Episode 2274 Scott Adams: CWSA 10/27/23, How Hypnotists See Politics
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Jamaal Bowman, Brain Damaging News, Public Brainwashing, RFK Jr. Intruder, President Biden, Maggie Haberman, President Trump, X Profitability, Relationship Pitfalls, Lewiston Suspect, Robert Card, Free Speech Cancellation, Election Integrity Claims, Mike Lindell, Biden Crime Family, Bureaucratic Defense Strategy, Israel Hamas War, CBDC, Crushing National Debt, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, sometimes just CWSA if you're in the cool group.
You want people to wonder what you're talking about?
You don't want to give up too much?
Just say, oh yeah, I was watching CWSA.
You don't know what that is?
Oh, I feel sorry for you.
But for the rest of you, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that you'll be talking about for decades, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now and all the rest of you colonizers For the simultaneous set.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, yeah.
That's some good... That's some good stuff right there.
Well, if you don't mind, would you agree that we need a light news day?
Everybody on board for this?
I don't know about you, but My brain and body have just been crushed lately.
And while we cannot ignore the horrors that are happening around the world, we can take a little bit of a time off.
All right, so I'm going to talk about some silly news today.
I mean, it's real news.
It's in the headlines.
But most of it is kind of silly.
And I don't know if you've noticed.
Oh, I can't show you that.
Don't look yet.
Don't look!
I'm going to show you how a hypnotist sees politics on the whiteboard.
But first, there's a video out of Representative Jamal Bowman, a proud member of the so-called squad, but really not the member that the rest of the squad is too proud of at the moment, because he's the one that pulled the fire alarm.
And now we see video of him tearing off the signs of the door that say something about the alarm.
And it turns out that everything he said about that event was a lie and it's all on video.
Now there's not much to say about it except that he did an insanely stupid thing and then he lied about it without realizing there might be a video camera on the exit.
I can't wait to see what great ideas he brings to Congress.
I hope he is sponsoring some bills and stuff because he seems like quite the leader.
Quite the leader.
But yeah, he still has his job.
No problem.
Nobody sees that as a problem that he can.
I continue to use my technique of not arguing with Democrats who are brainwashed.
Now, I don't think everybody's brainwashed.
You know, not the whole world or anything like that.
But on X, you see people who are clearly just brain damaged by the news.
And I mean that literally.
Their brains are actually damaged by watching news that is just so biased that their idea of their own reality is so distorted, it can only be called brain damage.
And you know what the difference is between brainwashing and brain damage?
Do you know what the difference is?
None.
None.
Because in both cases your brain would be degraded and you couldn't use it.
It is just brain damage.
So if you're watching only one side of the news and it's just giving you one side of the views, and it wouldn't matter if it's just left or just right, you're kind of brain damaged.
And we should understand it that way.
These are not people with different preferences and, you know, different priorities and we're working out the details.
Nothing like that's happening.
No.
Half of the country is literally, literally, using the word correctly here, literally, brain damaged from the news they consume.
Primarily by just sticking with one type of news.
That would absolutely give you brain damage.
And if you think it's just stuff you watch on TV, wow, you're in real trouble.
It's brain damage.
So when I see it, and somebody will be like, blah, blah, blah, some talking points I saw on CNN, I just don't engage.
Because engaging, what would it do?
You're talking to somebody who's literally got a brain problem.
Would you treat somebody who had some other kind of brain damage the same as you would treat people who didn't have brain damage?
You wouldn't.
You would treat them with, if you're not a jerk and you understood what was happening, you would treat them with sympathy.
So now I just respond that I'm sorry that their news sources did this to them.
And then they complain a little bit more.
Why won't you come to fight with me?
And I just say, I'm really sorry what they did.
And just walk away.
Because do you really think that debate is going to somehow improve the situation?
It would be like yelling at somebody with a mental, you know, some mental problem to just not have a mental problem.
Stop having that mental problem.
That doesn't really work.
So don't get in a fight with people who have mental problems.
Which makes me want to go to the whiteboard.
I'm going to the whiteboard early.
Anybody with me?
Who's with me?
Whiteboard?
Premature whiteboard?
Let's do with this.
I'll get you all mad before you hear the rest of the news.
I had a really good night of sleep last night.
It feels weird.
All right, here is what I call the hypnotist view of politics.
I don't know if all hypnotists see it this way, but I do.
I see politics as not a continuum, as some people do, where there's a far left on the left and there's a far right on the right.
I see it as a circle.
Where on the left of the circle is, let's call it the team left, you know, the Democrats.
On the right is team right.
And at the bottom, at the farthest of the left and the farthest of the right, if you're thinking of it as a circle, they come together as racists.
They're just racists about different things.
So the farthest right would be racist against people of color.
The farthest left would be racist against the colonizers, people like me.
So, basically, these are just a bunch of horrible people, and whether they're left or right has some detailed differences, but it's basically the worst of humanity, basically.
Now, the least brainwashed people would be at the top.
Let me give you an example of a person who is political, still political, but not brainwashed.
Necessarily.
I'm going to say that everybody's a little bit brainwashed.
Because if you identify with a team, you are brainwashed.
Does everybody understand that?
Simply identifying as a team guarantees that you're a little bit brainwashed.
Maybe not enough to be crippled, but a little bit.
There's no exceptions to that.
If you're a human being, and you identify with a political team, you're brainwashing yourself, but it's still brainwashed.
I mean, you're sort of voluntarily saying, ah, this is my team, and you start to adopt all those views.
How often do you ever see somebody who disagrees with their own team?
Pretty rare, right?
Pretty rare.
It happens.
But let's say there's a Democrat who's sort of middle of the road and the Democrat says, you know what?
I always thought Trump had something about that wall.
That's probably somebody who's not too brainwashed.
Would you agree?
A Democrat who says, you know, I got to say the wall thing made sense.
That would be a very strong signal of somebody you could talk to.
Somebody who's maybe likely to look at the facts, etc.
Now there's probably a similar example like that for Republicans.
Something that a middle-of-the-road Republican might say, you know, okay, I'll give you an example.
A middle-of-the-road Republican might say, oh, and actually do.
They say things like, if you're an adult, And you leave our kids alone, and you want to be trans or gay married, why do I even care?
What's that got to do with me?
Now that would be like somebody who's probably not too brainwashed, but identifies as Republican.
