Episode 2246 Scott Adams: News & Science & Other Things You Shouldn't Believe. Bring Lots Of Coffee
Content:
Politics, Poland Nuclear Plants, VR Interviews, Success Predictor, Senator Feinstein, Elon Musk, JAMA Pain Study, Congressional Ukraine Funding, Matt Gaetz, Larry Elder, Smash Grab Robberies, Rogue Experts, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk Eagle Pass, Biden Impeachment Inquiry, AOC Master Class Persuasion, MAGA Extremists Slur, Weaponized Persuasion, 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
And welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's Coffee with Scott Adams, and man, are you lucky to be here now.
All you need to take this experience up to galactic levels is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalicestine, a canteen choker 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 to the day thing that makes everything better.
Except my sound.
Because I knew I was forgetting something.
Let's see.
Hold on, hold on.
I guess if I put my microphone on, this will all go better.
Now a minute ago, when I said, I know I'm forgetting something, you should have said, your microphone?
Your microphone.
But that's better, isn't it?
Well, you missed the simultaneous sip, but I think you read my lips and it came out about the same.
I should just turn off YouTube because there's no way it's going to be monetized now.
I've got a feeling the first three seconds of, you know, your sound, you just go to the next thing, right?
There's like no point in it.
Well, anyway, let's talk about the news.
I've got a clarification for you.
It goes like this.
Confidence is a feature, but certainty is a bug.
So confidence is good, and certainty is bad.
Does that make sense?
Confidence means you'll be okay.
One way or another, you'll work it out.
You'll figure it out.
That's confidence.
But certainty is that you know exactly what's true.
You don't really know that.
You can just be confident that you'll figure it out.
I just thought I'd mention that.
Brian Romelli reports that now ChatGPT, I guess it's version 5, has a multimodal mode, meaning it can see and talk and hear and stuff, and you can take a picture of a dish, you know, a prepared food dish, and it will tell you the recipe.
So you just take a picture of it and it tells you the recipe.
Do you believe that works?
No.
Do you know what else can take a picture of something and tell you the recipe?
Your mom.
Yeah, your mom can look at it and she could probably say, well, it looks like you got some cheese in there.
It looks like some beans.
I see a couple of lentils and some corn.
Yeah, I can make that.
So, I do not believe that Chad GPT can make a good recipe from a photograph.
Nope, I do not believe it.
Let me tell you a little story.
When I owned a restaurant, I had a friend who made the best dhal soup.
D-A-H-L.
Is it D-A-H-L or D-A-L?
I forget.
But, you know, an Indian dish.
And it was the best thing I've ever tasted in my life to this day.
I've never put anything of food nature in my mouth that tasted that good.
And so I said, can you teach my chef how to make it?
So she came over and taught my chef how to make it.
And then he made it and it tasted terrible.
And we, you know, double checked and triple checked and all the ingredients were the same.
And do you know why it was so different?
Because the woman who made it always made it different every time and she tasted it as she went.
And so there was not ever really a recipe.
It was just somebody who would taste things until it was right and then serve it.
That was about it.
So no, this whole idea that you can copy a recipe doesn't work.
Also, when I owned a recipe, or I owned a restaurant, I had a favorite dish.
So I would tell them to make that dish.
Different every time.
No two people made it the same.
Sometimes it was terrible.
Actually, inedible.
And other times the best thing I ever ate.
So now Chad GPT cannot tell you how to cook anything.
Not yet.
Poland is starting work on three nuclear reactors.
So Poland is going wild on nuclear power.
Why are we not doing this in the United States?
Incompetence.
We presumably have regulations that stop us from doing this, which probably are dated or under-informed.
So we have an incompetence problem in the United States.
And if we'd like to be smarter, we should look to Poland, which is ruining a lot of old jokes.
But I guess they were inappropriate in the first place.
So Poland doing everything right, I'm told.
Good for you, Poland.
All right.
Did anybody see a interview, a recent one that just happened this week, between Lex Friedman and Mark Zuckerberg, in which they do the interview within virtual reality?
Now, when I first say that, you say, blah, blah, blah.
That's been done before.
No, not like this.
This is photorealistic.
So the two heads were not their real heads.
But every little eye movement, you know, mouth feature as they spoke, all in real time, all synced up, and all perfectly real.
