Episode 2288 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/10/23, All The Fun News And Some Fascinating Stuff
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, American Communist Youth, Elon Musk, AI Intelligence Cap, Israel Hamas War, Hamas Children, Jezebel Shutdown, Vivek Ramaswamy, US Debt Crisis, Mitt Romney, Joe Manchin, Warren Buffett, Election Influence, Judge Engoron, Georgia Pristine Ballots, President Trump, Matt Gaetz, Carl Rove, Fresh Face Candidate, Anti-White Discrimination, Gaza Hospitals, 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
*Sings* Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, which, I'll tell you a little bit later, has a timer on it now.
We only have 20 million years left, so let's enjoy every moment.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody could even imagine, all you need is a cup, or mug, or glass, a tank, or gel, or cistern, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip It Happens Now Co.
Oh, wow.
That was a good sip.
Well, I've got so many stories, I'm going to hit them all quickly.
Number one, the Pentagon UFO chief says there's either aliens or foreign powers.
Putting all these orbs up there.
There was once a story about a craft of unknown origin.
It was the size of a football field.
That once came and hovered over a military base in the U.S.
And everybody saw it.
Except for the person who was telling the story.
Yeah.
So lots of people saw it.
But we're only hearing it from somebody who talked to somebody who saw it.
Totally reasonable.
Quite believable.
So there are many, many eyewitnesses and blurry photos of these UFOs.
Now if you're saying to yourself, damn it, There's no way all these people could be wrong.
Right?
I mean, the best evidence that this is real, that there's some kind of either other country, which even our own military doesn't think it's a foreign power.
So it's either something peculiar or another planet or another dimension or something.
We don't know.
But if you think that the evidence Is good because there are so many witnesses.
Do you know what else has so many witnesses?
Alien abductions.
Do you remember some years ago that people were being abducted by aliens?
Oh, just all the time.
I mean, you could barely go for a walk.
Was it the 70s?
You could barely go for a walk without a UFO abducting you and probing you and dropping you back with nobody noticing?
Yeah, it happened all the time.
Do you think any of those were real?
Well, at the time, a lot of people thought they were real.
But then, suddenly, they just sort of stop happening.
And, you know, ten years goes by and nobody gets abducted.
So, I would remind you of this when you're looking at this sort of story.
There were lots and lots of eyewitnesses for Bigfoot.
There were lots and lots of eyewitnesses for the Loch Ness Monster.
And Ghosts, and the Yeti, and the Jabra Kapulpur, or whatever that's called.
What do they call it in Mexico?
It's got that cool name, the Jabra...Jabra something.
All right.
It doesn't matter how many witnesses there are.
Once you learn to spot a mass hysteria, chupacabra, chupacabra, that's exactly what I said, didn't I?
Isn't that exactly what I said?
See, this is good that you can't talk back.
The audience can't know that I didn't say that.
All right.
Yeah, doesn't matter how many witnesses there are.
That doesn't tell you anything.
So just keep that in mind.
I'm still betting against alien ships visiting the U.S.
I'd love it to be true, but I'm going to bet against it.
All right.
Some scientists and researchers have found that the Earth seems to have a pulse, that every 27 million years everything goes to hell.
And by goes to hell, I mean your dinosaurs disappear, or your continents move, or there's mass extinctions and volcanoes and shit.
And I guess we are 20 million years away from the next one.
So good news, people.
We've got 20 million years before the Earth decides to destroy us.
Now why would the Earth have a pulse?
Why in the world would it have a every 27 million years something happens?
I have a hypothesis.
Has anybody ever mentioned this?
This might be the first time you've heard this.
Science is not reliable.
That's my answer to how you know there's a 27 million pulse.
There isn't.
That would be my answer.
Now, how about there isn't?
The most likely explanation is, well, there probably isn't.
So that's what I'm going to go with.
Dumb science question of the day.
Here's a question I probably could have googled in less than one minute.
But I'm going to ask you.
I had my DNA checked, you know, 23 and me.
And I've got Neanderthal DNA, like 2% or something.
A lot of people do, not that unusual.
But why don't I have any African DNA?
Didn't we all come from Africa?
Shouldn't African DNA be the most common DNA for every person on Earth?
Or is there some amount of time that goes by and then your DNA is like completely erased By the new stuff.
Is it simply that the Neanderthals came much later than the exit from Africa?
Is that the only thing that's going on?
What do you think?
Alien hybrids?
What do you think are the odds that there are two different trees of human development?
Do you really think it all came from one humanoid when you've got all these different humanoids that we keep finding these?
I don't know.
You know, there's part of me that thinks maybe there's something about nature that will create a humanoid if you wait a long enough time.
Like maybe humanoids are just sort of guaranteed by evolution.
That's a possibility, right?
So that you just get a few of them from different places.
Is that possible?
Doesn't seem possible, does it?
But it also seems weird that we wouldn't have any African DNA.
You want to know how to end racism?
I have an idea for ending racism.
You ready?
