Episode 2286 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/08/23, A Newsy Day In Politics & The World
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, Healthcare, MicroNeedling Stem Cells, Republican Principals, Democrat Winners, Nikki Haley, Hillary Clinton, Laura Loomer, Judge Engoron's Wife, Israel Hamas War, Thomas Massie, Vehicle Kill Switches, Mr. Beast's African Wells, Decreasing Testosterone, US Poison Food Supply, President Biden's Stamina, Meta Galactica, Science Analysis, Dave Rubin, AI Humor, Grok, MTG Legislation, Pete Buttigieg, Cenk Uygur Community Note, Oops Strategy, Gaza's Future, Rep. Talib, 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
Da da da da da da Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo Ba ba ba Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
The best thing that ever happened to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And boy, are you glad you're here.
And it just gets better.
If you want to take it up a level, it's hard to believe there's another level above this, but there is!
All you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a stein, a canteen jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
go not to be confused with the simultaneous rip that only happens in the man cave for local subscribers uh-huh Don't tell the kids.
Adults only.
Well, here's here's the best news.
It's a very newsy day, so I got lots to cover.
But let me start with the good news.
Health care in America has been solved.
You remember when that was a big deal and everybody was like, health care, health care.
My health care is bad.
Well, when was the last time anybody complained about health care?
Am I right?
I haven't seen anybody complain and I don't remember the last time.
So we have to conclude that health care has either been solved or it was never a problem in the first place.
I don't know which one it is.
Was it solved or was it never a problem in the first place?
Or is there some reason that we never talk about it?
What could that be?
I don't know.
But if you were wondering, hey, I wonder if anything in the news is real?
You know what else wasn't real?
All the bullshit about healthcare that we put up with for about five years.
None of it was real.
Because either we easily solved it, I don't know, maybe we did.
I'm not even saying we didn't.
Or it was never an issue and the whole thing was bullshit from the start.
I honestly don't know.
Like I literally honestly I don't know what's going on.
Do any of you know?
Did something happen that I'm not aware of?
Because the only thing I know of is that millions of more people came across the border putting an extra burden on health care.
So In theory, the news should say that the healthcare situation is getting worse.
Wouldn't that be the normal thing you'd hear?
What's going on?
Could it be that all of our news is fake and always has been?
Huh.
Just something to think about.
Well, let's look at this other news and see what's going on.
Did you know there's a new way for celebrities to look ten years younger?
So many of you are planning to someday be celebrities, so this will be important to you.
The rest of you, no importance at all.
But if you plan to be a celebrity who looks 10 years younger, apparently you can rub some stem cells on your microneedling holes.
Do any of those words mean anything to you?
Microneedling?
How many of you don't know what microneedling is?
I mean, the word kind of says it, but have you ever heard of it?
So it's a thing that usually women do to improve their skin.
So you get this little roller.
I think it's a roller with lots of little needles in it and you roll it over the skin and it literally puts little micro needle holes in your skin.
Now, the idea is you rub good things under your face into those holes, and it sort of feeds the skin into your face and makes it better.
But one of the things you can put in those micro-needling holes is stem cells.
Apparently it's something they've been doing for a long time.
It's pricey, so you gotta be a celebrity.
So you'd have to repeat it every 18 months, and it'd cost several thousand dollars each time you repeated it.
But it takes 10 years off your life.
Well, not off your life.
Off your perceived age.
Not ten years off your life.
That would be a different story entirely.
Alright, now you know that's out there.
So, it gives you another reason to become a celebrity.
If you didn't have enough reasons, here it is.
You look ten years younger.
Well, apparently there was an election yesterday and I wasn't terribly interested in it because it didn't seem to affect me directly too much.
But there are some fairly surprising results.
And a little bit predictable, or maybe we just think that because we like to think we would have known.
But here's what it looks like.
It sucks to be Republican.
That's the bottom line.
So apparently the Republicans are very resolute in their strategy of losing on principle.
So it seems that the Democrats have a strategy of winning at all costs and they're going against the Republicans whose strategy is to lose on principle.
Now if you were going to predict the outcome They're roughly similar sized, meaning that on any election it could go either way.
Now you have to do a prediction.
One side will do anything to win.
One side would rather lose on principle than win.
Which side won?
Guess what?
The people who would try to win at any cost did pretty well.
Mike Cernovich is sort of calling out the Republicans for a strategy of intentionally losing on principle, because abortion is the big question.
And for Republicans, that's sort of a non-negotiable issue, and it's non-negotiable on principle.
So they'd rather lose an election, because abortion is pretty popular in a lot of places.
Oh, and somebody says, as it should be, right?
So I'm not sure you're not getting what you want, because given the trade-offs, Republicans appear to be intentionally picking losing on everything else in order to win on the moral part.
That's the problem with having a moral philosophy.
There's no point in having it if you're going to bend it.
What's the point of having that belief if you're going to say, I'm really against this murder of babies, as one side would say, but if I could get my taxes lowered, I'll murder some babies.
Right?
So the Republicans have painted themselves in a corner, and they don't know how to get out.
There might be exactly one politician who's figured out how to get out of that trap, and he wasn't running.
Trump is the only one who figured out a way, maybe, and that's just a maybe, probably won't even work, but at least he knows how to talk about it.
He talks about making both sides happy.
He talks about negotiating something, letting the states decide.
So his focus is not on save the baby or kill the baby.
Everybody who does that is probably in the wrong argument.
His argument is, how do you get the country to a place where we can live with each other?
That's exactly right.
It's exactly right.
How do you get to a place where you can live with each other?
That is the presidential framing.
There's one thing I'd like him to tweak that would make it A++.
It goes like this.
You don't want your president to decide if you kill your baby.
Or subversion of that.
You don't want, how about this, you don't want your president to make, to be involved in the decision that is this personal.
You never want your president to be, well here's a better way to say it.
You never want your president to be ambiguous about life or death for an American.
That is to say, Given that there's a disagreement about when life starts, the appropriate place for any president to be is pro-life, but also take themselves out of the decision.
You want the decision to be closer to the people who have to make it, the women, in this case.
But you want the head of the state to say, I'm pro-life, but I accept that I'm ruling or leading a country that might have a different opinion.
There is a way to have an opinion that's absolutely opposite of the public and sell it to the public.
You just say, this is my opinion, the leader should have this opinion, and then the states are going to have to work it out.
You can sell that all day long, I think.
Because you don't ever want a president who says, you know what?
There are some situations where I would kill an American.
That's just got to be off the fucking table.
Like, completely off the table.
Trump could sell that.
So I don't think there was anybody who sells as good as him who was running, which is part of the story.