And as they were talking to each other, in the virtual world they could put their virtual heads pretty close together, and it actually feels like awkward, because you're too close to another person.
So you actually feel like it's the real person when you're in that mode.
Now the current limitation, is that they don't have a cheap, easy way to scan your face.
Someday you'll be able to, presumably, someday you'll be able to hold up your camera, you know, scan yourself and then create your model for this, but at the moment I guess it takes hours and special equipment.
But, here's the big change.
They don't need to send over the internet.
The entire video of what you're trying to look like.
Instead they create it once and then the only thing that they send over the internet is the changes.
Like a numerical representation of the change.
So that you can use low bandwidth, relatively low bandwidth, and have a complete photorealistic experience as long as you've scanned both sides.
Now that's pretty awesome.
And apparently it's so intimate that you can imagine nearly a sexual experience because of it.
Probably you could.
I don't want to get too detailed, but I'm sure there's a way that you could turn it into almost a full sexual experience.
Now imagine if you wanted to... Let me make a prediction.
There will be digital prostitution.
And by that I mean people who are maybe not attractive, but they create an avatar, which is, and it's photorealistic.
And then maybe the person on the other side has some physical component, sex toy, that they could be using at the same time that they think they're with this person.
It's gonna be pretty intense.
So, you know, goodbye reproduction.
So it's going to be better than regular sex, I think.
The real test will be if it can activate your oxytocin.
So, you know, your oxytocin is the chemical that your body produces when you're hugging people and having intimate contact.
As far as I know, it's the only way you can get it.
There's nothing else you could do.
It's a human to human.
Maybe your pet can do it a little bit, but It's basically a human to human situation.
But could this technology be so similar to a human?
And it probably is.
If you don't want to be close to the other person's face because it feels creepy, probably you're releasing some of those hormones.
So maybe it's an oxytocin source.
Who knows?
All right, I've got a way to tell who's going to be successful.
Do you ever look at a young person and say to yourself, is that person going to be successful?
Now, if you assume some minimum level of capability, then the next question is, are they going to use that capability to do anything useful and be successful?
Here's the best predictor that I've seen.
It's interest in figuring out the mechanism of success.
So it's not just, oh, I'll work hard, or I want it really hard, or I have passion or something.
But does somebody actually go out of their way to study the actual mechanism, the systems?
What do you do?
What do successful people do?
How do you get from here to there?
What's the process?
And you can see that right away.
With little kids.
When I was 12 years old, I was already gobbling up news stories about famous people.
Any kind of story about a millionaire, I'd read the whole thing.
It's like, oh, how'd you get there?
Especially if the story was they came from nothing and they made money, I'd read all of that.
And then I would also read books and stuff as I got a little older about anybody who had come up with some method for beating the system.
I see that also with my book, Reframe Your Brain.
Because Reframe Your Brain is one of those change your life kinds of books.
And here's what I say about it, and then you tell me if this would tell you who is successful.
Imagine you said this to somebody.
You said, oh, I've got this book.
It's called Reframe Your Brain.
And I tweeted this.
Many people say this book adds the highest value to your life for the least effort in reading.
So it's the least amount of reading, meaning it's a real easy read, for the biggest impact.
Now, if somebody told you that, Wouldn't you at least want to skim through that book?
Now, if you don't, and that doesn't interest you at all, you're probably not somebody who's going to really kill it in life.
If somebody hands you something that's like, alright, if you spend like a minute looking at this, your whole life will be better, and if they say no, you can pretty much predict how their life is going to be.
Now, they don't have to take it and read it while you're watching, but if they don't at least show a little interest, In something that would be a small amount of work for a huge gain, they're probably not going anywhere.
So that's a good way to spot successful people.
And by the way, the feedback for that book is insane.
The number of people, people are saying it saved their lives, like literally, and changed their lives and all kinds of stuff.
It's amazing.
So Senator Dianne Feinstein has died at the age of 90.
And boy, this is a tough one.
It's a tough one.
Because we all want to show respect to the family and for the person passing.
But it does make you wonder where the line is.
Where's the line?
What kind of behavior would be so bad that you would not show respect to somebody after they died?
Yeah, it's kind of subjective.
But people are going to be all over the line on this one.