Somebody says a rhino.
Maybe!
But I think if you're yelling rhino You're yelling that people need to be on a team, and I'm not sure that that's productive.
Anyway, so this is how the hypnotist sees it.
So the reason that I can fluidly move around this circle wherever I want, currently I'm registered as a Democrat, but most of my audience leans right.
And the reason I'm sort of irrelevant to the circle is the only thing I'm trying to do is stay out of the bottom.
I'm just trying to avoid the bottom.
That's it.
Otherwise, I want to hear your argument on both sides.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I see politics.
Alright, there's a new video which you might be interested in.
Joshua Lysak and I are talking on a new video just dropped.
But this time, instead of just talking about the usual things that people talk about, we're talking about writing a book.
For reasons that have puzzled me a little bit, I've noticed that since I became an author, people are really, really curious about the process.
Like what's your mental process when you approach something like writing?
And you might love this one more than my other interviews if you like processing stuff.
You know, you want to see a little bit behind the curtain.
So I recommend that.
You can find that on Joshua Lysak's thread, on X, or mine.
Probably can search for it on YouTube too.
Alright.
Big news, big news on UFOs.
Special UFO secrets were put into a skiff.
Those places where you can't take a copy and you can't bring your phone.
But you go into a room that's well protected, and if you're a special person of Congress, You can look at top secret American secrets as long as you don't talk about them too specifically and as long as you don't take a copy.
So that's a skiff.
So apparently Congress demanded more information and so a special skiff was created of UFO secrets.
Finally, at least members of our Congress can find out the real truth about the dead aliens that we have in storage and all of their many spaceships.
So we have a huge warehouse facility, they say.
And the results from the SCIF are nothing new.
Nothing new.
So that was a big surprise.
That was a big surprise to people like me.
Oh, I'm starting to think the UFOs are not real.
Starting to have that suspicion that maybe we don't have a big locker full of dead aliens.
I don't know.
Just starting to think maybe it's not true.
That's just me.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
tells us, and oh my god this is scary, so yesterday an intruder climbed over his fence at his home and was arrested, and then after being released from police custody later in the day, he immediately returned to my home and was arrested again.
Now you might know the background to the story, that RFK Jr.
has asked for Secret Service Protection and has been denied by Biden.
Now you might say to yourself, but, but, but Scott, I read, I saw that story.
Sure you did.
The story that Democrats are seeing is that he's not eligible.
That's what Democrats are saying.
That's the news that is abusing Democrats right now.
They say he's not eligible.
Well, let me say this as clearly as possible.
First of all, I'm pretty sure he is eligible, because there's some precedent with Biden.
I'm sorry, precedent with Obama, who is also not technically eligible, but got it anyway.
Do you know why Obama got protection, even though maybe it wasn't technically eligible?
Because there was a real good chance somebody was going to fucking kill him.
That's why.
You need a better reason than that?
Really?
Yeah, you're going to look at the paperwork, right?
Who the hell is going to look at the paperwork to decide if you're going to save somebody's life?
I mean, how evil is that?
It's not like we ran out of money for this one thing.
So just think about this.
Joe Biden's plan right now is to jail his main challenger for the White House, Trump.
And to leave the other one vulnerable to assassination.
That's happening right in front of us.
Now, none of those things are really controversial in terms of the facts.
I'm pretty sure that if Biden administration, led by Biden, wanted to not have local states and whatever prosecuting Trump, I'm pretty sure they could make it happen.
You know, through a political process, not necessarily a legal one.
Which would be the more reasonable thing to do.
But right in front of us, with, let's say, the tacit blessing of the White House, which you know they do bless it, they're trying to jail the person who's leading in the polls.
He's leading in the polls!
And his challenger is trying to put him in jail for any fucking thing they can come up with.
If they can, you know, concoct anything that looks like a crime.
And in that context, they're leaving the, you know, some would say, one of the strongest contenders, I think Vivek's pretty strong, you know, in the next tier.
But to leave this guy vulnerable to actually assassination?
And you know it's a risk?
You know it's an outside risk?
It's not a normal risk.
It's way above average risk.
You're going to leave him unprotected.
Now if you can't say that a Democrat absolutely needs to be protected from a clear and obvious risk just because you're a Republican, well then you kind of suck.
It has nothing to do with anybody's politics or who's what.
But this isn't really political.
You don't let a human citizen of the United States Be unprotected in this scenario when that citizen is running to help the United States.
He seems to be primarily motivated by making something right.
You know, fixing stuff.
Anyway, this is one of the most evil things I've ever seen, and yet there's no move to impeach Biden over it.
What could be more impeachable than trying to jail your biggest opponent and intentionally leaving the other one vulnerable to assassination?
Can you think of anything that would be more worthy of taking somebody out of office?
Now, maybe it doesn't technically violate any laws?
I'd impeach him anyway.
I mean, at some point you just gotta, you know, you gotta put down a marker.
Well, in other funny news, it turns out that Maggie Haberman, made Trump angry with a New York Times story about his gag order that he didn't like.
And so now Trump has given a new nickname to who used to be Maggie Haberman, and forevermore she will be called now Maggie Haberman.
Maggie Haberman.
Now, the thing I like about it, and of course I do like it, I like it for the entertainment value, but I also like it for the, you know, watching the persuasion elements of it.
And I love the fact that he waited so long To attack her this hard?
I mean, he's actually been friendly with Maggie Haberman even when she's been vicious to him for years.
I don't know why, I never really understood it, but he would grant her access and stuff.
But now he's just going full out Maggie Haberman.
And what do I love better than the President of the United States calling out the fake news and calling one of the star reporters a maggot?
You know, if we lived in normal times, this would be so far over the line, right?
I would never, ever want my president or my presidential top contender to be calling a news person a maggot.
Under no conditions, except this one, would I think that was acceptable.
In this case, I think it's actually not just acceptable, practically mandatory.
Practically mandatory.
And if you take it too seriously, you're doing it wrong.
So don't take it too seriously.
But I can't remember a time when this would have been the biggest story in the country.
Can you imagine in the early days of Trump, if he'd called Maggie Haberman a maggot?
It would be a sexism story first.
Am I right?
It would be all about the sexism.
Oh, he's not calling, you know, Jim Acosta a maggot.
He's just saying other things.