If Trump had been there, maybe there would have been a much bigger turnout.
I'm sure there would have been.
So some of the things would have been reversed just based on turnout.
But the lesson that seems to be is that if you don't talk about abortion correctly, you're at a big disadvantage, if you're a Republican.
So an example would be Ohio.
Senator Bench points this out.
Ohio is a state that Trump won bigly, but that it went for legalizing abortion.
So if they like Trump, And they still said they like abortion.
You better learn how to talk about it.
OK?
Let's see.
Naturally, if there was an election in the United States, what things can you predict?
Oh, let me think.
Is it possible that the losing team would claim that there were election irregularities?
Well, yes.
Now, I'm seeing these primarily on social media.
I'm not sure how the mainstream media is treating it.
I don't know what kind of seriousness they're putting into it.
But there is a report of some voting machines in Pennsylvania that malfunctioned or, quote, switched votes.
I do not have an opinion on whether that's true.
It's just part of the story.
And other people say, how could it be that A whole bunch of Republicans would win in the state, but then uniquely and differently, the governor could win as a Democrat.
Like, how does that make sense?
That all these people are winning in the lower levels of the election, but the governor, the governor goes the opposite way?
How is that possible?
Abortion.
Do I have to answer that question for you?
The governor is more important to abortion.
That might be the whole story.
So it makes sense to me that the Democrats wouldn't even know the lesser candidates.
Maybe they're less interested, but they're really interested in abortion.
So they make sure they get the right governor at least.
So that probably Yeah, so abortion seems to be the answer to almost all the mysteries.
Except, you know, if there were some machines that malfunctioned.
But if there's a major election, it's impossible for me to imagine all voting machines working.
Doesn't that seem like a stretch?
When you hear that there was some place that had problems with voting machines, Is your first thought, ah, there's evidence of fraud?
Because my first thought is, how could you possibly have hundreds of thousands of machines and no errors?
In what world has that ever been possible?
So the thing you should expect is that there would be errors.
That the machines would have some malfunctions.
That doesn't prove anything about any potential fraud.
Because with or without fraud, you're going to have machines going down, and then people are going to assume it's fraud.
Now, was there fraud?
Separate from the question of, did some machines malfunction?
Of course they did.
You're always going to have some malfunctions.
Was there fraud?
I'll give you my answer, which will be my standard answer always.
I'm not aware of any specific evidence of fraud.
Same as I said for the 2020 election.
I'm not aware of any.
However, we live in a country in which all of our other institutions are corrupt.
Somewhat obviously so.
So why would this be the exception?
Just the fact we haven't seen it is fascinating.
But I would also point out that there is more than one way to rig an election.
One way would be gaming the rules, making sure that the laws are a little better for your team than the other team.
Another way is to rig the media with fake stories and coverage that leans one way, etc.
So I think it's simplistic and almost ridiculous to say that the number of votes you count is the only part of the process.
Because the way you vote is based on what you saw in the news, primarily.
I mean, for the few people who might change parties at all, it's based on the news.
And the news is fully biased and corrupt.
So it's always a rigged system because the news is rigged.
Would you agree?
That we don't have a system that even has the potential to just do some kind of, you know, objective people vote situation.
Yeah, our opinions are literally assigned to us by the news.
As I like to say, when was the last time you saw somebody who had an opinion that wasn't exactly what their news told them?
Nobody.
It's almost never.
It's the rarest thing.
Yeah, your opinions just are assigned by the news.
I guess there's a GOP debate tonight.
Some say it'll be Nikki Haley versus DeSantis, as the two people were leading behind Trump.
But here's my take on Nikki Haley.
Let me read you two quotes, one from Hillary Clinton and then one from Nikki Haley.
The first quote is when I decided that at all costs, at risk to myself, I would try to make sure that Hillary Clinton did not get elected in 2016.
And it was based on this quote.
She said, quote, I just think women in general are better listeners, are more collegial, more open to new ideas, and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes.
So that was in the context of saying why a woman would be a better leader And I heard that and I said, seriously?
You can say that right out loud?
That a woman is better than a man for a job?
Can I say that?
Could I say that out loud if it were the other way around?
Nope.
This is pure sexual discrimination and this is the part, this is the moment when I went nuclear and said, at all costs to myself, this person cannot be the President of the United States.
You can't actually run on a platform of discrimination to say that one part of the country is less good than the other part.
And then she goes with her deplorables, I'm like, what the hell?
What the hell is going on?
How do you run for president by insulting first half of the country, the men, and then another slice, you know, the deplorables?
Like, who's left?
So yeah, she deserved to lose more than anybody has ever deserved to lose an election.
But what did Nikki Haley say?
Quote, if you want something said, ask a man.
If you want something done, ask a woman.
Fuck you.
That was the quote that made me want Nikki Haley to lose at all costs.
In fact, so much so that if she becomes the nominee, I'm going to support the other side.
Let me tell you that Just so you're not surprised, if Nikki Haley somehow became the nominee, I'm going to support the Democrat, whoever it is.
I just want you to hear that.
Don't hate me for it.
I will not, I will not support somebody who says, basically, men suck.
That's not going to happen.
Not in any fucking world is that going to happen, that I would support that.
So just know I'm leaving you completely if she's the nominee.
Completely.
It's not because she's a woman.
Can I say that?
It's not because she's a fucking woman.
It's because she's a woman who says that men are assholes.
That's it.
That's good enough.
So Nikki Haley and Hillary Clinton are two assholes and should never be in the presidential office.
Laura Loomer has a really good scoop.
I'll tell you, the independent journalist types, you know, there's Stephen Crowder, got that Nashville scoop.
Good for him.
I'll say congratulations again on that.
And now Laura Loomer has this scoop.
So she's found tweets from Judge Arthur Engeron's wife.
So she's on the X platform.
So Angaran is the judge for Trump's trial, in which he's accused of various property inflations.
And the wife of that judge is literally doing a fuck Trump memes.
His wife is doing fuck Trump memes.
In public!
In public.
On the X platform.
Now, in what world do you continue the trial?
In what world do you continue the trial?
Assuming this is true, and I think Laura Loomer has the right information.
Seriously, in what world do you do that?
They need to shut down the trial immediately or else I will never think this country is credible again.
I mean, I already don't.
My opinion of the justice system will go to completely broken if there's even one more day of this trial.
You cannot have a judge who can only have one outcome or else he can't fucking go home.
How much more obvious is this?
He can't go home to his fucking wife if he doesn't convict Trump.
That's what it is.
Because there's no way he's going to go home to that.
No human husband is free of that bias.