Pass a law that's a requirement that everybody take a DNA test and they have to publicly publish their results.
So you can check anybody's DNA anytime you wanted.
Do you know why that would end racism?
Because it would give you new things to discriminate about that were more detailed.
And you'd be like, there's no way I'm going to hire some bastard with an earlobe that's not separated.
I don't want to hire those people whose earlobes are connected right to their head.
I don't want anybody who sneezes when they go out in the sun.
How annoying is that?
Every time they walk in the parking lot, sneeze, sneeze.
I'm one of those.
I sneeze when I go out in the sun.
That's an actual thing.
23andMe can tell you that your genes will cause you to sneeze when you walk into the sun.
And I actually have that gene and I sneeze every time I go in the sun.
It's a thing.
It's a real thing.
But anyway, if we had DNA details and we would just discriminate against our DNA, and we'd sort of forget about the other stuff, because it's a lot less important.
All right, the other way that racism will be ended is that when we're all cyborgs, we will be part human and part AI.
And if you're part AI, it means you can do any job.
So everybody will be qualified for every job.
Basically.
You just need a human being to collect the checks.
Deposit them.
Or direct deposit.
Because robots can't have checking accounts.
So the only reason that you need the human is so that there's somebody to pay.
Do you get that?
Because you can't pay the robot.
They can't own property.
So you build a cyborg that's part robot, part human.
It can do any job because the AI part will immediately know how to do anything.
So, yeah, that will end racism as well, because we will all be equally qualified, because we'll all have AI enhancements, so everybody will know everything.
Everybody will be able to do every job.
There's no way you could pick somebody out and say, there's the good one, because we'll all be the same one.
We'll all be Borg.
Yeah.
And then the beautiful part is that once we're all cyborgs, we'll all be so ugly that we don't want to mate with anybody.
I mean, you just won't be interested.
So that's good.
I have a young friend who is telling me that everybody he knows under the age of, let's say in their 20s.
So it's a young person who knows lots of people in their 20s.
Do you know what he says about his peers who are in their 20s?
They're all communists.
They're all communists.
Like really, really flagrant communists.
And they actually say that about themselves.
And they talk about it, you know, on Twitch and stuff.
That's a real thing.
And he also says that almost nobody in their 20s seems to be capable of holding a job.
And he doesn't know many people who have one.
I mean, he does.
He's got a good job.
But he doesn't know many young people who have a job or any potential to ever have one.
In other words, they just don't look like people used to look.
They're just different.
So there's really something happening there.
Well, Elon Musk went on Lex Friedman's podcast.
I guess it's the fourth time he's been on there.
He always makes news, but he said a few things that I agree with.
So Musk said, if AI cannot figure out new physics, it's clearly not equal to humans.
Now that's interesting.
So he says, you know, physics is basically the real knowledge, and then everything beyond physics is sort of a point of view.
A slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.
That if humans can still invent or discover new physics laws, but AI can never do it, no matter how hard it tries, then the AI is not as smart as humans.
It's just using things that humans have already discovered.
Now, does that sound familiar?
Does that opinion sound familiar?
Have you heard it before?
That's what I'm saying.
So I've been saying, my version of it goes like this.
My version is that AI can never be smarter than the smartest humans in each field.
So I've presumed that there's a natural cap to how smart the smartest AI can be.
Now this is counter to, as far as I know, counter to every expert's opinion.
I believe 100% of experts disagree with me.
But that's why it's fun.
Because it's the ultimate contrarian view that it can't get smarter than the smartest human.
Now part of the reason I say that is the way humans are.
Suppose for a moment you built an AI that was so smart it actually understood the nature of reality.
Like the real stuff.
The stuff that you and I have no access to.
And then it told you.
I am now the super AI.
Listen to me mere humans.
Here is the nature of the universe.
What you really are is a simulation, or what you really are is the Islam got it right.
They were totally right.
Everybody else got it wrong.
Or whatever it is.
What would the humans do if they learned the actual truth of reality?
What would the humans do?
They would turn off the AI.
Or they would reprogram it so it would stop saying crazy shit like that.
Yeah.
We would not have the ability to recognize a truth that's above our intelligence level.
So we would deny it, and we'd turn it off, and we'd start wars over it.
But we wouldn't believe it.
We definitely wouldn't believe it.
That wouldn't happen.
Now the only thing that you could do Elon Musk is the perfect example.
If the AI created a rule of physics that then we humans could go out and test and test it out and it worked every time, well then you'd have something.
But I kind of am of the opinion that it just won't happen.
Unless it's brute force.
Maybe brute force by coming up with so many different ideas that one of them works.
That wouldn't be nothing.
But it would still be just random.
Alright, the other thing that Moss said that's interesting is that he thinks that what Israel should do is conspicuous acts of kindness, because obviously there's nothing you can do about the fact that too many people are going to suffer and die in Hamas, in Gaza.
Elon's idea is that you should literally create field hospitals to show that you're caring about the people and their injuries.
Put a webcam on there so the entire world can see that Israel's caring for the people who need the care.