But, oh, the woman is a maggot.
Oh, oh, oh, the guys are just, you know, some other thing.
But you're calling the woman a maggot, right?
It was only a few years ago that would have been the story.
But Trump has made us so accustomed to his technique that now it's just a minor story that he called a major name in the news a maggot.
Not only did he call her a maggot, but he's branded her, that's now her name going forward for the rest of time, to at least Trumpers.
Well, here's the most interesting story of the day, and I'm just boggled.
Apparently, and I think I mentioned this, Linda Iaccarini said that the X platform, which was Twitter, might actually be profitable in 2024 for the first time.
Now that would be the most remarkable business turnaround I've ever witnessed by far.
But that's not even close to the full story.
The full story is just mind-boggling.
But let me just give you like a little taste of it.
Here's some things we learned just yesterday.
That X is aiming to roll out full payment plus financial services by the end of 2024.
By the end of this coming year, the X platform will be an online bank where you can pay people and do other financial services unnamed.
Now, given the amount of time that I spend logged into X, would I ever use Venmo?
Don't know why.
Why would I log out of something and then open another app?
Would I ever use Google Pay?
I have it.
I use it sometimes, but if I had X I wouldn't use anything else, because I'm already there all the time anyway.
So that's totally going to succeed.
Creator payouts will increase significantly.
Hello!
So I'd like to do, you know, reasonable full disclosure.
That I am monetized on the X platform.
I'm a creator who... So I'm monetized two different ways.
One is there's a subscription.
You hit the button in my profile and you can watch the Dilbert Reborn comic.
And I think I'm going to launch the Dilbert calendar digital only on there as well.
But also on the scottadams.locals.com platform.
You can see both of those.
And on Locals, lots more.
My other comics, etc.
On the X platform alone, I've got the Dilbert stuff and the subscription, and I've got the money that they pay just for the engagement that I bring through my comments section.
Between the two of them, You know, it's actually weird.
I'm having trouble figuring out how much they're paying me.
Because it's not once a month.
It's at these random times.
So I end up eyeballing it, like, it looks like this much per month.
But you have to sort of eyeball it.
But I'm already well over six figures.
So the X platform is returning to me through those two mechanisms.
Over 100,000 years.
So that's a fairly big account, but growing.
It's also growing quite quickly.
The subscription part is growing faster than the just traffic part.
But it's actually a legitimate business.
I have other ways I could make money as well, but if you were just trying to make a living, And you could be fascinating and get up to a million followers.
There are a number of people, you could name them as well, who have somehow amazingly got a million followers on the X platform, which is what I have.
But they weren't starting out as famous.
Mike Cernovich, the most impressive tweeter of all time, probably.
And now they can build this into a real business.
So that's impressive.
Anyway, so the other thing is the X platform could launch a dating feature.
Love it.
You know what I'd like to see in a dating feature?
I would like the algorithm to figure out who likes the same stuff I do.
Boom.
Right?
What would be better?
than to be matched based on your activity on the X platform.
You put two people together who seem to like the same stuff on X, how are they not going to have a fun dinner?
Right?
Like, they might not fall in love, but, you know, getting together for coffee would totally be fun.
Like, you could guarantee, basically guarantee, that the first date would be pretty good.
So, that's a genius idea.
They could launch a video player that will be integrated into TVs.
Good.
They're seeing over 500 million posts and over 100 billion impressions per day.
Holy cow.
They think they can build a viable LinkedIn competitor, which is interesting.
Can you imagine a LinkedIn competitor using the X platform?
So you could know about their social media life as well as their business life at the same time.
Because what's the point of learning about somebody's business life only on LinkedIn?
Because you really sort of want to know what they're saying about... What are you thinking about Gaza?
You know what I mean?
You know what I mean?
I'd like to know what they say you think about Gaza before I hire them.
So that's genius.
Totally genius to combine those.
They're achieving technical parity and that might even surpass YouTube in their video player.
Holy cow.
I mean, the big advantage of YouTube is that it's technically remarkable.
I mean, just unbelievable.
YouTube is, whatever you want to complain about their censorship, their technical, just, competence is insane.
Yeah, YouTube is just, I think of that and I think of Amazon as maybe the two most spectacular technical accomplishments of all time.
The fact that Amazon works almost every time, when you think of the scale of it, I mean that's just so mind-boggling, the level of excellence that it takes to make those things work.
And Musk says that X's progress over the past year may be the fastest change of any internet company.
Maybe.
Maybe?
I think you could get rid of the maybe.
There's nobody who's changed this much at that scale.
Ever.
Ever.
There's no way there's anybody who's ever close to this.
Do you think there is?
I mean, I've never seen a pivot like this is like a 10 point pivot.
It's incredible.
And anyway, and they're going to have some kind of Newswire service called X-Wire.
We don't know what that is yet.
But if X starts integrating news, how exactly would they do it?
You know, that's a fundamental exercise.
If you were going to recreate news from scratch, And you have to solve the thing that nobody solves first.
Nobody's figured out how to do this.
Make people want to see it, so it's a little bit addictive.
And you're also trying to be true.
That's the holy grail.
Nobody's ever done that.
But X could do it.
X could do it by bringing in both arguments.
Let me describe my perfect service on X.
It would be there'd be a news story, and then what X would do is make sure that you paired the best arguments pro and con for the story.
You do that for me, and I will just like die happy.
It would be the fix for the country.
Let me say it again.
If X could pull this off, and I don't think there's anybody else who could, frankly.
I think this is so only Elon Musk could do it, that you wouldn't even, I wouldn't even imagine anybody else doing it.
He could actually pair the story with the pro and the con, and somehow the algorithm could make the best argument on both sides, pro and con, rise to the top, because they get more likes or whatever.
It would be amazing.
There's somebody here who's saying they're losing respect here.
Really?
What was I doing recently that was causing you to lose respect?
Was it that I suggested it'd be good to see both sides?
You hate that?
All right.
You see every kind of mental illness online.
Remember those Boston Dynamic robots that have been scaring you for about 10 years, because they walk around like people?
And then they built the little robot dog, and that scared you twice as much, because it looks like some monster from hell?
Well, what's the only thing that could make it scarier?
I will suggest adding AI to it, so now it can operate autonomously.
And there's a video, you can see it on my thread, of the dog.