It's just not a thing.
In our world, it doesn't exist that he could do his job independently if he has to go home to that.
Nobody could.
I couldn't.
You couldn't.
There's no amount of training.
There's no amount of legal, ethical behavior that has any bearing on this.
This is two human beings in a situation where The most predictable outcome is certain to happen.
So congratulations, Laura Loomer.
I think you ended this trial.
And if you didn't, there's just no way this can be credible.
Now, I don't know that... Is there any appeal process that could be based on bias?
Is that a thing?
Could a higher court throw it out just based on this?
Just based on the wife's behavior?
I've never heard of it.
But to me, that would be the simplest, most obvious, clear-cut, cause-and-effect decision that was ever made.
There would be no doubt about it.
Turley said yes.
Well, I'll take Jonathan Turley's view on that.
Looks like a yes.
But this is potentially really, really sort of a big deal.
So good job, Laura Loomer.
Rasmussen Poll on what people think about a ceasefire in the Middle East.
So this was how many people agreed with Netanyahu that a ceasefire would be a surrender, basically?
68% of US likely voters agreed.
So 2 thirds of US voters Say that Netanyahu basically has to keep pressing the fight.
No ceasefire.
How many?
Well, yeah, a lot of people disagree.
Just 21% disagree.
I'm not sure I would have ever guessed that the people disagreeing were in the range of 21%.
of 21%.
Here's what I see.
Let me tell you how the Israel-Hamas situation is shaking out for me.
You know how, as time goes by, you have an initial opinion, but then it could morph into a little bit of a different framework over time as things develop?
Well, my initial decision was, of course, very similar to most of you, which is the attack on Israel was so horrific You know, some kind of a revenge-y self-defense thing was inevitable, and it wouldn't matter if you liked it or not.
Our opinions just have nothing to do with anything.
They're just going to do what they're going to do.
We would do the same.
Every country would do the same.
It's just cause and effect.
So at first, it's just like, well, this is what happens.
If you do that, this is going to happen.
But I've come to see it, you know, when you start looking at all the context and people talk about the history of it and everything, I've started to see it as two drunks having a fight.
That's what it looks to me.
It looks like two drunks having a fight.
And if you take it, if you remove the fact that they're drunk, it wouldn't make sense.
Right?
Now the drunk part is not In my example, the drunk part is what's happening in their minds.
My take is that Israel has a, I'm going to say, a mental defect from the Holocaust, and one that makes sense.
One that you would have as well, right?
If you were Jewish and you were alive today, and especially if you had any relatives who had any brushing attachment or association with the Holocaust, how in the world Could you be completely mentally balanced?
You know, because things that you would worry about would be completely different than things that other people would worry about.
Imagine worrying that any moment somebody could try to exterminate people who look like you.
Like at any moment it could just pop up, like it did in Germany.
What would that do to you mentally?
Yeah, you'd have this permanent PTSD.
So Israel, while I completely support their reactions to the war and their oppressing the attack on Hamas, completely support it, it's also true that they're coming from a place of just mental disorder.
Earned, earned, and that doesn't mean that they're doing illogical things, but you know, drunks get it right too.
Now, that's not an insult.
I'm saying anybody who went through, let's say, a cultural trauma of that size is going to have some legacy effect.
Similarly, I would say the same thing about black Americans.
Even though it's been even a longer period since slavery, how in the world does that not affect you today?
Take Native Americans.
Will Native Americans ever be right after their entire world is upset and stolen from them?
I don't know how you could be.
How could you possibly be brought into that world and have a comfortable, normal, non-paranoid view of the world?
It wouldn't be normal if you did.
It seems like you'd have to be affected by that.
Now, what about the Palestinians?
Now I'm not going to get an argument about what's true and what's not true.
I will simply say that their perspective is that they also suffered the Holocaust.
That was a different nature.
But in their view they were displaced from the land with a variety of cruel actions which were calculated to depopulate them so Israel could have a proper country.
Now that's their view of things.
Not my, not my, necessarily my view, just that's their view.
So you've got two groups that are completely mental because of their past.
And you would expect that both of them are acting somewhat naturally under the situation that they've been raised in.
So you could completely see how they could never make peace.
Because they're both battling their past and not each other.
Does that make sense?
You can't make peace in the real world when neither of them are really fighting in the real world.
They're fighting in their minds.
Do you get that?
This war is in their minds.
Israel is trying to solve their mental discomfort with the risk of living next to this risk.
You know, in my opinion, would be unlivable.
There's no way I would be okay with living next to that risk after October 7th.
So that's completely understandable, but it's a mental illness at the same time.
Completely understandable, and what they're doing about it is what anybody would do about it.
But the Palestinians, and I saw an article by Joel Pollack He was calling out the New York Times article in which the leaders of Hamas are saying fairly directly that they didn't care about the Palestinian well-being and were intentionally trying to make everything much, much worse as part of their strategy.
Now, who would destroy their current world Because they just feel they need to get back that Israeli land that was stolen and they were displaced would be their version of it.
And they gotta get rid of them.
Basically, they're living in the past as well.
You know, why is it that Saudi Arabia could get friendly with Israel eventually?
Well, they don't have that past.
Right?
They're actually dealing in the present.
So Saudi Arabia says, well, if I make a deal with you, we can both make more money and have more peace.
So why wouldn't I?
Just because these other countries don't like you, why wouldn't I?
So Saudi Arabia, they're not fighting the past.
If you think that Israel and Hamas can make peace, you're missing the fact that they're not fighting in the real world.
In the real world, all the people are dying.
But that's not where the fight is.
The fight is in their minds.
And you can't solve a mental problem in the real world.
What do you think?
I'm just presenting that frame as a better way to explain why, if you think they can negotiate this, you can't negotiate the past.
The past is non-negotiable.
It happened.
Or their version of it happened, right?
Let's say their version of it happened.
You cannot negotiate the past.
There's nothing you can do in the present that fixes that.
Nothing.
And it's not because anybody's dumb.
It's because they're traumatized in a way that would make you act exactly the same way.
If I put you, if I took a healthy you and just said, all right, we're going to make you a child, And we're going to put you in one of these two environments.
You would act exactly the same.
Why?
Because of the past.
Because of the past.
So.
Well, we'll see who wins, but you know, it turns out that whoever has the power holds the country.
That's kind of the whole story.
So I think Israel will hold it.
All right.
You know the story about the There was some legislation that was part of a bigger bill that included a 2026 regulation that would say American cars have to be built with a kill switch.
And I said to myself, why have I never heard of that?
Why is Thomas Massey the only one talking about it?
And then some people say, that's not even in the bill.