I'm going to disagree with Elon on this one.
Because there's an assumption you would have to make in order for this to be a good idea.
If the people you're trying to convince are the people in Gaza, then the question you'd have to ask is, what was their starting place?
And I've never seen anybody explain that.
And here's what I mean.
If the starting place of the civilians, you know, the non-Hamas combatants, if the starting place for the women and children and the non-combatants was, you know, Israel isn't so bad, you know, they got some pluses, they have some minuses, then you could do that.
Then that would be a good strategy, would be to emphasize the good parts of you and try to win over the people who are at least a little bit unbiased about who you are.
You might be able to nudge them a little bit in your direction.
But is that the situation?
Is it a balanced and unbiased population?
Because they might be persuadable.
But I kind of doubt it.
If Hamas has been in charge for a while, one assumes that the information situation is that Hamas has brainwashed at least all of the children.
So the children are just a lost cause at this point.
I hate to say anything that's mean about children, but I don't know of any way to unhypnotize mass numbers of children.
I mean, unless you actually made it a project to deprogram them.
But you'd have to say that.
You can't just hope that they read the news and they read the right part of the news.
You can't hope that they see a video about a mobile hospital and they're going to change their minds.
I mean, so here's what I love about Elon's opinion and what I disagree with.
What I love about it is he's kind of, well, I don't know if you've noticed, but he's smart.
Has anybody noticed that?
Elon Musk is smart.
It's one of those things I've noticed.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the best thing he could do is to continually push for peace and kindness.
At the same time, he notes it's probably impossible.
Now, I hate to say that those two conflicting, semi-conflicting, or maybe 80% conflicting ideas don't make sense when presented at the same time, except they do.
Because he's very clearly saying what would be the ideal, what to shoot for, but also not crazy, and he knows that there's a real world situation, but as a leader, And Musk is a leader, you know, unelected, but he's clearly a leader in America and maybe other parts of the world.
For him to always consistently be on the side of life and peace is exactly the right look.
As long as he's not being crazy, right?
So he's acknowledging the difficulty of everything.
So in that context, Recommending conspicuous acts of kindness?
Yeah, it's a step in the right direction.
And it's good for the framing, it's good for the world, it's good leadership.
I don't think it would work, though.
In the real world, I don't think it would make any difference.
Now, that said, I'm 100% in favor of doing it, because the base of the idea is providing a hospital for people who need a hospital.
So that part, yeah.
Let's make sure that people have hospitals.
But if you have a weaponized public... And here's the other thing that might be flawed with Elon's opinion.
And again, as an ideal, it's a perfect opinion.
But in the real world, a little trouble.
I don't think Israel has any intention of repopulating Gaza.
Do you?
Because it would be crazy.
And they're not acting crazy, are they?
I mean, they're acting like somebody who just got terribly attacked and, you know, they're responding in the most aggressive way.
But that's not crazy.
It's exactly what every reasonable person would have done in the same situation.
But to me, allowing it to be repopulated With a group of people who have been radicalized and weaponized, to some extent, I don't know to what extent, but if 20% of them are radicalized to want to kill you later, I wouldn't repopulate it.
I would look for any solution that's not populating it.
And if I did, I would certainly have to have ironclad control over the schools, to make sure that the schools only taught things that are good for Israel, if that were me.
So I guess I disagree with the assumption that the idea is to be nice to the residents of Gaza because I'm pretty sure the idea is to not be nice to them so that they don't go back and they get as far away from Gaza as they can and never come back.
I think.
That's the way I'd play it.
I mean, if I were Israel, I would never let that be repopulated.
And not because it's kind.
And not because it's cruel, you just don't have another choice.
Like, if there were some other choice that is far more, you know, kind to the Gaza residents, I would pick that in a heartbeat.
I don't see a choice.
So if anybody has one, that'd be great.
Oh, here's some news that made my heart happy.
A publication called Jezebel, called the Pioneering Feminist website, will be shut down.
I guess they lost their money.
And they're out of business.
Now, if I could summarize the staff of Jezebel, they are sexist pieces of shit, and have been sexist pieces of shit for a long time.
In fact, they were the first group to jump on my first cancellation.
This was many years before the recent cancellation, in which they took something out of context and reversed its meaning.
It was something in which I was mocking men And they turned it into really mocking women, the opposite of what it was, and then defamed me across the internet, and then when anybody looked for my name, they found their fucking story that was completely made up, because they just read something and reversed it.
How happy am I that they're going out of business?
Pretty happy.
But it's not all bad news, although all the staff will lose their jobs.
Their timing is good because I hear Hamas is hiring.
So, perfect fit.
Vivek Ramaswamy provocatively said he wants to build a wall between the United States and Canada.
Now, let us talk about the excellence of that idea.
Number one, have I ever told you a million times in a row that when Trump said build a wall in the southern border, it was brilliant because it was visual and there was an argument for it.
But then he added the Mexico will pay for it, which was fun.
But if you took it too seriously, maybe you shouldn't have.