So the real question is, is there any way to make Adam Schiff's eyes bug out more than they were already?
And the answer is yes, the passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Because Adam Schiff might be the replacement.
Could be, you never know.
Or possibly Joe Biden will choose Dianne Feinstein's corpse as his new VP as an upgrade.
Possibly.
Anything could happen.
Damn it, I couldn't be respectful.
I couldn't go a minute.
Well, I don't think she respected me either, so I think we're even.
All right.
So the leading causes of death for people between the age of 18 and 44 used to be automobiles.
Used to kill the most people between 18 and 44.
And now it's suicide and fentanyl, which are very related.
Fentanyl and suicide.
Yep.
So if El Chapo died, would I have any respect for him?
Would I say, whoa, that's El Chapo?
He was sending a lot of fentanyl into the United States, but You know, he's dead now, so I respect him, and I don't want to offend the family, so let's show some respect for El Chapo when he passes.
Does that sound right?
Not really.
No, because you think he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans through fentanyl.
But suppose you had a politician who was also responsible.
In other words, somebody whose job it was to control the border, or at least be one of them, but wasn't doing it.
And left the border open.
Should I feel different about somebody who allowed El Chapo to do it versus how I feel about El Chapo himself?
I'll leave that an open question.
Well, who's suing Musk today?
As you know, the government is weaponizing itself against Elon Musk because he likes free speech.
I mean, literally, that's the reason.
And now the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Tesla because they're accusing him of violating federal law by tolerating.
So they didn't do something he tolerated, allegedly.
Widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its black employees.
And subjecting some of them for retaliation for opposing the harassment.
Now, do you suppose that Elon Musk was aware of this and tolerated it?
No.
No, of course he didn't.
He may have been aware of it, but I'm sure he wasn't tolerating it.
I don't know what you can do about it exactly all the time.
So that's the thing.
But this is reported by NBC and I noted the other day that NBC is how the NPCs get programmed.
Is that a coincidence?
That NBC and NPC sound the same?
Oh, I saw it on MSNPC.
So I think I'm going to call them MSNPC because they're the ones who program the NPCs.
Am I wrong?
They literally program the NPCs.
The people who can't think for themselves.
So, MSNPC?
Try it out, you'll like it.
All right.
So, what do you do if you're an employer, and if you don't hire diversity, you'll get in trouble.
But if you do hire diversity, there's a very high likelihood of getting sued once you've hired them.
It's kind of a no-win situation, isn't it?
And I'm not saying that there wasn't racial harassment.
I'm not dismissing the charge.
If this was happening, it's pretty bad.
It should be stopped.
But it's a challenge in risk management, because you're going to lose either way, really.
All right, in other news, researchers at Columbia University and University of Connecticut There came up a way to make this material that's part glass and part DNA.
Part glass and part DNA.
And you put them together and you get this super light and super strong material.
Huh.
What could go wrong if you match glass with DNA?
I feel like we're going to create a species of glass people.
They'll be made of glass, but super, super dense, what with the DNA.
And pretty soon they'll be advocating for equal rights.
So, glass people, coming.
Here's another story about reframing pain.
So there's a study in JAMA, J-A-M-A, Network Open, that says that, the study said that if you tell people that their pain is in their brain, they don't feel so much as if you tell them it's in their body.
That's the short version.
If you tell people to reframe their brain, to reframe their pain, so that they just think it's a mental experience, Then the pain goes away.
Now, I actually have that reframe in my book.
You wouldn't recognize it, but it's the one about cold.
And I tell the story about meeting somebody who reframed the experience of being cold.
He was outdoors without a coat.
And he said that he had learned, I won't say why, but he had learned to reframe it as just a feeling and not a pain.
Because it wasn't really going to kill him.
It was like, I don't know, 45 degrees or something.
And he wasn't wearing a coat.
So he wasn't going to die.
He was just doing a thing.
And most people would have been super cold.
But I said to myself, is that possible?
And I'll just tell you what I wrote in the book here for a moment.
I said, is it possible that you could just tell your brain that the cold doesn't hurt you anymore?
So I thought I'd try it.
And the way I did it was I reframed cold this way.
If it's true that getting into a cold plunge is good for you, and I think basically every expert says yes, the cold plunge.
And it's also true that the cryo things, where it's like super, super cold, is also good for you.