Giving somebody a tour of their warehouse and saying in a British accent, well, why don't you come over here?
Just follow me.
That's the worst British accent of all time.
I apologize to everybody who has any association with England for what I just did.
I feel like I should just quit now.
No, I'm not going to quit.
But it was a terrible, terrible accent.
And I'll never do it again in public.
Impressions?
Not my thing.
All right, but the point is you really got to see that dog walking around and talking like a British aristocrat while giving a tour of the warehouse.
Now, if you tell me you don't want one of those dogs, well, I just, I don't even know you.
Who wouldn't want a robot dog that could follow them around and answer questions in a conversational way?
Oh, I'd like that a lot.
I assume it would be connected to the internet, wouldn't it?
I want to do Google searches by robot dog.
That's the only way I want to do it.
I do not want to...
Pick up my phone.
Oh, you have to unlock your phone.
Oh, whoa, there's a message here.
No, no, ignore the message.
I meant to go to Google.
Go to Google, misspelled it.
Google, misspelled it.
God damn it, Google.
G-O-O.
Okay, there's Google.
Ask a question.
Search through all the garbage in the sponsored ads and, you know, that's what searching is today.
Just completely broken process.
But imagine your robot dog is walking around the house with you and you just go, robot dog, could you tell me something about the history of Gaza?
Fill me in.
Well, yes, Scott, I would love to.
Damn it.
Damn it.
That was an Indian accent.
I was trying to do British again.
I just can't do it.
Why can't I do a British accent?
What's wrong with me?
Anyway, Here's something I've learned from the internet, from the relationship gurus.
Now, if you're in a relationship, or have ever been in one, or would like to be in one, here's some of the most important things you'll ever learn about heterosexual relationships.
Now, I would make no claim that this applies to the LGBTQ community more broadly.
But it's sort of a hetero thing, because a lot of the relationship experts are hetero types.
And here are the three things that I've learned that are pretty much guaranteed.
Number one, there are three things that would guarantee a failed relationship.
Number one, the man does not give the woman everything she wants.
Because if the man doesn't give her everything she wants, she'll gotta look for somebody who will.
So that doesn't work.
Number two, man always gives woman everything she wants.
You would think that would be the solution to man does not give woman everything she wants, because then she won't need to look for somebody, because you're giving her everything she wants.
But I'm told by the experts, if a man gives a woman everything she wants, she will think he's a simp, and not any kind of alpha man, and then she'll go searching for a better man, So, don't do that.
Now, the third thing that doesn't work is if the woman doesn't need anything from the man in the first place.
In which case, she'll cheat on him because, you know, he's not really adding much to her life anyway.
So, don't do any of these three things.
Do not give a woman everything she wants.
Do not give a woman almost everything she wants.
And do not be with a woman who already has everything she wants.
Now, the good news is, those are just the three things that don't work.
So, you're saying to yourself, my God, that sounds terrible.
Right, but you know, I'm not done with the story.
Hold on, hold on.
It's not all doom and gloom.
Because I've been listening to a lot of these relationship experts, and I can tell you for sure, they don't just tell you what doesn't work.
They'll also tell you what works to make a long, happy relationship.
And here's their list.
All right, next story.
You know that guy who's missing who killed a bunch of people in Maine?
His name is Card.
No car.
So they found Car's car.
Car's car was left at a boat dock.
I have a personality flaw which I cannot hide.
Well, quite a few of them, actually.
But one of them that I have is I sometimes have respect for the wrong people.
I'm not proud of it.
I'm just confessing.
So, for example, if there's a dictator who is pure evil, But they're also really good at being a dictator.
I say to myself, OK, evil, sure.
But really good at the job.
Really good at the job.
No, Hitler wasn't good at his job because he got killed.
There's no upside to Hitler.
In fact, as Norm Macdonald says, the more I find out about that guy, the less I like him.
Yeah, that's Norm Macdonald.
But anyway, I also have this personality flaw, where when there's a mass murderer, who's unusually capable, I can't turn off the fact that I'm impressed.
So this guy is, you know, pure shit, and he killed innocent people, and he should be ripped apart by dogs, and, you know, I have full empathy for the victims, as any normal person should.
But, something's going on with this guy.
That isn't like other killers.
And we haven't quite figured it out.
But he seems to have done everything right.
First of all, he's a wilderness guy.
So he's a weapons expert, and a wilderness guy, and he's got some training.
So if there was anybody who was going to do a terrible crime and then get away with it, it would be this guy.
And he seems to have done everything right.
Except one thing that's a little suspicious, which makes me think there's something to it.
It goes like this.
Here are the things he did, I'll say right, but in an evil way.
So he was, he picked an area where he could operate and there were no, I guess there was nobody armed to shoot back.
So that was good.
I mean good in an evil way.
He was trained and had high-powered weapons.
He had a night scope.
So he basically had all that done.
And he also spent very little time doing what he did.
Then apparently the car that he was using, his car they say, he left it at a boat dock.
And apparently he owns a 15-foot boat that I assume is missing.
So the assumption is that he murdered people, drove to the boat dock, got in his boat, and when I thought about it I said to myself, I don't think there's anything harder to track than a boat, is there?
Is that true?
Is that like the perfect, you know, the dogs can't find you?
You know, if you were doing the... I guess the law enforcement now has this heat identifying thing, infrared, so they could fly a helicopter over the forest and they could pick out an animal or a person.
So that's how they find somebody who's escaped into the main forest.
But here's the beauty.
The boat dock Also has a hiking trail next to it.
But also, it's a parking lot, so the guy drove to a place where the authorities don't know if he hiked away, boated away, or got in another vehicle and left.
Now you tell me, have you ever seen a more capable, terrible person?
The level of capability that that implies is crazy.
Now, but how do you explain that he showed his face and made no attempt to mask his face when clearly a person with that capability would know that he would be captured on video?
How do you explain that?
Well, one of the parts that is interesting is that the identification of the person they're looking for This guy Carr, in my opinion, doesn't look enough like the video to identify him positively from the video.
So indeed, that's why law enforcement was calling him a person of interest, because they had a video of a guy doing the crime, and they had a photo of the guy they suspect, and you have to know, I'm sure, That the law enforcement people had this big argument behind the scenes?
I don't think that's him.
No, it is, kind of.
He's got the beard.
Maybe he lost weight.
I think it's just the angle of the photo.