But I feel like the Canadian border, we could actually get Canada to pay for it.
Now my idea would be to To have a two-drink minimum for entering the United States.
Just for Canadians.
I think this could pay for it.
You can come and go as often as you want.
As long as you've got a visa, passport, whatever.
Come as much as you want, but it's a two-drink minimum.
Every time you come in.
I think that would pay for a wall across the entire Canadian border, because they like their Molson's, is what I'm saying.
Now, does it make sense?
Absolutely yes.
I believe that we have a mortal threat, an existential threat from Canada.
Because everything indicates Canada is going to be lost.
I think Canada will become an Islamic nation.
So we might have more members of Hamas in Canada at some point.
The way it's going, right?
If you straight line it, it's disaster in Canada.
It looks like they're on a road to complete ruin.
So I wouldn't want a dictator up north and I wouldn't want them importing a lot of people who want to destroy the United States.
So We might want to get started on that.
Might want to get started on that wall.
So I'm with Vivek on that.
It's pricey though, so gotta get that two drink minimum going.
So as you know, Joe Manchin and Mitt Romney said they might want to, they proposed that they would be on some kind of commission to rein in the debt.
Debt commission.
And Manchin has announced that he won't be running again.
Covering-- oh, OK.
A reporter wants to talk to me.
Anyway, so Joe Manchin is not going to run for Senate again, which makes sense because Mitt Romney is not running again.
So they would be the two kind of centrist senators from each side, you know, the ones that are more likely to cross the... They're really the perfect team.
Honestly, that's just the perfect team to be looking at the debt.
Now, Is there a reason to look at the debt?
Well, yesterday the US government tried to borrow 24 billion dollars and it was a huge disaster because we couldn't find anybody who wanted to buy American government debt.
And so the interest rate that we would have to offer somebody for these debts is going to go off the chart.
We're now at the rate where we pay one trillion dollars per year in interest.
One trillion dollars per year in interest.
You realize this is a fast path to complete destruction of the country, if it doesn't change.
But I do like this, you know, Romney-Manchin approach.
Maybe they could come up with something.
And here's where Mitt Romney is strong, right?
Finance.
Big finance is his background.
However, there's some thought that Joe Manchin would run a third party as a third party.
If he did that, then it doesn't make sense for him to be on this commission.
Would you agree?
I don't think he should do both, because the beauty of being on that commission is that you would seem somewhat independent from the current politics.
But if he's running for president, anything he does in the commission will be pooh-poohed as political.
But we better do something.
Better do it quick.
So I like all that.
Now, the Wall Street Journal had a story, there was an NBC poll they were looking at, that said if there were no third party, according to one poll, Trump and Biden would be neck and neck in the, at least the national vote, if not the battlegrounds.
But, as soon as you throw in any third party people, whoever they are, it goes to Trump.
So Trump will win if there are third parties.
That seems to be the message.
Except, there's some thought that RFK Jr.
might take more from Trump, but I think that's uncertain.
To me, that seems uncertain.
So, here's the bottom line.
Your vote will not decide who the president is.
I hate to tell you.
Your vote will not decide who the president is.
Because if everybody does what everybody always does, which is what the poll would seem to indicate, you're going to all go there, you're going to vote, and it's going to be too close to call And the only thing that will matter was which third parties decided to run.
That's it.
So there will be maybe four or five people whose actions completely decide who the president will be.
You know, RFK.
Who are the other ones?
Remind me.
The Harvard professor who's running.
I forget his name.
Somebody give me his name.
Is Jill Stein running?
I don't know.
Oh, Cornel West.
Yeah.
Cornel West.
So if somebody pulls off two or three percent from Biden, that's the end of the story.
And Cenk.
But wasn't there a story that he wasn't born in the United States?
Was that fake?
I just don't know if that's real or not, because you can't trust anything.
Might have been fake news.
Anyway.
We'll keep an eye on that.
But your vote won't matter.
I mean, you still have to vote.
Otherwise, it will matter.
But if everybody votes the way they say they will, the vote won't matter.
It will only matter who else ran.
Is that messed up or what?
How messed up is that?
That basically You know, three to five people will decide who's president.
And you'll just do what you have to do, but it won't decide who's president.
So there's that.
Anyway.
There's a millionaire who's famous.
His name is Ryan Johnson.
He's 46 years old.
He's famous for doing all these anti-aging things.
So he's spending millions of dollars to try to reverse his aging using supplements and modern techniques and stuff.
But he made the news because he's got a new claim.
He's trying to make his erection the same as when he was 18.
So, what he's using is some kind of shock therapy, in which he attaches something to his penis, and then shocks it at night, while he's sleeping.
And then the shock is sort of like a cold plunge, or a lot of other things like that, where it sort of mildly hurts his penis, but when it recovers, it comes back stronger.
Turns it into an 18-year-old steel rod that lasts 10 seconds or something.
I don't know if it doesn't last as long.
I don't know about that part.