There's no kill switch in there.
And then Thomas Massey shows them the language in the bill.
Here it is.
Read it for yourself.
Now the way the bill is written, and I didn't know this until today, is it's in the context of stopping drunk drivers.
So when you see it, you know, by itself, you say, whoa, there's a way to turn off the car so a drunk driver can't start the car?
Maybe.
Like, you know, it seems like an insane, you know, intrusion into freedom.
But you also say, well, you know, we do make I mean, it's not unprecedented to make an insane intrusion into your private life because it saves a bunch of lives.
Our system allows that.
So you could easily imagine why people would look at it and go, well, come on, that's a good idea.
Maybe someday we can make that work.
Now imagine if you were to add AI to your car and then also the kill switch.
And that you have to negotiate AI and convince it that you were sober, or your car wouldn't start.
Now that I could almost live with.
Because you might actually choose to buy that car, because you know that you might drink and drive, but you don't want to.
But you know if you have a few drinks, your judgment is good, you're gonna do it anyway.
So suppose you buy a car, your own choice, it's got AI plus a kill switch.
And it actually asks you, you know, how many drinks you had.
And it just judges your reaction.
Maybe it looks at your eyes, right?
It could read your face.
It might read the stability of your body.
It might give you a little test.
It might say, you know, do this with your hands while it watches.
You know, see if you can reproduce something.
It might ask you a little memory test.
It might check your voice against your normal voice to see if you've got some slurring.
It might say, I've decided that this wouldn't be in your best interest, and would you like me to call you an Uber?
Well, now that you mention it, that wouldn't be a bad idea.
Why don't you call me an Uber?
It would save your life and other people's lives.
You can imagine.
Now, but as soon as you make that mandatory, well, now you're in a whole other world.
Then you could have a lot of reflexive disagreement, and I think I'd be one of them.
But it passed.
I think the argument was, don't worry, Thomas Massey, this is just for drunk drivers.
To which a Tom Inassi, being smarter than his cohorts, would say, well that's where it starts.
Once that ability is there, are you telling me that law enforcement won't ask for and get access to the kill switch during a high-speed chase?
Of course they will.
In every world that will happen.
In every world, that will happen.
So yeah, Thomas Massey was right.
It's definitely a risk, but it got passed.
Now, I think self-driving cars might make all of that obsolete.
So there's probably a narrow window in which maybe something could happen.
But by 2026, I don't know, there's going to be a lot of self-driving cars.
They're already in some cities, right?
Is it Austin?
Is it Austin that has self-driving taxis already?
And they're already just all over the place?
Working fine?
San Francisco?
Yeah, I think there's a few places with them now.
All right, here's a simulation alert.
Boop, boop, boop, simulation alert.
Here's where we look for hints that we live in a simulation, and the simulation has a sense of humor.
All right.
Trump's attorney, her name is Alina Haba.
H-A-B-B-A, Haba.
And there's a viral picture going around of her at a swimming pool, and she's in swimwear, and she's unusually attractive.
Unusually attractive.
Her last name is Haba.
Haba, Haba.
Am I right?
Now, did that sound sexist?
Kind of a sexist joke, wasn't it?
Yeah.
Super sexist.
Well, I'd like to quote Norm MacDonald in this situation.
Quote, a woman wrote that joke.
Now you don't know what to do, do you?
Because a woman wrote that joke.
I actually borrowed it from a woman.
So, Marcella, that's your joke.
All right.
See?
It's much better.
The Norm Macdonald approach works perfectly.
A woman wrote that joke.
Now you don't know what to do, do you?
Norm was great.
Well, Mr. Beast, you know, the huge social media monster, you know, one of the biggest social media presences, very rich because of it, He helped Africa drill a bunch of wells and brought clean drinking water to half a million people.
Wow.
I guess the African country in which he did that is pretty happy with him, huh?
Yeah.
I'll bet the African government, who he helped out big time, they must love this guy.
Oh, what'd they say?
Oh, no.
It says the Kenyan government, they're mad at him because he helped perpetuate the stereotype that Africa is, quote, dependent on handouts.
Oh, that bastard.
Oh, that stupid bastard.
How dare he bring clean drinking water to Kenya when that just insults their ability to bring clean drinking water to people?
Well, here's my general observation.
So I've been wealthy for a few decades now, since Dilber took off.
And I've had the opportunity to be in situations where you could help somebody out.
How often do you think generosity works out for you?
Or even works out for the other person?
Or works out in the way that you think?
It's about 20%.
Over a lifetime I would estimate That maybe 20% of the time that you help somebody, they actually got helped.
And then they say thank you.
Sometimes they'll pay you back.
Like, that's happened.
I've actually had people pay me back.
Like, really?
Oh, didn't even expect that.
About 20%.
80% of the time you're trying to be nice to somebody, it won't work out at all.
But, here's what I would caution you should any of you be rich or become rich and be in a position to help somebody out.
If you don't think those odds are good enough, well, maybe you're not good enough.
I say that with persuasion turned up.
20% wouldn't happen without you.
Imagine if you tried to help 10 people and it didn't work with 8, but 2% of them you turned their life around.
Totally a success.
Yeah, you should go into generosity with an assumption that 80% doesn't work, But 20% totally pays for it.
That 20% will be important enough that you could lose all the other ones and say, I did good.
I'm glad I did 10 things.
I got two of them through.
That's pretty good.
So just keep that in mind.
It's like business.
Nine out of 10 businesses fail.
But if you keep trying, there's a pretty good chance you'll hit it once.
Testosterone is continuing to decline in America, that seems pretty confirmed.
I saw that Dr. Andrew Huberman podcast, he was talking to some expert, Dr. Eisenberg, and he does confirm that it seems like each generation has lower testosterone, and reasons seem to be obesity, lack of physical activity, maybe some other things, maybe cell phones, some say, I don't know.
But I would throw the food supply in there.
For some reason, we seem to be just like a little off target.
The obesity doesn't happen on its own.
Does anybody think that the problem is children are hungrier or lazier or something?
And do you know what makes you lazy?
Bad diet.
Yeah, bad diet makes you lazy.
So I think all of these problems are at the food supply.
If I had to guess, I would say 80% of the decrease in testosterone and 80% of our health problems are just a corrupted food supply.
So I think that we're just so accustomed to eating what's in the grocery store that our brains can't hold the fact that it turned into poison because it happened a little bit at a time.
Like there wasn't one day when all your food was poisoned.
It was just, well, here's a new product.
Oh, we tested it.
Don't worry about it.
We added a little sugar.
Yeah, we balanced your salt and fat and sugar, but that's just legal.