Then I tell myself, well, wouldn't it also be at least a little bit good for me simply to be cold?
You know, not in a cold plunge, but just to be cold.
Wouldn't that also be good for me?
And probably is in some lesser way.
But I decided to try it when I was taking my garbage out one day because it was cold and I didn't want to walk back and get a coat.
I thought, well, what if I just try this?
I'll just say that the feeling that I get from the cold is not pain.
It's just a feeling.
And it's making me healthier.
And I walked out and I took my garbage all the way down, which takes a while.
And I didn't feel any pain.
I just felt a sensation.
And since then, I've done this same trick a number of times.
And I'm not sure it would work for the really long term, but for short term situations where you're just freezing and you just got to tough it out, I just made it go away.
And I couldn't have imagined that was possible, even though I've seen it done with hypnosis.
Now, If you're going to ask me how can I reframe my pain away, I don't have an answer for you.
Just reframe it like I did.
Just say it's in your mind.
Just say it's just a sensation.
But if that doesn't work, there's not much else to do, right?
It's pretty much it's that or nothing.
So give it a try.
If there's some time where the pain is not telling you to fix something, which is the purpose of pain, you know, right?
You want to pay attention to your pain if it's telling you to fix something or run away from something.
But if it's just going to be there no matter what, you might be able to reframe it.
Reframe your brain and just tell yourself, it's not pain.
It's an artifact of your brain.
All right, well, and this is another way that I think.
Hypnosis is 50 years ahead of science.
And you've seen that a lot lately.
Science is just catching up to where hypnosis was 50 years ago.
That's true, by the way.
I guess Matt Gaetz and his friends in Congress were successful in getting the Ukraine funding, at least it's reframed.
He said, last night's vote marks a major moment in changing the perceptions on how House Republicans view Ukraine.
So I guess 101 Republicans voted to send more money to Ukraine, but more than that, 117 Republicans voted against.
And now he says, Ukraine funding has now lost something called the majority of the majority rule, some kind of rule.
And because of the rules, it cannot be brought up again on the floor, per the conference rules.
So it looks like Matt Gaetz actually made some progress, and it looks like the House actually came through with separate bills.
Now that doesn't mean that they're passed.
I guess it goes to the House, or it goes to the Senate.
We'll see what the Senate does.
But this is one of the I might be wrong, but this might be one of the most positive things that's happened to the country ever.
I don't know if this is real yet.
You know, I don't know if it's just gonna be this one time they had to do what they had to do.
But the fact that they were successful in getting this big Frankenstein bill turned into little smaller ones that you can vote on individually.
What if it happens again?
Yeah.
What if they do it again?
This could be gigantic.
If this became the new thing that they do, we might actually get fiscal responsibility for the first time.
And it was always obvious what had to be done.
It was obvious that this had to be done.
But now it is.
Maybe.
So if Matt Gaetz pulled this off, his argument for being president one day is getting a lot stronger.
But we'll see if this is permanent.
I would wait a little bit on this story to see if it's a trick.
Might be a trick.
Maybe the Senate will just put them all back together and vote on them.
I don't know.
I don't know how this works.
All right, here's a good sign of the times.
I saw a Larry Elder tweet, and Larry Elder referring to all these smash and grab videos that we keep seeing.
And Larry Elder says, when it comes to the smash and grabs, where's the diversity, equity, and inclusion?
White folks, you need to step up.
Now, I call that progress.
Here's why.
If we can't joke about the dumbassery On all people's sides, right?
Not on one side, but everybody's side.
If we get a joke about race, we'll never fix anything.
You've got to be able to joke hard about a topic before you have any hope that you're going to be able to talk honestly about it.
So Larry Elder, maybe a signal of positive change, was just making a joke about it, the racial Composition of the Smashing Grabbers.
That's where it needs to be.
We need to be able to joke about it.
If you haven't, if you don't follow Jeff Charles on the X-Platform, he's a good follow.
And he's doing sort of a funny thing.
I think he's still doing it.
He did it for a while.
In which you would, sort of in response to all the videos that show black yous robbing stores and stuff.
I think it was kind of response.
I'm not sure that's how he would put it.
He would show what he called people of whiteness.
White people.
People of whiteness doing ridiculously stupid and dangerous things.
