kind of fascinated about the cause of it.
One cause is that everything's too complicated.
If you call for any kind of technical support, you're probably calling with a problem they've never even heard of before.
Because everything's just complicated.
So that's a big part of it.
Just everything's complicated.
But the other part of it is the story we heard the other day.
Now before I tell you this story, let me say as clearly as possible, this has nothing to do with anybody's genes, or their chromosomes, or even their culture.
So there's nothing about genes, chromosomes, or culture in what I'm going to say.
After George Floyd, we know now from Bloomberg that only 6% of new jobs at the Fortune 100 went to white people.
94% went to non-white people.
Now, of course, they were trying to boost their diversity to try to correct for a lack of diversity up to that point.
I'm going to say that that probably caused a wave of incompetence like we've never seen before, and it has nothing to do with anybody's color, has nothing to do with anybody's genes, has nothing to do with their culture.
It has nothing to do with that.
It's just math.
If you said from this day on, the only place you can hire people from is the state of Delaware, How good would your workforce be if you could no longer pick from the entire country, but you had to get all your people from Delaware?
And by the way, everybody else wanted those people from Delaware too.
So there's not even enough.
You're not even going to get the good Delaware people.
You're going to have to go down the list quite far before you find a Delaware person who's available, because everybody wants them.
So, logically, it wouldn't matter what the mix of people was.
As soon as the Fortune 100 decided that they had to select in the least optimal way, which is by demographic instead of talent, then you were guaranteed to have a gigantic wave of incompetence.
Am I wrong?
And would you agree with the statement that has nothing to do with anybody's race?
This is irrelevant to the math.
The math of restricting your own choices artificially should give you a worse outcome because you have just fewer choices to pick from.
That alone explains everything.
Right?
I don't see anybody disagree.
All right.
The ones who say, I do not agree, I understand what you're thinking.
There's more evidence that Fauci is bad.
I feel like every day there's a new story that suggests that Fauci's bad.
Are you tired of them all?
Facts, facts, allegations, Fauci's bad.
They all sound the same now.
The one thing we're all sure of is there's something that was going on with that Fauci guy.
I'll steal a Norm Macdonald joke.
Here's a Norm Macdonald joke.
You'll recognize the joke, but I'm repurposing it for Fauci.
Goes like this.
You know, the more I learn about this Fauci guy, the more I think he might be a bad dude.
Yeah.
Norm.
All right.
Well, Fauci allegedly went to CIA headquarters to, quote, influence its reporting on the origins of COVID.
And there's reporting that whistleblowers say that six analysts were offered a significant financial incentive to basically lie about their opinions about where the virus came from.
So is any of that true?
Well, it's in the news, so probably not.
Because nothing in the news is really true.
So we're still in the fog of war on this.
Base Squirrel says, Scott liked Fauci in 2020.
No.
No, you're hallucinating.
Yeah, go find where I liked Fauci.
I didn't dislike him, because I didn't know much about him.
But Bass Squirrel is screaming in caps, Scott liked Fauci!
No, that didn't happen.
Poor Squirrel.
Goodbye.
You are disappearing now.
The 4chan hoax got a lot of people.
All right.
Newsom versus DeSantis.
So as you know, Governor Newsom is going to debate DeSantis.
And now he's mocking DeSantis for accepting the debate.
This is so slimy, but he's so good at being slimy that I have mixed feelings about him.
Newsom is a great politician because he's so slimy.
Here's what he says, talking about DeSantis, Newsom says, the fact that he took the bait, meaning that he accepted the debate, the fact that he took the bait shows he's completely unqualified to be president.
And then Newsom says, why is he debating a guy who's not even running for president?
Come on.
I feel like I should work for CNN reaction.
Come on.
Come on.
Seriously?
Seriously?
Do you say these things in public?
And do some people say, yeah, that makes sense.
Good point.
Does anybody have that reaction to it?
Ah, yeah.
That's a good point.
You tricked him into debating you because you're not running for president.
Oh, you're totally not.
No, no.
I'm not running for president.
Just because the person ahead of me who is running for president is experiencing rigor mortis while he's alive?
No, I'm not even thinking about it.
So unlikely.
So terribly unlikely that I'd ever be running for what was the name of it?
President, did you say?
Yeah, no.
It's just so funny to watch him weasel through it.
Or as I'd like to say, the fact that he took debate shows he's completely unqualified to be president.
Why is he debating a guy who is not even running for president?
Yeah, that's viral.
There's your viral moment right there.
All right, that's all I got for today.
Anything else happen?
So I think DeSantis will show up early for that debate. - Right.
But how will Newsom show up?
It's a dad joke.
Dad joke.
DeSantis will show up on time.
But Newsom will show up oily.
Oily.
He'll show up oily.
Yeah, DeSantis is on time and Newsom's oily.
Dad joke.
Oh, did I forget to talk about Doug Burgum?
I'm pretty sure they turned off his microphone, didn't they?
Didn't his microphone get turned off because he kept trying to say stuff?
He kept yelling that his state, his state produces energy.
So therefore, he must respond to anybody who talks about energy.
And I thought, Doug?
No, no, Doug.
No, Doug.
Sorry.
The fact that his name is Doug, and he's being ignored is just funnier.
Isn't it?
There's just something about the word Doug.
That doesn't you can't take him seriously.
It's like, well, who's running for president?
Well, we've got Mike Pence, we've got Vivek Ramaswamy, we've got DeSantis, and Doug.
I think Doug will be there.
There's something about Doug that doesn't look real to me.
Does anybody have that?
Like, he looks like he's animatronics, but a really good one.
There's something that doesn't register as human about him, and I don't know what it is.
Is it his eyebrows?
Yeah.
I'm sure he's a wonderful guy.
I don't want to say bad things about him, but there's something about him that registers a little different from the way the other people register.
I don't know exactly what it is, but you see it, right?
He's different in a way that has nothing to do with his policies.
Right?
Yeah.
A little uncanny valley thing happening.
I don't know what it is.
Data.
All right.
Uncanny Dougie.
All right.
Nikki Haley had a pleading voice in the debate.
You know, I didn't hear it this time.
I usually talk about when people have a pleading voice, like, raise the taxes, what are we doing in Ukraine?
You know, that's a pleading voice.
But I thought she was Maybe she even went too far into full Karen, but to me it looked command voice.
I thought I heard command voice.
But maybe I didn't hear every moment, so you may have heard an answer I didn't hear.
All right, that's all I got for now for you.
Oh, Tim Scott.
Tim Scott barely registers to me, because for some reason I just don't think he's being taken seriously by the rest of the country.
Now, on one hand, he's completely solid.
You know, he might like Ukraine too much.
I don't think you could put someone who wants Ukraine to be funded on the ticket with Trump, right?
Wouldn't it be impossible to put a, you know, a real pro-let's-keep-beating-Russia person as vice president for Trump?
So I think Tim Scott is taking him out of the possibility as a vice president pick.
Would anybody agree with that?
Do you think he's no longer a possibility for Vice President because of the Ukraine thing?
I think that's too far.
Now I think Vivek still has policies that would at least fold into Trump because it's easier to moderate your opinion than it is to flip it.
So Vivek might have to just tweak a little bit and then he fits right in.
I'm not sure he would even want the job.
He says no, he doesn't want it, which is the right thing to say at this point.
But yeah, I don't see Tim Scott having a future in the Trump administration that way.