That's totally legal.
Don't worry about it.
And then pretty soon, you have nobody who can even, you know, get into the armed forces because they can't pass the test.
That's where you end up.
I think it's food supply.
I have a strong, strong intuition that there's this whole constellation of American problems from behavior, behavior, to testosterone, to health, and our food supply is poisoned.
Now, if you don't believe that, try eating clean for six months.
Yeah, try it.
It's really, really hard, first of all, and by clean I mean avoiding preservatives.
That's really hard.
Avoiding the worst kind of carbs and sugar, and avoiding anything that was designed to be addictive.
So I think you all know now that the food industry learned that if you get the right amount of fat, sugar, and salt, It's actually addictive, just like a drug is addictive.
And so a lot of packaged, pre-formatted food is engineered to be a drug, to actually be addictive.
But if you buy broccoli, nobody engineers the broccoli, right?
Broccoli good.
Spinach, nobody engineered that.
Eat spinach.
So you do that for six months, You'll have no question in your mind that the food supply is poisoned.
You won't have the slightest doubt.
Now, it's very hard to do that, and it's expensive, too.
So there's a good reason people don't do it.
But biggest problem in America, you know, besides the debt.
I saw a Chuck Colesto post.
I need a fact check on this, but I think it's true.
That according to a CNN poll, Biden now trails Trump by four points nationwide among black men.
Is that true?
That Trump is leading, substantially, with black men in America?
I feel like I need a fact check on that one.
I mean, there's a source given, but I didn't see it, the source.
Well, if it is true, it would be suggestive that my longtime prediction is materializing.
And my prediction was that over time, the Democrats would be more and more the party of women, and that the Republicans would become more and more the party of men.
And that you could almost say it's a low testosterone versus high testosterone system.
I think we can say directly, there's something different about Democrat men.
Am I off base?
You just look at them.
You just look at them.
There's clearly a testosterone difference between the Democrats on average, right?
Now there are plenty of bodybuilder Democrats, right?
So everything I say is just sort of this general average thing.
It has nothing to do with any individual.
If you're a Democrat and you've got a high T, that's fine.
There's plenty of you, I'm sure of it.
But in general, we're evolving to a party that the women are in control and the men who are comfortable with that Probably fall into a certain category, right?
They're comfortable with female control.
On the Republican side, it's people who are more comfortable with men making certain kinds of decisions, and women who like that environment, who think that works for them.
So, I'm not surprised, if it turns out this is true, that black men would start to trend Republican Where black women, and women of all type, would start, you know, to become Democrat.
And abortion, of course, would obviously be the big reason for that.
But I think Trump just appeals to a certain kind of man.
Right?
Trump is the, you know, the man-man, high testosterone kind of vibe.
So you could totally understand, and especially I hate to say it, but there's nothing more manly than having legal troubles.
I hate to say it, but it's very male to be in trouble with the courts, right?
Most jails are full of men.
As soon as you hear legal trouble, legal trouble, legal trouble, you think male, don't you?
Like automatically.
If I say, there's this individual who's got 91 charges.
Don't you automatically think male?
Right?
Even if the charges are bullshit, you automatically think, well, male.
So it doesn't surprise me at all.
Everything about this situation suggests that men will trend Republican and get their guns and pickup trucks.
And the men who stay in Democrats may be painting their fingernails and exploring their sexuality.
And it's going to be very different groups of people.
All right.
But there's nothing wrong with that.
If I gave you the impression that that means one is the good side, I wasn't saying that.
There's nothing wrong with either side.
The people are fine.
Nothing wrong with the people.
I like all the people.
It's just a predictable effect.
That's all.
I'm just predicting it.
I'm not saying it's bad or good.
Well, the Pentagon's UFO boss is going to step down next month, says Politico.
So I guess the Pentagon had a head guy I think it was a guy in charge of UFOs.
May I say, of all the jobs in the world, that was the best one.
How do you quit that job?
It's kind of the perfect WALL-E job.
You know, WALL-E, the character from Dilbert, who's always trying to get away with stuff and have an easy job.
Can you imagine that conversation with the boss?
Hey, you know, whatever it is, Colonel Wally.
I don't know what rank he was, but... Hey, Colonel Wally!
How you doing on those UFOs?
Great!
Great!
I'll bet you can't wait to see the grainy photos that I've got now.
I've got twice as many grainy photos as we've ever seen before.
Are they real?
Well, some people say so.
Best job ever.
Best job!
Because you're not even going out and looking for the information.
People just give it to you.
Oh, here's another video.
Grainy video.
Throw it on the pile.
I'll add that to my PowerPoint.
Best job.
All right, there's a CNN poll asking Americans, voters, if they think Biden has the, quote, stamina and sharpness to serve as president.
I closed my eyes and watched the miracle of the smartest viewers in all of politics go.
How many people, what percentage said that Biden has the stamina? 25%.
How do you do this?
How do you keep getting this right?
I just asked the question, and you know the polls before they're even polled!
This is from a CNN poll.
Well, I could not be more impressed with all of you.
By the way, if there are any new people here, if you stay long enough, you will learn how to do this.
Just stay with us.
It'll slowly start occurring to you.
You'll begin to see it.
Pretty soon you too will know the answer to the polls before they're asked.
That's just one of the benefits I provide.
I teach you how to do that.
Well, CNN did some survey by SSRS, and they asked registered voters who they'd vote for, and they say it would be a narrow win for Trump, according to a CNN-sponsored survey.
A narrow win for Trump.
Now, I've got a problem with that.
Because I think they're predicting the only thing that can't happen in America.
A narrow win for Trump.
Now, I don't want to say that I don't trust the election system, but I don't trust the election system.
I've not seen any indication that our past elections were rigged.
I've seen no evidence of that.
However, I have seen evidence that every time you have a way to check a big national American institution, They are always corrupt.
So it could be the most amazing thing in the world if we had 50 state elections that were not corrupt when everything else is.
That would be kind of amazing.
But I have no specific evidence of any corruption.
No specific.
But I do think the least likely outcome is a narrow win for Trump.
I think he either has to crush it or it'll be cheated away from him.
Does anybody disagree?
I don't think a narrow one is even possible.
We'll see.
I'd love to be wrong about it.
I mean if I'm wrong on this one, please remind me.
but it doesn't seem like it's possible.
Here's the funniest story.
So recently Meta, the Facebook parent company, I created an AI called Galactica and its job was to make sense of science.
So science is producing so many findings and they're complicated and you would find them in different places that even if you're an expert in the field, it's hard to know what's going on.
There's too many things going on.