And then somehow, the guy who's the perp also has an established record of saying he might do such a thing, and being a weapons expert and a military guy.
And he was released from some facility.
So it was like every bad thing and then he had access to weapons.
So, but why did he show his face?
The showing the face part is the part that doesn't fit with all of the super prepared other parts.
Right?
Because what advantage would he have that police could immediately identify him?
Wouldn't that be the opposite of somebody who's so prepared that they drive their car to the best place you could ever escape from?
The three-way different escape paths?
So, I'll just throw in another hypothesis.
Very unlikely, and you should vote against it.
Like, if you had to bet, you should bet that my hypothesis is wrong.
The most likely explanation is, it's a crazy guy with a lot of capabilities.
And he didn't care about his identity, because he knew he had to disappear.
Like they knew he would figure out who he was anyway, so there's no point in figuring, you know.
He didn't need to, he didn't really need to hide his identity, because allegedly he left a note that, you know, told where some of his financial stuff could be found.
So maybe he wanted people to know that he was the guy.
So that his relatives could go take care of his house or whatever.
So maybe you wanted them to know.
But they would have found out fairly soon.
They would have found out.
So here's another hypothesis.
This is more the TV movie hypothesis.
That there is a guy in this car.
And he was a gun instructor, and he did have these mental conditions.
But that somebody simply dressed like him to do the crime, and that his body will be found in an unusual place.
So here's what I'm predicting.
If it turns out they have the wrong guy, then the guy that they've identified, this car guy, they will find his body, and he will look murdered.
But it would be in a place that doesn't make sense.
It would be like his body was, you know, in the woods or something.
You know, just someplace that doesn't make sense.
That would suggest that somebody used him as the patsy, shaved off their beard, drove away, maybe put somebody else on a boat or sent the boat out.
My guess is, here's how I would have done it.
I would have taken my car, To my boat, and then I would have taken my boat to some far away place on the lake where I had another vehicle.
Then I would take the other vehicle, and I would take that to, you know, my true hiding place.
That's how I'd play it.
So, I'm sure it's exactly what they say, you know, most likely it's exactly what it looks like, but there's something about the fact that he doesn't look like the picture, and he's so capable.
That just screams something weird.
Somebody says they think he might have been wearing a mask during the crime.
Maybe.
Who knows?
But, yeah, maybe.
All right.
Let's see.
Who's got free speech lately?
Let's see.
There's an agent who got canceled.
CAA agent by Aaron Sorkin.
Because the CAA, CAA is the big agency for, you know, there's one biggest Hollywood agency, CAA.
So one of their agents who handled Aaron Sorkin said some pro-Gaza things, I guess.
And so she got fired and got taken off committees and stuff.
So without agreeing with her point of view, I would just note that she doesn't have free speech in America.
Would you agree?
Again, I disagree with her point of view.
I'm just saying it's obvious she didn't have free speech.
So she got, her career just got destroyed.
There's also a big truck that has the faces and information about the Harvard students who signed a pro-Hamas, some would say, statement.
And So they're being doxxed and their lives are being ruined.
So those Harvard students, whose views I disagree with, don't have free speech in America.
Don't imagine that they do.
They do not have free speech.
And then there's a school in L.A.
that's canceling Halloween because they say one third of their students don't celebrate it.
So it's not inclusive enough.
That's interesting.
Now there is one scenario in which I could imagine it being a problem.
If you had a massive amount of recent immigrants and they were poor and they couldn't afford to have their fancy costumes like their white classmates, I could kind of almost see why this would make sense.
I don't hate the idea that some schools have uniforms.
I would have hated it as a kid.
Or maybe not.
I don't know.
Maybe I wouldn't have.
But I do like not creating a situation where some of the students feel super uncomfortable because of their economic situation.
So it might be economic.
In which case, I don't know.
Maybe you keep your Halloween stuff at home.
It doesn't have to be a school anyway.
But I keep an eye on that one.
It seems like cancelling fun.
Did you know that Israel has a space laser?
Which they've been working on for a while, and they're going to, I guess, spin it up a little early.
It wasn't quite quite ready.
But it must work in tests.
Because they need it for air defense.
So if a whole bunch of missiles start incoming, they could quickly run out of anti-missile missiles.
But it's harder to run out of lasers.
You know, if your laser has electricity, and a lot of it, it can shoot down a lot of missiles, kind of one after another.
So, if you could get a space laser defense system, then that would certainly go a long way toward allowing Israel to live in a part of town that's a little dangerous.
I guess I could get to the question of how can Israel survive for 200 years as technology keeps improving and it makes it easier for one person to destroy a whole country and they're surrounded by one people who want to do that and have the access to weapons.
But if they've got a space, if they've got a laser for shooting down rockets, it's not a space laser because it's not, it's not, it's not space-based.
It just sort of shoots into space.
All right.
Here's the story that I love watching and tweeting about, but I don't know what to believe.
And if you're not following the Rasmussen Report account on the X platform, you're kind of missing a whole saga about the 2020 election and the various claims and lawsuits and technical claims and everything else.
I don't know what to believe.
Let me say up front, I'm not personally aware, I'm not personally aware of any factual statement that would say the 2020 election was rigged.
Personally, I'm not aware of that.
But when you look through the claims are just mind-boggling.
I want to give you just a few things I've learned lately that I don't know what to think about it, but I'll just put them out there.
You can, all right?
Here's something I learned.
At least on some of the machines that were used in 2020, and to me it doesn't even matter which company it was.
So there are a few different machine companies involved.
It's not just Dominion.
But some of the machines had internal Wi-Fi ports.
Did you know that?
In other words, if you were to inspect the machine, you know, it would be locked.
So you couldn't see what's inside.
But if it had a Wi-Fi connection to the Internet, it would have been in a slot inside the machine, so there's no way you could tell by looking at the outside whether it was connected to the Internet.
Apparently, that's an established fact.
Did you know that?
Some of you knew that, right?
Now I did know that there was a question about whether some machines were attached to the internet.
So I've known for a long time that there was the allegation that some were attached.
But I always thought, just my dumb old head, I always thought that you could tell by looking at it.
I just assumed that the slot would be external.
Didn't you?
I just thought it was something you stick in the back, and if you looked at it, and there's nothing in the Wi-Fi slot, you'd say, okay, it's not connected to the internet.