You know, like a white guy who's opening a gate for a wild bear to walk through, and the bear mauls him on the way past.
Really, he just needed to open the gate.
He didn't need to stand next to the gate to let the wild bear walk through.
The bear walks through and just mauls him on the way by.
And so Jeff Charles posts, people of whiteness, stop doing this.
Now that's funny, because indeed there are a lot of videos of white people doing things that are clearly dangerous and ill-advised.
So he has an infinite pool of things to pick from.
But if you can't laugh about that, you're not getting any closer to any kind of a solution.
All right.
Here's another saying I have about certainty.
If you see somebody who's certain, they see something in the news that's kind of complicated, and they're certain something is true.
For example, they're certain that Joe Biden is guilty of crimes.
Or they're certain he isn't.
Either way.
Certainty is a failure of imagination.
It's not something you should be proud of.
If you can't imagine how you could be wrong, then your mental capacity is a little bit stilted.
It's a little bit blocked, right?
For the things that I'm reasonably sure are true, it's because I've run out of imagination.
I simply can't imagine an alternative.
But there could be.
This is why I say that you're in better shape if you've learned magic as a kid.
You know, magic tricks.
Imagine if you'd never seen how magic tricks are done.
The beauty of watching a lot of magic tricks and then later learning how they're done is that you realize your imagination is the problem.
You sit there and you watch the magician do a trick and you say to yourself, damn it, I cannot imagine how that could be done.
Like that looks like actual magic.
My imagination is just limited.
I can't even imagine how that could be done.
Now, if you've had that experience with magic tricks, then you can bring that into the real world.
And when the politician says, this is true, whatever it is, this is true.
And you say to yourself, God, I can't even imagine how that would not be true.
I mean, there's the video, they showed the proof, here's the data.
Yeah, I can't even imagine how that would not be true.
That is a failure of imagination.
It's not a virtue that you have certainty.
You just don't have the imagination for how you could have been fooled.
And I would argue that most of the problems in the country are a lack of imagination.
Because that lack of imagination allows you to be fooled with certainty.
Being fooled is bad enough, but being fooled and making people think they're sure of what's true, when it's the opposite, that's really dangerous.
So, Elon Musk learned magic and hypnosis when he was young, according to the biography.
Do you think that makes him better at spotting bullshit?
Probably.
Because he knows that when he sees something, there's a possibility it's not true.
Even though he can't imagine how that's possible, you still have the intellectual capacity to say, it could be not true.
I just don't know why.
Now this brings us to Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was on a trigonometry podcast recently.
He was talking about the rogue experts versus the majority of experts.
And he made the point that I've made before, that I'm now going to modify.
So I would have agreed with him before the pandemic.
And the opinion, well, I did.
And the opinion goes like this.
If there's a rogue expert who's looking at basically the same information as everybody else, but the rogue says, no, no, it's all wrong.
And the hundred thousand experts are all wrong.
Neil deGrasse Tyson tells us, and I've told you this before, you could bet on the majority being right.
And that the rogue is wrong.
And the reason is, for every, and he says this directly, for every 10,000 rogues who make a claim, oh the mainstream people are wrong, almost every one of them will in fact be wrong in the end.
So if the only thing you knew is that thousands of people were on one side and there was this one rogue person and you had to bat, You have to put your money on it.
You should bet against the rogue, because your odds are like 10,000 to 1.
Better that the rogue is wrong.
Now, that made sense before the pandemic.
Well, no, it didn't make sense before the pandemic.
It felt like it made sense before the pandemic.
Very different.
It felt like it made sense.
After the pandemic, here's what we can know for sure.
If there's any money involved in the question, The money will determine how the majority goes.
Not the data.
Everybody agree?
If you have a situation where nobody has any money to make, and 10,000 people think something's true and one says it's wrong, bet on the 10,000.
Because there's no money involved.
They're just telling you what they think is true.
Now that doesn't mean that the rogue will always be wrong, but as Neil deGrasse Tyson accurately points out, with that one time that the rogue gets it right, there's stories and books and it becomes part of our history.
But the 10,000 who are wrong, you never hear from them again because they were just wrong.
So I would say that if no money is on the line, bet on the majority, Which doesn't mean they'll always be right, but it's a smart bet.
And if lots of money is involved, all bets are off.