So the idea was to use AI to figure out all the things that are going on and then summarize them.
Which seems like exactly the sort of thing AI can do, am I right?
Would you agree that AI is sort of perfect for that?
Because it can see everything, and it can process it fast, and it can put it in words, and that's what it does good.
How do you think it turned out?
Well, they had to disband it, or pull back, because it kept producing nonsense.
So when artificial intelligence, which seems to work in many different contexts, when it was applied to science, it produced word salad and nonsense.
Why do you think that was?
Do you think the AI was broken?
The way the article is written, it suggests that the problem was that the AI was not sufficient to the task.
Well, that's one possibility.
You know what the other possibility is?
That when you tell an AI to go look at the science, in the context of over half of all reviewed, peer-reviewed papers not holding up, and the fact that most of the rest of the science is just marketing departments for big companies, and then you look at climate change, and you look at COVID, and that's what it was trained on.
Presumably, it was trained on a whole bunch of papers that are usually wrong, plus topics that are so politicized that everything about them was wrong, or could be wrong, or is doubted, or there's new stories, etc.
So what we learned, the way it was reported by the news, who were all idiots, is that the AI was not up to the task.
I don't think that's what was going on.
I think that the AI correctly figured out, I mean in an indirect way, that science is mostly nonsense.
Because we know that to be true.
It's mostly nonsense.
Meaning that most, you know, most early science is wrong.
Now, that doesn't mean that science isn't still our best tool for understanding the world.
It is.
It's still the best tool.
I mean, nothing is even close.
But the nature of science is that you're wrong most of the time, until you get something right, and then you gotta Got to work on keeping it right, but while you're confirming something's right, there are going to be three new theories that say it's probably wrong, and they have pretty good reasons.
How would AI sort that out?
Do you know how a human sorts that out?
Do you know how a human decides which climate model to favor?
Do you know how a human decides if climate change is real or a hoax?
Fear, money, and ignorance.
Bias, job, fuckery.
That's how we decide what is science.
Now, certainly there are some things that everybody agrees on, you know.
But, basically, by the time you hear about science, or the science is commercialized, it's so bastardized by human beings that whatever science happens is unrecognizable or irrelevant.
How in the world could AI ever tell you what's true when humans can't do it?
Humans can't do it.
So AI is trained on what humans can do, not on what they can't do.
So are you surprised that the field of science being mostly hoaxes and fuckery and bad ideas, that when AI looked at it to find out what was true, It broke down and just gave you nonsense because it's an unsolvable puzzle.
Now remember I told you that AI's biggest impact, and you're not going to see it coming, is what it teaches you about human minds.
This is it.
We learned that something like intelligence can be created just by looking at the patterns of words that people have used.
That tells you that your intelligence is not what you thought it was.
That's why you repeat what you heard on CNN or Fox News.
Because they gave you a word pattern, and then that word pattern was added to your word pattern, and now you just reflexively go to the pattern that's most accessible in your brain, from a source that you appreciate following.
So once you learn that your intelligence is not special, It really changes what you think of humans and human intelligence, which is why I believe that AGI, the quote, like, real intelligence that they say is coming, might be logically impossible.
Might be.
I have a strong impulse that there's a limit to AI and the limit is largely what humans could figure out and Maybe with a few little exceptions they'll come up with some good ideas or something.
But I think the limit is human intelligence.
I don't think AI can break through it.
Now that's the most contrarian view in the world because I think all AI people think they can break through it.
And maybe the smart money says they can.
If you look at history, the people who say something can't be done are usually wrong.
But that's where I am.
I'm saying there might be a logical reason Not an engineering reason that they would someday solve, not a scientific reason that they would someday solve, but rather a logical reason why you can't go past it.
And I'll even go further.
If AGI ever exceeded human abilities of intelligence, the humans would say, well, you got that wrong.
For example, let's say AGI looked at the war in Gaza.
And they said, I've picked a winner.
One of these sides is basically right.
I use my advanced intelligence to decide who's right and who's wrong.
What would the humans do?
Ignore it.
Turn it off.
Tell you it's not credible.
I just don't think logically you can surpass human intelligence without humans turning it off.
Now of course it will in some math and real technical stuff.
Of course it will in writing code.
There'll be a whole bunch of technical places where it definitely exceeds humans in speed, if nothing else.
But intelligence?
I don't know.
We wouldn't recognize it if we saw it.
So that's a problem.
What happens if the computer is genuinely more intelligent than human?
Do you think you could tell?
You could not tell.
You would say it's stupid and broken because it doesn't agree with you and you know you're right.
So that's what's out of this.
So what we learned is that science was more bullshit than we thought.
I don't think the AI was broken.
I continue to watch closely the ability of Grok, the X-based AI, to do humor.
Obviously, you know, my area.
I'm trying to figure out when I'm going to be replaced.
And since Grok was trained on the humor of Douglas Adams, Famously, some would say, the funniest humor writer of all time, some would say.
So it actually is kind of funny.
I'm gonna actually say, huh, because I read some responses in which somebody said, one of them was, hey AI, can you roast yourself?
So it actually did a roast of itself as an AI and insulted itself.
But here are some of the words it used to compare itself.
Dumpster fire, hemorrhoid, pretzel, black hole, cockroach, root canal.
Now it had sentences around those.
But here's my takeaway.
This is what I call CEO level humor.
CEO level humor.
And that means if you were a CEO, and you were talking to your staff or any large group, and you used the jokes that Grok already can do, you know, like these ones that say dumpster fire, hemorrhoid, pretzel black hole, cockroach, root canal, your audience would laugh at that.
And they would genuinely laugh.
Because the CEO comparing anything to a cockroach would make you laugh.
It wouldn't even matter what it was.
If your CEO ever used the word hemorrhoid when referring to a competitor or something that's not working in the company, you would laugh.
If your CEO says hemorrhoid, you're laughing.
That's CEO level humor.
And I often tell people that the type of humor that works is completely dependent on the nature of how it's being viewed.
Live audience loves CEO-level humor.
Kind of obvious things you've heard before.
I'm just being a little bit, a little bit, let's say, inappropriate.
And that's like the funniest thing.
I remember when I worked at a phone company, this president or CEO, CEO, did an all-hands meeting one day and told a joke.
It was a naughty joke.
That normally wouldn't be a huge laugh, but because it came from the CEO and it was naughty?
Huge laugh.
Huge laugh.
But here's what it's not.
Grok AI is funny at the CEO level, I'll call that corporate humor, but it's nowhere near Dave Chappelle.
The Dave Chappelle level, it's nowhere near that.
Let me give you another example of what it's not near.