I don't know why I even thought that.
But if it's internal to the machine, and it's locked, come on.
So it gets better.
Mike Lindell, who you know has been in deep trouble in fighting the 2020 election, apparently he's funded and developed A technology that would identify Wi-Fi in an area that's an unknown Wi-Fi.
So in other words, you could put one in a polling place and it would know if one of these polling machines spun up the Wi-Fi.
So that's a good idea, right?
How could it ever be a bad idea to detect, you know, who would be against that?
Like, why in the world?
Why in the world would you be opposed to tracking to see if anybody had done anything illegal by checking to see if any Wi-Fi fired up that wasn't supposed to be there?
What's wrong with that?
Well, Kentucky wants it to be illegal.
Huh.
Why would anybody want that to be illegal?
You know, if it were me, and I were trying to make sure that my elections were nice and tight, I'd want to buy it.
I'd want to say, Mike Lindell, can you do us first?
Do us first!
Because I'd like to know, at the end of this, I'd really like to know if any Wi-Fi came on, because we're going to have to defend against it if somebody claims it did.
Wouldn't it be great to have a record that no unusual Wi-Fi activity happened?
And then at least we'll know our little area, we passed all the tests.
We audited, we checked for the Wi-Fi, we did everything we could.
There's no way this is rigged.
Wouldn't that be a great tool to have?
Well, the argument against it is that it itself would be the hacking tool.
That it would cause its own problem.
To which I say, how would it do that?
Unless the Wi-Fi was on.
How could it cause a problem unless an illegal Wi-Fi was on?
Can you give me an example of how that would be a problem?
I mean, I'm no technical expert, but it seems like if the Wi-Fi isn't on, then the electronic Wi-Fi thing wouldn't have much effect on it.
Let's see how much effect the Wi-Fi has on my bottle of water.
Anything?
Anything?
No.
Can't really hack a bottle of water.
So, I don't know what's true and what isn't true on the election stuff.
Probably never will.
But the story is way more interesting than you've been led to believe by the mainstream news.
Now, you know the left isn't going to cover any of this stuff, right?
So CNN, MSNBC, even if there are things that are just sort of rumor, claims are made, they've kind of stopped talking about it completely.
But thank God we have a, you know, an open media situation where you don't have to depend on the biased left-leaning media.
Thank God you've got Fox News that can do full coverage about suspected problems.
Oh.
Oh, no, that won't work, will it?
No, that's right.
Dominion just sued the piss out of Fox News for making claims that weren't true, according to them.
So all right, so you can't report it on the left because they don't want you to hear it.
And you can't report it on the right because the left will crush you if you do.
So if you're not following the Rasmussen Report on X, you probably have no idea what's going on.
I don't know that they're going to find anything.
But here's what I can say for certain.
Our elections are not secure.
Everybody okay with that?
For sure they're not secure.
Whether anything has happened, I have no information to suggest that.
Now, I do hope that there's some way that you could audit after the fact, and you would pick up any of these, you know, any alleged improprieties.
But I don't think so.
I don't think our audits can pick up.
Some of the things which would be alleged that could or did happen.
So I think two things can be true.
That there's no evidence that is conclusive or even credible based on your own opinion.
And that there might be something there we don't know about.
Both could be true.
All right.
Molly Hemingway was tweeting and there's an article in the Federalist So as you know, it's been reported that there were many attempts at investigating the Biden crime family for the past 15 years.
The claim is that all these investigations were obstructed because it was Biden.
And so Biden lovers were obstructing.
But until you read the details, until you read the details, you don't really realize how bad it was.
So I call it the dilberting of the investigations.
Apparently, the way they were all thwarted was with bureaucracy.
So much bureaucracy that, for example, one of the whistleblowers, I guess, said that normally you'd need, I think, one approval to renew an investigation for another 30 days, which is normal routine.
You start an investigation, but you don't want to be investigating forever, you know, unless you're finding something useful.
So their process is, after a month...
Just make sure you get approval to renew the investigation.
So that's normal process.
Kind of a pain in the ass, wouldn't you say?
If you were working there, wouldn't you say, oh my god, every 30 days I gotta go get this signature and re-justify everything I'm doing, make my case, explain it all to whoever's gonna sign off on it.
And that would be like sort of a bureaucratic obstacle, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, that's the way it usually worked.
Except in the case of the Biden investigations, which at least in one instance or one investigation, they required 17 approvals and you needed to do it every month.
17.
And when that number came out, the Democrat who was talking to him in Congress, I guess, publicly asked the question, you know, is that a hyperbole?
Like you don't mean actually like literally 17, right?
The answer was, it's literally 17.
That's the exact number.
That's not an estimate.
It was 17.
If you've ever read the Dilbert comic, you know that sometimes in the Dilbert universe, this is exactly how problems are solved.
Somebody will just throw so much bureaucracy in front of it that it just makes it impossible.
And that's just one of the examples of the ways that they were obstructed.
The others are, you know, roughly as outrageous.
But when you read them, you easily see how they can hide their evil.
Because if you heard any one of these stories, you'd say, really?
Well, then you'd explain it away to yourself.
You'd say, all right, but you know, it's Biden's family, so this is more political.
So if it's more political, you'd want more approvals.
Maybe the 17 wasn't really 17.
Maybe it was like some of the people just had to know that the other person said yes.
And they were sort of automatic.
So if you really came down to it, it might have been five people.
But those five people influenced the larger group of people.
And you could talk yourself out of it.
Right?
You could easily say, OK, that's true.
And that was an obstacle.
But you know, here are the reasons, reasons, reasons, reasons.
And you just move on.
But when you see them all together, Yeah, it's pretty obvious what was happening.
They were just trying to kill the investigations.
All right.
So I've avoided talking about the Middle East up until now.
And let's do that.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, or maybe they should be, the Gaza situation has gone way down in the headlines.
Now, some of it is because the shocking part has led to more of a process part where the Israelis will dismantle the bad guys, a little at a time apparently.
But there have been, Israel's doing some probing, but not a major ground assault.
The US has taken out two militant bases, I think in Syria.
So they're Iranian proxies.
And then gave a warning to Iran, the US did.
That the proxies attacking American bases in the Middle East, which apparently is happening a lot, won't be tolerated.
So they do that.