Does that sound like a good rule of thumb?
And during the pandemic, lots of money was involved.
So that made the rogues as credible as the experts, which was exactly zero in both cases.
In my opinion, the rogues were worth zero, but also the majority of people were worth zero.
So it was two zeros.
If you had certainty that the rogues were right, that's a failure of imagination.
That's not something you should be proud of.
I know, I say that to make people mad, because people who got the right answer, according to them, are pretty sure that it's because they were right and they thought it through.
But we don't work that way.
That's not the way humans are wired.
We are wired to think we are right and we knew it all along once we know the answer.
And so we do.
All right.
So Elon Musk went to Eagle Pass at the border and did some periscope videos showing how the situation is there.
I don't know that we learned anything that we didn't already know, but Somehow the news is changed by the fact that Elon Musk went and observed it in person and then talked about it.
And it makes me wonder, why in the world is he doing it?
You know, why does Elon Musk have to be the person who goes to the border?
And I think part of it is he's He's trying to do marketing for the Periscope live stream.
So that's good.
Glad he's doing that.
And part of it is, it's the biggest problem in the country, probably, or one of them.
And it seems to be under-attended.
So he's just taking responsibility.
That's a very dad thing to do, isn't it?
It's not his job.
It wasn't his job to fix free speech, but he felt it needed to be done.
It wasn't his job to make People, a space-faring civilization, but he's doing it.
So I love that.
I don't know that anything will change, but I do like that he's pushing citizen journalism.
I signed on to a news site today, and I won't name names, but it didn't look like they have any reporters anymore.
It looked like it was all just press releases.
It looked like the news had just stopped.
It was the weirdest thing.
It was just opinions and press releases.
All right.
So maybe we need citizen journalism because otherwise we won't know anything ever.
He's right about that.
All right.
Are you watching the impeachment inquiry?
The impeachment inquiry is a little laboratory where you can learn about persuasion and what's wrong with the government.
And you could see every example of everything.
Now AOC had her moment where she argued passionately against the impeachment inquiry and the thought that Joe Biden had done anything wrong.
Oh my God.
And I was going to actually play AOC's entire thing because it's a master class in persuasion.
So her persuasion game is super strong, so let me tell you a few things she does right.
First of all, the whole situation around the Bidens is too complicated for 95% of voters.
So 95% of voters will never know what's actually happening.
So in that situation, who is the best persuader wins.
And they can be completely divorced from reality.
They just have to persuade.
So given that the public has no idea what really happened with the Biden situation, she says, she first of all acts very confident.
The confidence itself is part of the persuasion.
And I watched her ask witness questions and then act as though the answers to the question proved her point when it didn't even come close.
But because the people watching it can't tell the difference, she made it look like they proved her point.
I'll give you an exaggerated, like a joke version of AOC.
Alright, is it true that the sky is blue?
Well, no, it's actually a little cloudy out today.
But is the sky blue in someplace else?
Probably.
Yeah, probably the sky is blue.
Right.
The sky is blue in someplace else.
And did the Republicans once say that it was raining in Nigeria once?
I don't know.
Well, they did.
They once said it was raining in Nigeria.
So let me get this straight.
You're telling us that there are places it's not raining.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
And the Republicans said that it once rained in Nigeria.
Is that correct?
Probably.
All right.
And that is why this entire thing is a farce.
It's a farce.
Can't you see it?
It's a farce.
So that's the joke version.
But when you watch her asking questions, the assumption that you have is that those questions ever made sense or that the answer Is in the right context.
It was actually just complete blah, blah, blah that her mannerisms sold as proving a point.
It was kind of a genius move.
It was really good.
There was no connection to facts or process.
She just got somebody to say yes and no, and then sold it to the public as though she had just won a case.
And none of it was even connected.
To the question.
It was just the most random bunch of bullshit.
It was brilliant.
Really brilliant.
All right.
And then the Democrats are also saying this.
Is it true that there are no fact witnesses today?
Well, yeah, that's true.
There we go.
No fact witnesses.
No fact witnesses.
But did that matter?
No.
The right question was, does it matter?
If there are any fact witnesses here today.
And then the answer would have been, well, not for the inquiry.
For the inquiry, we have documents.
And we can show you the documents.
So the documents serve as the evidence.