There's a video of Palestinian children.
Allegedly the video shows a little second graders or so.
They look about that age and they're doing a school play in which they're learning to murder Israelis to become martyrs.
That's the second grade school play for at least some Palestinians.
Now, in a comment to that, Dave Rubin, quote, tweeted it, and he said, quote, I was the lower right molar in my second grade play.
Now, that's funny.
Could AI do that?
AI can't do that.
Maybe someday.
But here's something that you didn't see coming.
A lot of humor is self-deprecating, right?
A lot of public humor is self-deprecating.
AI will never be able to do self-deprecating humor.
There's nothing that an AI can say about itself that you would find funny.
So the AI can say, oh, you know, I always get that one wrong or something.
It just wouldn't be funny.
You just say, OK, you're programmed to say that.
It's only when a human says it and you can put yourself in the human's mind And you can relate to the human that has any power at all.
So that's something that a professional humorist, Dave Rubin, would know.
And this is one of the best tweets.
I read it about 10 times because there's no word extra.
Let me read this again.
I was the lower right molar in my second grade play.
The fact that he said lower right Instead of just a molar?
Actually makes it funnier.
Because, you know, the specificity of it just adds a little human element.
Would AI have to say lower right?
Would AI know that lower right molar is funnier than molar?
Not yet.
Not yet, maybe someday, but not yet.
So the entire, I believe the entire category of self-deprecating humor is not available.
Now you know what else is not available to AI?
Insulting other people the way you might.
Probably not.
Now I think Musk's AI will have that possibility.
So it might actually be able to do it.
But you're not going to think it's as funny as if it came from a person.
So here's your lesson on humor.
It's not just the joke.
In the Dave Rubin example, you can see that's a well-constructed sentence.
So that's good engineering.
But it also came from Dave.
You imagined young Dave Rubin in second grade.
That's the whole game.
When you imagined him as this lower right molar, And then you compare it in your mind to Hamas, you know, dying as martyrs.
It's fucking hilarious.
No way I can do that yet.
All right.
Next.
I saw this video.
It must have been during the 2016 election where... No, it must have been during the The first Biden election.
There was a Biden bus, campaign bus, and as a prank, political prank, it was being followed by a hearse that was labeled, the hearse was labeled the Clinton Foundation Suicide Limo.
And it just drove behind the Biden bus.
It was just in the entourage, basically.
It was just the last one.
Now, that's pretty funny.
Do you think AI could have come up with that idea?
Probably not.
Probably not.
Not yet.
But it seems to me that that would be the perfect prank to resurrect, so to speak, for any Biden stuff.
I would change it from the Hillary suicide thing.
But I would have a hearse following his entourage and just making it look like it's a natural part of the entourage.
Don't even explain it.
Don't even put any words on it.
You simply have the hearse following Biden around wherever he goes.
No words necessary.
That's funny.
Remember, visual persuasion is just killer.
That would be the ultimate visual persuasion.
Every time you see him, you see that visual imagery.
As soon as people see you and then they think of a hearse, We're done here.
That would be the end of it.
All right, Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced some legislation to reduce the pay of Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg's salary to $1.
Because of, quote, Buttigieg's failure to serve the American people.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically pointed to how Buttigieg staged fake bike rides.
You know, he would take his bike out of the SUV and go the last mile on the bike.
But she calls him Pothole Pete.
Staged fake bike rides to the White House and used private planes funded by taxpayers to receive awards for the way certain people have sex.
Receiving awards for the way certain people have sex.
I think what she means is that he wins an award for being gay, but also accomplishing something.
So the way she words that is winning awards for the way certain people have sex.
All right.
Now, generally speaking, I would be opposed to geeky things in Congress, and I would say to myself, Congress, you should be doing the serious work of the people, not these frivolous, you know, trying to get attention things.
Honestly, this is the funniest legislation I've seen, and Marjorie Taylor Greene can do funny legislation all day long, because it's the best value I'm getting out of Congress.
I'm trying to think what else they did that I enjoyed this year, and I couldn't think of anything.
I couldn't think of anything they did that I wanted them to do.
But I definitely like this.
I got a story out of it, I laughed.
She made a point.
She got some attention for it.
That's, of course, trying to point out Buttigieg's qualities.
So I can't hate it because it's funny.
Now, here's something that just I don't even know what to think about this next story.
So you probably know that political commentator Cenk Uygur.
I've never known how to say his name because I always say it on my live stream.
But you can't really correct me because I'm just reading text.
Is it Cenk?
Cenk Uyghur, right?
That's the correct pronunciation?
Or Cenk?
C-H?
Cenk?
Try Cenk Uyghur.
Alright.
I do try to get his name right.
Even if I disagree with him on something, I try to get his name right.
So I'm not doing this intentionally.
I'm just really bad on names.
All right.
So the story about him is, you know, he says, he sends a post on actually says, if Biden refuses to drop out since he is guaranteed loss, it'll force me to just flat out beat him because he's running for president now.
So Cenk is running for president.
He is the weakest major candidate I have ever seen.
If no one else gets into the race, I will shock the world and catch Biden.
Wow.
I thought to myself, wow, Maybe he actually has a chance.
Because if Biden drops out, Newsom isn't guaranteed.
I mean, he's got the best chance.
But maybe Cenk can give him a run.
And then I saw that a community note was added to Cenk's post.
And the community note says, the U.S.
Constitution requires that any candidate for president be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Uyghur Was born in Turkey, and was not a US citizen at the time of birth.
He is not eligible to run, and has already been denied ballot access in Nevada.
How in the world did he get this far?
How in the world did we think he was really running for president when he's not even legally allowed?
Now, if he continues running, Well, knowing that he is not even eligible to run, again, I'm going to give him the win, because it would be like a good Marjorie Taylor Greene legislation play, that the entire thing is to make some other points.
It's fine.
If Cenk wants to keep running, knowing that he can't actually be on the ballot, just so he can get that attention and stuff, I'm all for it.
Yeah, I like it.
Keep doing it.
All right.
I saw a clip of Jesse Waters from Fox News.
I guess he had a guest on his show recently, and he was sort of quoting the guest.
And one of the guests, who is an ex-CIA guy, I guess, says the CIA rigged the 2020 election because Trump threatened his drug trafficking, the cartels.
And the idea here is that the CIA Goes easy on the cartels because they're sharing the money and I don't know where the money goes to.
I don't know if they use it for dirty tricks or just line their pockets or to control our government or what.
But the idea is that the obvious reason that you don't see the CIA eliminating the cartels because one believes that that would be possible.
It looks like nothing's happening.
Is because they don't want it to happen.