Now, this does open up at least one path of strategy for Israel and the United States that would not cause World War III, which would be eliminating all the proxies, which would include Hezbollah.
As long as they didn't actually attack the mainland in any way of Iran, I think they could actually do anything they wanted anywhere else at the moment without inviting in, let's say, Russia, where somebody would turn it into a world war.
I feel like even Russia would stay out of the way and just let America use up all its bullets that could have otherwise gone to Ukraine.
I think Russia would say, Wait, you're going to use up a whole bunch of military assets on Hezbollah?
Because that would be a big job.
I think Russia would say, knock yourself out.
Use up all your munitions.
Spend all your money.
Go ahead.
Does it matter to Russia that Hezbollah gets destroyed?
I mean, I don't know the answer to that question.
That sounded like I was making a point, but that's actually a question.
Does Russia care?
Russia would care about Iran for sure, because Iran is helping them.
But do they care about Hezbollah?
I don't know why they would, but if somebody has a reason for it, I'll listen to it.
So it seems to me that there is a non-World War III path, and it would involve parking our Navy, Off the coast, and one by one dismantling and destroying every proxy that Iran has ever funded.
Because it seems to me, if you were thinking of being an Iranian proxy in the future, that you would be at least a little bit concerned about the fact that 100% of them had turned into dust recently.
I mean, that would certainly discourage you, wouldn't it?
It feels to me like Hezbollah will probably be destroyed and Lebanon will be turned into dust, is my guess.
But that, I don't know, who is Lebanon's big ally?
Do they have some big ally that we have to worry about besides Iran?
So I think this is what it's going to look like.
I think Israel is going to go slower than most people expect.
Because they're going to want to make sure that every action they do has the minimum amount of blowback and death.
But they will be just as tough as you imagine they should be, which is they are going to kill every member of Hamas.
That's definitely going to happen.
I heard somebody say, I think it was one of the sons of Hamas, Who's now pro-Israel, says it's just crazy, he rejects Hamas.
But he's saying that, I think it was him, who said that the Israelis should kill all the Hamas prisoners.
The ones that are looking to trade for the... And I thought, wow.
Wow.
That's pretty rough.
But how in the world can Israel keep Hamas alive?
If they've got Hamas fighters in jail, are they just going to keep them in jail while they're killing the other ones on the battlefield?
I've got a feeling they're going to release them into the middle of the war zone without weapons.
Just say, hey, here you go.
Good luck.
No food, no water, no weapons, but you're free.
So I'm going to say lots of targeted attacks.
Gaza will never be the same, of course.
It looks like they're going to blow up as much as they can to get a clear path at the bad guys.
If I were Israel, I don't know enough about the specifics there.
But it seems like what they should be doing is just shrinking the battlefield.
Am I wrong?
Knowing nothing about urban warfare.
Normally what you're trying to do is go into an existing city and go through the existing streets and stuff and people are shooting you from everything.
But it seems to me they could just essentially turn to rubble everything that would have a window or a door.
And then it's just big piles.
And once it's big piles, can't you see almost everybody from the air?
If there's no indoors, you know, you just eliminate the concept of indoors.
I feel like you can see them.
So what I imagine might happen, take a lot of bombs, but that they would just keep bombing and shrinking the area that the bad guys are in while continuing to negotiate for the hostages.
Well, not doing something that looks like an obvious collective punishment, destroying a bunch of innocent people, because the innocents could get plenty of notice.
You know, this building will disappear in four hours.
Don't be in it.
Now this building will disappear and they just keep shrinking.
Because if they shrink the area enough, they should be able to get control of the tunnels and then finish it off.
But I don't know anything about military, so that's just my dumb thoughts about it.
But what do you think, just strategically and hearts and minds wise, do you think that the smart play is to eliminate 100% of the Iranian proxies, but not put a bomb on the homeland of Iran?
What do you think of that?
That might not be enough for Israel, but You'd have to consider it.
I think if the Iranians can't find anybody to give money to, to be a proxy, because they keep disappearing, that would be a good start.
All right.
So much death.
I think the idea of just wiping out Gaza is a complete non-starter.
Because it would be giving away so much moral authority that I would argue that moral authority is the only thing that keeps Israel alive.
If they didn't have that, they wouldn't have support.
So they can't lose that.
It's the biggest asset.
And that's the asset that Hamas was trying to take from them.
They were trying to take their moral authority By forcing them to respond like Hamas.
They want Israel to turn into Hamas, so it's a fair fight.
And Israel is basically hate-crazy at the moment.
Now I want to be very careful when I say this.
If you put anybody in Israel's situation, there's no way they can think clearly.
Would you agree with that?
Is that a fair statement?
Because it's nothing about Israel.
You couldn't put anybody into such a PTSD situation and expect them to act exactly as if they had not been in that situation.
That's not a thing.
So if you're expecting them to be completely cool and calm and just follow the odds and do a good risk assessment, that's something you could ask anybody else.
But you can't ask somebody who just watched their children be slaughtered.
Can't ask.
That is off the fucking table.
They're going to do what they need to do to reassemble their minds.
Because right now their minds are scrambled by Hamas.
They've got to put that back together as they can.
It might require violence as part of the, well it does, it does require violence as part of the solution.
They're going to need to feel that there was something like justice, something like payback, something like revenge, or otherwise you just can't move on, as if you could ever move on.
You'll never be able to move on from it, but you'll be at least something.
So, With the greatest respect and empathy, I think we have to understand that Israel's got the toughest problem a population could deal with, which is, in order to feel better, they would have to become the thing they hate the most.
That's a problem.
I don't know what the solution is.
But they are a very capable nation, and if somebody is going to solve that problem, I like the rods.
I like the rods.
But the thing that is most important, by far, is that they slow down.
Because the slowing down is where the reason can start to replace the emotion.
It's going to be a slow process.
But anything you do fast is going to be emotion.
Anything you do slower is going to have a little bit of reason mixed in a little bit better.
So, it looks to me, because Israel is in fact moving slowly, and by the way, I think they could have said no to America.
They could have.
They could have said no, we're going in now, we're not going to wait for your missiles or anything, we're just going to go in now.
They could have.
I feel like it was wisdom that slowed them down and not the United States.
Just a feeling.
I feel like their collective wisdom slowed them down.
Which, you know, you could argue was God himself.
You know, God took a little time.