But the important part of the story is that he has three kids, and I don't know how old they are, but if they're on social media, they might be the three unhappiest children in the United States.
And that conversation around the dinner table goes like this.
Hey Dad, what are you up to on social media today?
Just looking at your... Uh... Uh... Dad... Please?
Can you please stop talking about your erection?
Please.
Please, God, I will give back my allowance.
I'll go to zero allowance.
I will mow the lawn more than it needs to.
I will wash all the lawn.
I will clean my room.
I will get A's.
I will never miss a day of school, but please, please don't talk about your penis again.
Don't.
Don't.
Anyway, that's what I imagine the conversation looks like.
Warren Buffett.
There are some shocking claims about Warren Buffett that he allegedly traded privately on his own account some stocks that Berkshire Hathaway was also going to be involved in, or was involved in, and therefore it was a version of insider trading.
Now, I don't know if it would be illegal even if he did it.
I'm not sure about the law.
But he did publicly say on occasions that he would never do that.
He said that Brookshire Hathaway owned Wells Fargo stock, so that's why he would own a different banking stock, his second choice in his personal account.
So he's even given examples of where he would intentionally ignore a stock that was owned by his company.
We haven't heard Warren Buffett's explanation.
I fully expect he will explain it away in a way that you'll say, oh, okay, that wasn't what I thought it was.
And the only reason I think that is because he's not an idiot.
He's like one of the richest people in the world.
He wouldn't need to do some minor inside trading on his own account to pick up another million or two.
I mean, it just doesn't seem like a risk he would take.
So it seems so completely out of context that I would expect he's going to say something like... And by the way, this was one of the possibilities.
They said he might have the same stocks because he had those stocks for years before Berkshire got interested.
So they don't even know the order of who had what stock first.
So that's a pretty weak accusation, right?
If you don't know the order of who bought first, or when, you know, if one was bought years ago, that's a whole different situation.
So I'm guessing the test is going to go away for just ordinary reasons, you know, nothing special.
That's just a guess.
All right, so Hamas supporters occupied Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's office in the Capitol.
And they spent, I don't know, a long time in there.
And so some people are saying, hey, you know, isn't that like the January 6th people?
No, it's not like the January 6th people.
No, no, no, no, no.
Now, the January 6th people were trying to rescue the Republic from a suspected election fraud and they were insisting on a short delay to validate the results to make sure that the Republic was protected.
So it's not like that.
It's completely different.
Alright, next story.
I saw a tweet from David Chilson on the X platform.
And he said, our government openly and serendipitously, openly and serendipitously, influences foreign elections, but denies that those same people wouldn't do it here.
They're lying and we know it, he says.
That's just a good thing to keep in mind, isn't it?
That the United States has developed an entire asset of experts at influencing other elections.
Huh.
I wonder if those same experts might ever band together to pull an op, such as a letter saying that the Hunter laptop might be Russian disinformation.
Of course that influenced the election.
Of course.
Yeah.
Is anybody dumb enough to think that our intelligence agencies are not trying to influence domestic elections?
Of course they are.
But, you know, I don't know which ways they're using.
They could be whispering in the ears of, you know, captured politicians.
They could be making sure that some issues get more attention or less attention.
They could decide what What clever persuasion works best, and then just whisper it to their friends, so it looks like it's coming from ordinary politicians, but it's a weaponized, strong version of persuasion.
There are a million ways they could do it.
They could get money from the cartels, and launder it, and then donate it to politicians they like.
They could threaten the press, and say, you know, I'm not going to give you any more scoops.
If you write stories like that again.
There are a million ways they could do it.
Even Schumer said, what did he say?
There's a million ways from Sunday that they can get back at you?
Imagine a top level Democrat telling the country directly that the intelligence agencies might not be on their side and would, not might, would get revenge.
On a president.
I mean, I think that got way too little attention.
The Schumer matter-of-factly said that the intelligence agencies of the United States would take down a president.
He said that directly.
And he wasn't joking, and he didn't take it back.
He never took it back, did he?
I don't believe he ever said, oh, I didn't mean that.
Because he meant it very much.
And it's true.
Right.
So just keep that in mind.
Elise Stefanik, who's a member of the House, just filed an official judicial complaint about Judge M. Goran, the Trump judge, the one whose wife is allegedly a big anti-Trumper.
Laura Loomer had that scoop.
But, you know, the judge himself seems blatantly and obviously biased.
So she's got this complaint.
I don't know if that'll go anywhere, but I'm glad it's happening because it's exactly the right complaint at the right time.
All right.
I invented a word today.
You've noticed that a lot of Democrats seem to be anti-Semitic.
Because of the Gaza situation, it's more obvious.
I would call the anti-Semitic Democrats anti-Semocrats.
Anti-Semocrats.
I don't know if it'll catch on.
I just like how it sounds.
Anti-Semocrats.
All right.
My favorite story that might not be true is the Georgia pristine ballots.
The story goes like this, that in Fulton County, you know, one of the key counties in the 2020 election that was disputed, the claim, the allegation, is that there's a locked room with up to 150,000 ballots that are clearly and obviously fake and printed on different paper, but were counted.