And that the CIA has enough power to make it happen.
Which would suggest that the CIA would be behind the open borders as well.
Now, what do you think of that?
I would say I personally have no evidence that could confirm such a thing.
So, and then I would also say that the CIA are trained liars.
So even somebody who's ex-CIA, my first thought is, well, you are a trained liar.
I mean, that was what you did for a living for a while.
So I would say the credibility is low.
But I worry because it's too perfect, you know, too on the nose.
It does look like exactly what you suspected.
Yeah.
Iran-Contra C.I.A.
used drug profits to fund the block.
So it's not without precedent.
It wouldn't be unprecedented.
I just don't have direct knowledge that it was true.
So I can't say it's true, but it sure is interesting that an ex-C.I.A.
person says it's true, directly, and it would match all observation.
So 100% of what we observe to be happening would be compatible with this idea.
But that doesn't make it true.
All right.
Elon Musk's Neuralink company, they're looking for a volunteer to have a piece of their skull cut open by a robotic surgeon so that the robotic surgeon can insert thin wires and electrodes into your brain.
So any volunteers?
I have just one question before I volunteer.
If this means I don't have to bring my phone with me everywhere I go, I'm in.
Make me a cyborg, bastard.
Make me a cyborg.
I want to be a cyborg.
No, I'm just joking.
As somebody pointed out, the moment you've got this chip in your head, the government will know what you're doing all the time.
Now, I do believe that it's not Elon Musk's intention to put anything in your skull that would make you trackable or lose your security or anything, but I don't know if he'll always be here.
At the point we all get chipped, which seems inevitable, well, eventually we're going to be cyborgs.
Humanity will be cyborgs.
I don't think there's any doubt about that.
Or at least a lot of us will be.
So I don't mean it really.
I wouldn't get that surgery yet.
But I'd love to not forget my phone every 10 minutes.
All right.
How many of you believe that Gaza will be rebuilt and the locals will be invited back to a fresh new Gaza when it's all done?
I see zero.
No, no, no.
Sure.
No, no.
No, no.
Canal will be built.
Well, there's one conspiracy theory that says that Israel really wants to build a canal that would go from the, I guess, the Suez to the Mediterranean.
It would basically compete with the canal that's there, but they don't have as much control over.
Now, if Israel had its own canal, the proposed route goes right through Gaza.
Coincidence.
But I don't know what to think about that.
It seems unlikely to me that all of their policies are around a canal, but it does seem likely that, you know, follow the money explains a lot of stuff.
So it might be an ambition by some people.
You know, it's not why Netanyahu is responding hard.
He had to do that no matter what.
But people are pointing that out as a variable.
I don't know how real it is.
Can anybody give me a fact check on that?
Is that something that Israel really, really wanted?
Or is it just something that somebody floated at one point?
It might be just something that somebody floated at one point.
And it's, you know, not terribly important to anything that's happening today.
But to the question of, will Gaza be rebuilt and the locals be invited back in?
Well, that would be the dumbest thing that Israel could do.
Why would you just rebuild the same problem?
Because there's no amount of, you know, Israel control over the population that would keep Hamas from re-emerging.
To me, it seems obvious that the long-term goal is to make it uninhabitable.
Well, medium-term.
Let me say, if I were Israel, this is what I would do.
I would never, under any circumstances, allow Hamas to be rebuilt, governed by anybody.
I don't think I would do it.
And here's why.
You know, when I told you about the Dave Rubin post about the video of the little kids being trained to grow up to be martyrs and kill Israelis?
Kill the Jews?
I don't think you can move those children back into Gaza and expect a good outcome.
I mean, you're just begging for the same situation to happen again, maybe worse.
So I think what's going to happen, here's my prediction.
I'm going to call this the oops strategy.
The oops strategy.
What Israel can say is, oh, we're totally going to leave this uninhabited.
They can't say that.
That would be too genocidal sounding.
Here's what they also can say.
We're going to rebuild it.
So it's a nice, vital Palestinian city.
Nope.
Can't say that.
It wouldn't fly internally.
So what can they do?
So they can't say they'll rebuild it, and they can't say that it will forever not be rebuilt.
So what could possibly be in between building it and not building it?
And the answer is, oops.
Do you know what that looks like?
So the aquifer and the water source for Gaza is an aquifer.
In other words, it's below their land.
We've already heard that if you blow up the tunnels, you know, or you mess around with it too much, the destruction above land will pollute what's below the ground.
So it could make the entire water supply of the aquifer unusable.
Oops!
You know, we would love Somebody to rebuild Gaza.
In fact, we'll even make it possible.
But, ah, too bad they don't have any water source.
You know, if only we could have prevented that from happening.
But, you know, if they're in tunnels, you have to go after the tunnels.
You know, we flattened a few tunnels and, oops, the water supply.
And of course, we're not going to supply from the outside anymore because we want to cut ourselves off from that.
So, well, they could have a desalinization plant.
You just have to find a friendly country who's willing to put a nuclear facility in Gaza and train a lot of the locals to work with nuclear energy.
Who's going to do that?
Yeah, I think Mr. Beast would say no to that.
Iran?
Yeah, but nobody's going to allow Iran to do it.
So that's my prediction.
It's the oops strategy.
We really, really did expect this to be rebuilt, but gosh, war is terrible.
And I don't know, it could be 20 years before we get this water supply thing fixed.
I think Israel's best play would be to, oops, keep it depopulated.
And wait 20 years and then populate it with settlers.
Because it's not going to change anybody's, you know, murderous intentions.
They're going to be just as murderous either way.
All right, and there's a story about Rashid Tlaib being, what was she, censured for tweeting something that phrased, from the river to the sea, which Most people believe it means to eliminate Israel and kill all the Jews.
But some people are saying, no, no, it's just sort of a saying.
It's just the way we talk.
I'm not buying that at all.
So I think that was a good censure.
I think that one was appropriate.
Yeah, what are the odds that Tlaib would sound so much like Taliban?
Simulation.
Did she tweet it or did she say it in a rally?
I know she tweeted something that said it, but in a rally was she part of a chant as well?
I feel like I remember that.
So I'm seeing yeses on that, yeah.
I think she was part of a protest in which they chanted that, including her.
All right.
Let me see if I handled all my many, many thoughts.
Who's going to watch the debate tonight?
Any debate watchers tonight?
Good.
Well, I think I covered everything.
Wow.
This might be my best live stream ever.
And they keep getting better.
So, I mean, like, I can't wait for tomorrow.
It's going to be so good.
All right.
We ran long, as I expected.
YouTube, thanks for joining, and I will see you tomorrow.