But I feel like there's got to be some God in this story, right?
I'm not a believer, but bear with me.
If you were Israel, You would be feeling something like God's presence through this entire ordeal, and you'd have to be asking yourself, what would God do?
What would God want you to do?
Good questions.
But I would say the key question for Israel, and here's your reframe that's the most important one.
We think that Israel is deciding what to do.
That's not what's happening.
That might be how they think of it.
They're not deciding what to do.
They're deciding who to become.
That's different.
Deciding what to do is kind of easy.
Go in and kill all the bad guys as fast as you can.
It's kind of easy.
Deciding who you want to be for the next 50 years, that's hard.
So they're going to have to balance what they know they need to do, which is crush their mortal enemies, with who they want to be.
And those might not be exactly the same.
So who they might want to be is the people who were wounded in the most severe way anything or anybody could be wounded.
And indeed, death to many of them.
And still retain their humanity.
That's who they can be.
That's who they can be.
But it's a choice.
So they can either be the ones who mowed down the Palestinians who were in the way.
Or they could be the ones who saved their enemies to save themselves.
And by that I mean Minimize the civilian damage.
Some civilians will die.
There's just no way around it.
So that's a big thing.
So far I would say Israel's played it exactly correctly by making the biggest amount of response and then holding back.
To me, that seems the wisest path.
And, you know, we should all wish everybody the best of luck in that region.
It's almost impossible to wrap your head around what's going on over there.
So all of us have to take little mental vacations.
Yesterday, I sort of stopped watching the bad news, you know, earlier in the day than I usually do.
Usually I'm hooked to the news all day.
I'm always just checking it all the time.
But I realized that my mental health was really suffering.
Has anybody had that same experience?
Yeah, my actual mental health was very much at risk.
No hyperbole involved.
It was a mental health problem, for sure.
Yeah, it was PTSD.
And I'm an ocean away.
So think about the effect that it had on you.
An ocean away.
And now think about how scrambled the minds of the Israeli citizens are today.
It's beyond... I can't even imagine it.
I don't even know how to put a thought on it.
It's so horrible.
But the good news is we might have a way to survive.
And let me Change your minds to something crypto so I can just take you out of this mode, okay?
I don't want to end on this.
I just want to throw out an idea.
Is there any way we could solve the national debt with crypto?
Does anybody ever come up with a play for that?
Only if you want another situation?
No, I mean, it would obviously be a US-backed crypto, so it wouldn't be a shitcoin.
Because, I don't know if I understand crypto well enough, but you can make money on a thin air, right?
So couldn't you make enough to pay off the debt?
And then just tell people it's worth something, or at least you can use it.
Actually, America can make any crypto valuable by just saying they will accept it for your tax payments.
Because so many people pay taxes, it would just give it a market.
Holy shit, he's off the deep end. - Yeah.
Really?
I'm off the deep end?
Do any of you think that in 200 years you're going to be paying for stuff with pieces of paper that you carried in your pocket?
You know that crypto is guaranteed, right?
You're not going to have paper.
Oh, here's my piece of paper to pay for my robot.
That's not going to happen.
Yeah.
And well, credit cards are basically crypto.
The difference between a credit card and crypto is that the credit card has too many bureaucratic steps and too many people taking a cut and all that.
But otherwise it's digital money.
It's digital money.
So I'm just wondering if the math works.
Could there be a math where all US debt is paid off with some crypto and everybody doesn't care?
Is that even possible?
Or does that create an inflation, like, super bomb?
Would that create an immediate inflation super bomb if you paid off all the debt right away?
Or maybe you could pay it down over time?
Yeah.
Well, I'm asking you how.
The only thing that I'm starting with is we've got a debt that cannot be paid In any normal way.
In my opinion, the amount of debt cannot be paid by normal economic activity.
That's what I think.
So, if you have a debt that cannot be paid and will destroy the world, suddenly you get really creative, right?
You don't have an option.
What's the other option?
Infinite debt until you all go poor?
Give me your other idea.
Because if your other idea, well, inflation, yeah.
You can inflate it away and then we all become poor the other way.
But is it true that you can create money out of nothing with a crypto product?
That's true, right?
No?
Because you always have to pay money to buy the crypto?
Is that why?
Did Bitcoin create value?
Or did it just transfer value from somewhere where it already existed?
Which did it do?
Did Bitcoin create value out of nothing?
Or did it simply transfer, you know, dollar bills into a different form?
Somebody says both, which means it created value, right?
If it did both, then crypto is a thing that can create money out of nothing.
Wrong?
Am I wrong or am I right?
That it could create money out of nothing?
Now, Bitcoin requires mining, but you could make a coin that didn't require mining.
All you would need is... See, the reason that Bitcoin became valuable because it was hard to mine it, you know, that's part of the scarcity value.
But the United States could make it valuable just by saying, we'll accept our new coin if you're paying your taxes.
Don't worry about anything else.
If you want to pay your taxes, we'll take that coin.
And then it instantly has value.
All right.
Well, it's interesting that most of us don't know the answer to this question.
Could you pay off all of the debt with a clever move, once in history, you'd only do it once, and just drive away all the dollar bill debt?
What would be the problem with it?
be the problem with it?
Inflation?
Yeah, I don't know.
I'll just put that out there.
I have a prediction.
There will be no other way.
There are two things that are guaranteed, in my opinion.
There's no normal way to pay down our debt.
And so if we didn't do something abnormal, we would be doomed.
Does anybody disagree with that?
There is no normal way to pay down our existing debt.
Because it's also growing faster than we're paying it down.
I mean, we're not even close to being able to handle it.
Number two, at some point in American history, paper money will go away and there will be some kind of cryptocurrency.
There's no way around it.
Would you agree there's no way around it, no matter how much you hate it?
Would you agree with that?
Like it's just guaranteed.
You could hate it and you can try to stop it, but it's kind of guaranteed.
Now the only thing that's variable is when it will happen.
Oh, it's guaranteed.
It's guaranteed.
In fact, I'd love to see what the X platform does when it becomes more financial.
What it does with crypto.
That could be a world changer.
All right, well, I'll just put that thought in your head.
I want to leave you with something confusing, but potentially optimistic.
Reduce debt by selling U.S.
citizenship.
I don't know if we could sell it for enough.
Not the only option?
I'd love to hear other options for paying down the debt.