And that's why we're here.
Oh, but are there any fact witnesses here?
There are no fact, oh, no fact witnesses?
Are you telling me there are no fact witnesses?
Oh, but in another case once, in another case that had nothing to do with this case, and is not a precedent in any way, was there ever a fact witness?
Oh, there was, there was.
So in the past, there was a fact witness.
But let me clarify, there is no fact witness here.
None of it matters.
It's not relevant to the inquiry.
It's just something that sounds good if you didn't know anything about how anything works.
But it sounded really good.
It was very persuasive.
I have a question.
Did Senator Raskin, the one who had the rag on his head because he had some cancer treatments?
Jamie Raskin?
So now he doesn't have the rag on his head, but he has something closer to a full head of hair.
So that would be like, did he get like reverse cancer?
The kind that if you take chemo it adds hair to your head?
It doesn't look like a wig because it's not that good.
Did he get hair transplants?
Did he just get plugs and call the cancer?
No, the hair grows back, But it doesn't grow back better than it was before the cancer.
Before the chemo.
You're saying chemo makes his hair grow?
Didn't look like a wig.
I don't know.
Well, I got questions, since I don't trust anybody about anything.
Alright.
The House Ways and Means Committee released a document that an IRS agent So here's the story.
Allegedly a CNN producer claimed to have an email, when I guess he was trying to get more information from the IRS, but claimed to have an email in which Hunter Biden complained that all of his stuff would go away once his father was elected president.
So nobody has found this email.
It's only an alleged email.
The implication is that Biden knew that once his father was president that his legal problems would be, you know, no more.
Do you think that CNN necessarily had an email or was the CNN producer lying to get somebody to say something and didn't really have an email?
I don't know.
I would not trust.
I would not trust it.
So everything about this story is sketchy.
So I put this in the Don't Believe Anything About It category.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, might be just about all I had today.
It's a weird kind of day, isn't it?
Where the news is super complicated.
Did you notice that it's a day after the Republican debate and nobody cares?
Literally nobody cares.
Because none of it mattered.
As long as Trump is still in it, none of it mattered.
Now I saw... Who was it?
Who's the new... Who's the new house speaker?
What's his name?
New speaker?
No, the minority speaker.
No, the minority.
Hakeem Jeffries.
And when I say minority, I do not mean that he's a minority.
I mean that he's the minority leader.
So Hakeem Jeffries was wondering why the Republicans were wasting so much time and money on this impeachment inquiry, in which there are no fact witnesses.
So I responded, revenge.
It's revenge.
I'm not sure it would have happened if Trump had not been impeached twice or attempted or whatever happened.
And to me it's just payback.
And I don't have a problem with that at all.
Because that's how karma works.
I would say that we've reached the point where all the normal controls are off, and we're into full, you know, guaranteed destruction mode.
I think both sides are trying to destroy the other.
They're not trying to win a race and have four years of their team in charge.
They're trying to put the other side in jail.
So I think this will be the first election in which you can guarantee the loser will end up in jail.
Would you agree with that?
That the loser will end up in jail.
2024 election loser.
I think so.
I think that's actually a real thing that could happen.
Now it might be if Trump loses they'll figure they don't have to put him in jail and it would just make everybody angry so it's not worth it.
So but certainly the risk is totally there.
Yeah and the fact that The fact that that the Democrats have come up with MAGA extremists.
So they don't.
Now they're not saying that there's MAGA and that there's some extremists.
Now they're MAGA extremists.
That's dangerous.
As soon as you hear there are MAGA extremists and you're associated with them.
So do the math.
What would be an appropriate thing that you could do with an extremist?
Well, an extremist is probably dangerous.
So, you know, the legal system has to deal with extremists.
Would you agree?
The legal system should deal with extremists because they're dangerous.
What about a MAGA extremist?
Well, same thing.
Because if you're an extremist, you're dangerous, whether you have MAGA attached to your name or not.
So now they can take extremist and they can slime the word MAGA with it.
And now anybody who's simply MAGA becomes part of the extremist framing.
So basically, it's giving permission for violence and legal action against ordinary Republicans.
Do you see it that way?
If Biden were saying, we don't like the MAGA people, but we really hate the extremists, I would say, all right, that's fair.
That's politically fair.