So that's the allegation.
What do we have to back the allegation?
Well, there are three people who have, I guess publicly, sworn in court that they all saw the same thing, which is these pristine ballots that don't look like real ballots, they say on the wrong paper, and all filled in with, you know, Biden as the winner.
Now, two on the nose, yeah, we'll get to that.
Now, what else we know, besides the three witnesses, Is that there have been legal actions to try to get that room opened, and it went to a higher court, and the higher court told the lower court, yes, you have to make those available.
And the lower court is dawdling.
So the reason it's been so long is that the lower court dawdled and dawdled and dawdled, and then said you can't have access to it.
So it got appealed to a higher court, and the higher court said nope, You've got to go back and give them access.
But the lower court, well, I guess they're busy.
They must be busy or something.
Because it's just not happening.
But the claim is that they're in that room and all you have to do is open the door and everything that Trump said will be proven.
That's the claim.
There's one lock on one door.
You just have to open it, and you will see, obviously and clearly, that the election was a fraud.
Now that's the claim.
I'm not saying it's true, because remember, virtually all the election claims have been proven not true.
Some smaller ones, yes.
But nothing that would change the election.
Well, here's some new news.
Two lawyers who were on the defense, on the side of, I guess, defending against the claims, suddenly quit.
Two of them at the same time suddenly quit at just about the time that that door might be opened.
So you've got three eyewitnesses who have said in public and under oath, you've got a locked room that some court is inexplicably denying access to.
Can you think of any valid reason that a court would not let you look at those ballots?
There is not.
No, there is no valid reason for that.
You could think all day long and you would never come up with a valid reason that they can't look at them.
So you've got that sketchy happening.
So here's my prediction.
The lower court will grudgingly allow access to the room and it will be empty.
That's my prediction.
And there'll be a story about somebody unauthorized removed them, like janitors or something, and that the unauthorized people who removed them died mysteriously recently in just a natural accident or maybe some kind of a crime.
Because if it's true, they will have to kill people to keep that a secret.
Would you agree?
If that, if it really happened, and I'm not saying it did, we'll just wait and find out.
If it happened, they're gonna have to kill somebody to keep that secret.
Like actually kill somebody.
So that's my prediction.
Access to the room, the ballots will be missing, the person who is the only one who would know what happened will be deceased in mysterious consequences.
A mysterious situation.
Want to bet against it?
Anybody want to bet against me?
It's a pretty good bet.
I wouldn't bet against it, but it's a pretty good bet.
Yeah, it might be suicided.
However, here's what I like about this.
The best part of this story is I've been telling you for a long time, and I think you can all confirm that I've been saying this for a long time.
That there's something about our reality, whether it's a simulation or what, that likes to serve up reality in a three-act movie.
Now for Trump, the third act would have been the January 6th stuff and then all the legal problems.
And most of the January 6th stuff, the biggest problem revolves around his claim that the election was rigged.
The ideal third act that would make this the movie of all time is to open that room and find those ballots in there and prove that the election was fraudulent.
Now that would be awesome.
You know what would be more awesome?
This won't happen, but just imagine it.
The Supreme Court rules that the 2020 election was in fact rigged.
Wait for it.
And installs Trump for four years.
Without an election.
Cancels the election.
It'll never happen.
But imagine it.
Would you think that was unfair?
If you were running against Biden a second time, let's say Biden is the nominee.
And let's say they found out for sure that Biden's team cheated in the last election and he got four years out of it.
The fairest outcome would be to cancel the election and install Trump for four years.
Am I wrong?
Would that not be the fairest?
Because you know why?
Because you wouldn't be able to trust that the 2024 election wouldn't be bent again.
If you proved it happened in 2020, that's very hypothetical, speculative, the Supreme Court would be reasonable to say, there's no way we're going to trust this election again.
Trump, you just won the election.
You're president for four years.
Now that would be the greatest movie of all time.
Now you could even make it better.
Imagine it better.
Imagine the opening of that room.
is delayed for a year.
The election happens, Trump is leading in the polls, and then mysteriously he loses in a close election.
Yet he was leading in all the polls.
And then, the door is open, we find out that 2020 was rigged, then the Republicans say, if 2020 was rigged, How could we trust Joe Biden in this election?
And then the Supreme Court reverses the result of the election and gives it to Trump.
Could it happen?
I don't think it can.
It seems more likely they'd, say, redo the election or something.
Because I don't think they want to decide who the president is, if they can avoid it at all.
They've done it before.
But I think they would like to avoid having their fingerprints on who the president is.
All right, so the strongest evidence that the ballots are faked and they're in that room is that the three-act play, it just feels inevitable.
I've never felt anything that felt more inevitable.
than Trump getting the most unexpected good news, which is that he was right about the election, before the election.
By far, that would be the third act of all third acts, the comeback of all comebacks.
It would be one of the greatest American history stories, and it would be worthy of, worthy of, the greatest showman in American history.
I feel like he deserves no less than the best show.
Because he is the greatest showman of all time, in my opinion.
All right.
So I'll keep an eye on that.
I'd bet against it, but it's fun.
Matt Gaetz continues doing awesome things.
He's trying to stop the FBI from getting a $300 million new headquarters.
But it's not that he's just trying to stop them.
It's the way he says it.
Here's what Matt Gaetz said in public.
in Congress, I guess.
The FBI, they believe the FBI should be rewarded with a new $300 million headquarters, larger than the Pentagon, because their building is, quote, "crumbling." And Gates says, "Guess what?
Our country is crumbling when a weaponized security state targets the civil liberties of American citizens because of their politics.
And then he says, those in the J. Edgar Hoover building should sit in that rat infested building until they get their acts straight.
Stop making me love you, Matt Gates.
Damn it.
Like I don't want to have a crush on a dude.
But I don't think I can like that any more than I do.
That's as much as I can like a statement.
They should sit in a rat infested building until they get their act straight.
Endorsed.
Endorsed.
That's exactly what should happen.
They should sit in a rat infested building because that is where their reputation is with the American public.
Just sit with the other rats.
Again, it's worth saying, most of the employees are just good people, good Americans.
We're talking about the leadership only.
All right.
So it looks like we've got some fun coming.
Looks like the House is issuing subpoenas for the so-called Biden crime family.
So they're going to ask for James Biden, the brother, Associates Rob Walker, and maybe some others.
And what happens if they don't go?
Suppose they don't go.
Will they be arrested?
Because now there's a precedent for that.
You'll be arrested for defying the subpoena.
But what if they do go?
Can you imagine a situation where we're in the middle of a race, Trump is battling 91 counts of lawfare trying to keep him out of the race, and then Biden Biden's reputation would be just dragged by these public hearings in which they're talking to his family and nothing good can come from that.
There's no outcome in which the Bidens have a win if they testify.
No matter what they say, just the fact that they are testifying, it's the same play that the Democrats use.
So the Democrats used impeachment Whether they succeeded or didn't succeed, it was all about making you just think about impeachment for a long time.
So it looks like the Republicans are going to do the same persuasion play.
If they ever get anything that's, you know, a crime that can be prosecuted, well, maybe, maybe not.
But either way, they're going to make you think about this process during the final year before the presidential vote.
Politically, it's brilliant.
Politically, it's right on point.
Is it a dirty trick?
Well, not if they have the goods.
I mean, to me, it looks like there's a genuine problem there, and they are the ones who should look into it, and it does look legitimate to me.
But I'm sure Democrats say that all the charges against Trump look legitimate to them, too.
Well, Karl Rove, Let's talk about Biden versus Trump.
He says neither party's frontrunner will be easily dislodged.
But Rove says if no changes are made, Americans will get the worst dumpster fire of a campaign in history.
He doesn't have to be this way.
He thinks that the party that picks a fresh face will likely win the White House.
That's Karl Rove.
All right, Karl Rove.
Would be like the canary in the coal mine.
Like if Karl Rove says something, he's not just your average person talking about stuff.
Right?
If Karl Rove says it, it probably suggests that there are a large number of Democrats who think the same way.
And he's sort of testing it out.
But read between the lines.
The party that picks a fresh face will likely win the White House.
Do you think he believes that if Biden ran against another Republican, the other Republican who's not Trump would beat him?
Do you think that Rove actually believes that?
I don't think he does.
I think he thinks that Trump is the only one that can beat him.
And wouldn't it be convenient to, you know, get Trump out of there?
And wouldn't it be convenient if it were Newsom against some other Republican?
Because you know who could beat Newsom?
Trump.
Trump's probably the perfect, Trump is almost the perfect competition for Newsom, right?
Because Newsom's a frat boy, a white guy.
That's the weakest candidate against Trump.
I mean, if you at least had, I'm a woman, or you at least had, I have some, you know, person of color thing going on.
If you at least hadn't let, you know, hordes of people across your border, but I guess that's not really California's problem.
But I can't think of anybody who would be easier to beat than Newsom, because he's got all these visual problems.
Pictures of the streets of San Francisco, running out of water, running out of electricity, forest fires.
He'd be the easiest, I think.
So I think what Karl Rove is saying is that they need a younger person to replace Biden.
I imagine he's grudgingly would probably back Newsom.
But maybe he has hopes for somebody else.
Maybe.
But it's pretty clear that the people in power and the Democrat side don't want Biden.
Don't want Biden.
Apple agreed to pay a $25 million settlement over its immigration hiring practices.
Now, when you hear that, do you say to yourself, my God, Apple was discriminating against immigrants?
No.
Nope.
Opposite.
Apple was discriminating against American citizens.
And they've decided to settle.
That means that the evidence was strong that they were discriminating against American citizens.
They were preferring people from other countries.
Now some have said that's because they can control those people from other countries better.
Like it's harder for them to move jobs and maybe Maybe they have some racial idea that they work harder or something.