He doesn't like MAGA, and he really thinks something should be done against extremists.
Fair.
But when he says it's MAGA extremists, it seems to me he's weaponizing the government against ordinary voters who would call themselves MAGA.
How else can you see it?
I mean, to me it seems a very clear, you know, how Hitler treated the Jews kind of situation, where you move the country toward that hatred and, you know, maybe you do it a little bit at a time so they don't see it coming.
Pretty soon MAGA and extremists will sound like the same thing, right?
If you keep saying MAGA extremists, there's only a matter of time before MAGA and extremists sound the same in your head.
That's called Hypnosis.
If I had to guess, the use of MAGA extremists is probably from a hypnotist, or somebody who has high-level persuasion skills, because it's a little like their version of dark.
It's a little too good for politicians.
Politicians would have just said MAGA, And also extremists, as they always have.
But suddenly, suddenly you see this combination of MAGA extremists.
That looks like a professional.
And that is very weaponized persuasion.
Weaponized because it could get somebody killed.
MAGA is the new Antifa.
Well, I think MAGA should change its name to Anti-corruption.
Which it kind of is.
MAGA is kind of anti-corruption.
In a way.
Because MAGA is against corruption of any kind.
Whether it's wokeness corruption, or legal corruption.
So yeah, I think that MAGA should just rebrand as anti-corruption.
Because they're going against a guy who's corrupt.
And then anytime somebody says, I hate you anti-corruption people.
You go, whoa, whoa, look who's in favor of corruption.
There's your admission.
If you're against the anti-corruption people, well, better watch out.
Yeah.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there anything else I forgot?
Any amazing story that you think bears discussion?
Patriots against corruption in America.
PACA.
I like it.
Patriots against corruption in America.
Except it sounds like pack.
I don't like the pack part of it.
Against making America great.
No, it's the again part that they're against.
The way to attack MAGA extremists Is by getting rid of MAGA.
See, I think MAGA was always a gigantic persuasion mistake.
It got popular, but it was a giant mistake.
Because it sounds like maggot.
You know, if you had asked me, you know, is MAGA a good acronym?
No.
It's the worst.
Yeah, there's cocaine on everybody's plane.
Thank you.
Patriots is evil?
Yeah, you think the left doesn't like the word patriot?
That's probably true.
Yeah, I saw that Dana Perino talked about her questions.
Apparently, they were all her questions.
All right. - All right.
You made it to the show live just when it's about to end.
But good for you.
Restore our American Republic.
Kensington, Philly, Trank live stream?
No, I haven't.
Are they live streaming the street people?
All right.
Speak to Jonathan Turley.
He's one of my favorites.
Well, I don't do too many interviews on here.
All right.
I believe all authorities again.
Condemning Ryan Hayden and Ontario schools.
Report on the real news about impeachment.
What's the real news?
We talked about Musk at the border.
There's a Trank livestream.
Is that USA livestream?
Wow.
That might be one way to get rid of the problem, to livestream it.
No, I stopped playing my guitar.
Because I didn't want to damage my hands.
It was too much hand damage.
I might still play with it a little bit.
All right.
So I've got an interview later today, actually after this, with Megyn Kelly.
And I do not know when it will run, so don't ask.
But yep, we talked about Feinstein's passing.
And I guess Elon Musk did a Spaces event about anti-Semitism on the platform and he agreed to visit a I guess a concentration camp or something.
Why is that important?
I don't really understand that.
I mean, I guess it's a good visual, but why would anybody have to visit a concentration camp to change their political opinion?
I mean, unless you were worried that it doesn't exist, or something like that, and I don't think that's the problem.
I feel like that's performance.
My active users, what?
All right.
Why does Fetterman look so different lately?
That's a good question.
Maybe because he's healing.
I don't know.
Or maybe he lost weight or something.
He does look different.
He's got that pored mustache.
Yeah, people like to say they've been to the border.
I guess there's no substitute for going someplace in person.
And if you're Elon Musk, you're in a plane a lot.
I would hate to spend as much time in an airplane as Elon Musk does.
Although he might have fun up in that airplane.
One of the Fettermans has a mustache.
Wouldn't it be funny if there were two Fettermans and only one of them has a big mustache?
And nobody noticed.
All right.
It looks like we've done everything we need to do here.