I don't know.
But it's getting tougher to be a white man in America.
Here's a post from Josh Power.
He's just a user on the X platform.
But let me read what he said.
And this is just part of what he said.
He said, this past summer I decided to step away from my company.
And he talks about the reason being that they're woke and they have too much DEI cult-like behavior.
So here are some examples.
So he's a white man who's leaving his company because it's so crazily anti-white, basically.
He said, I had company leaders tell me offline that we had enough white men in key positions and now is not a good time to get promoted at the company because we're looking for minorities only.
Now do you remember how many times I've said that in public and black men, usually men, stream in to tell me I'm making it up?
They actually believe that I just completely made it up.
That there's no such thing as your boss telling you directly, you cannot be promoted here because you're a white man.
That's happened to probably millions of people.
It's the most common experience for a white man in corporate America.
It's not an exception.
It's the most common experience.
Probably 80% common, at least.
I would say at least 80% common.
And black Americans have no idea this has ever happened.
Now, a lot of our racial problems are because they don't know this news.
Have you ever seen anybody report it?
Have you ever seen the New York Times do a big story about how white men are told directly, you cannot be promoted?
And have been for 40 years?
30 or 40 years?
Consistently for 30 or 40 years, it's never in the news.
Never.
And people watching me right now still think I'm making it up.
And people will think he's making it up too.
But there's more.
So Josh said he also got in trouble for using the word female at work.
That's right.
He got in trouble for using the word female.
Do you know why?
Because women is the more inclusive word.
Because female kind of indicates a biological reality.
Whereas woman is more your choice of gender.
So he said female.
He said something like the company had this many males and this many females.
And he got in trouble.
Because the inclusive word was women.
I've never even heard of that.
This is the first time I've ever heard of that.
Have you?
Have any of you heard of that?
I've never heard that female was now an insulting word.
Alright.
But there's more.
He said, our leadership team used to start all hands meetings with, and he gives like an example.
Hi, my name is Mike and my pronouns are he him and I'm a straight white male with brown hair and green eyes and I want to acknowledge the land we're on was stolen from the such and such people.
And he says, I'm not exaggerating.
That's how far many of them took this stuff.
That's real.
That's a real situation.
So he left.
Now, So Apple is discriminating against American citizens.
This gentleman worked at a couple of large companies, which he mentioned, that just directly discriminated against him and were being ridiculous.
And so I asked this question.
I'll just ask this question.
Suppose, let's say, women had a list of companies that are really good to work for if you're a woman.
Would that be legal?
Just a list of, you know, best places for women to work.
Would that be legal?
I think so.
I think I've seen that before.
I've seen people, you know, recognized as a great place for women to work.
How about if you're black?
Could you put together a list of the best companies to work for if you're black?
Probably.
Might even exist, I don't know.
But nobody would have a problem with it, would they?
Suppose you put together a list of companies that were the best place for a white man to work.
Legal or illegal?
Absolutely fucking illegal.
And whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant to the fact that you would never work again, and the company that you named would try to sue you to deny that they're a good place for white men to work, because that's a bad look.
Just think about that.
Just hold in your mind These are real stories of white men being told that the company will not promote them because they're white men.
Why can't I have a list that lists the companies that have told people exactly that message?
Because it would be crazy to be a white man and even go for an interview in such a place.
It would be crazy.
You would just be shooting yourself.
Why would you bother?
So I'd like a list of places where they will not discriminate against you if you're a white man.
And if you find a company that doesn't meet that test, if they won't say directly, you could actually ask them to sign a pledge.
How about this?
This would be clever.
Somebody with prominence should create a pledge that says, I will not discriminate against white men.
And then ask companies to sign it.
I'm loving this idea that I just came up with.
What would happen?
Do you think you could get even one company in America to sign a document that says they will not discriminate against white men?
What do you think?
Nope.
Not a chance.
The best you could get is they would say, how about this?
We'll issue a statement Of our hiring practices.
You go, no, I want you to sign this.
No, how about I'll do it in my own words.
And then their own words would be this.
We like to value diversity and we consider it in all of our hiring, but we don't want to discriminate against anybody.
But of course, considering diversification in the hiring is exactly discriminating against white men.
So nobody would ever sign that, that we will not discriminate against white men.
Do you think they would sign something that says we will not discriminate against women?
Of course they would.
Would they sign something that says we will not discriminate against black employees?
Of course they would.
Just imagine that.
You can't even get anybody to say they won't discriminate against you because you're white.
It's not even acceptable.
So...
I'll put that on the category of Scott's right about everything.
All right, here's some Rasmussen Mass poll about Israel-Gaza news coverage.
39% of likely U.S.
voters said the news coverage was good or excellent.
39%.
Well, 30% gave it a poor.
Well, 30% gave it a poor.
Here's the weird thing.
You know, I've told you directly that in the Gaza-Israel thing, I'm only going to look at the world from October 7th to today, in which case I completely back Israel to do what it needs to do.
So I'm just taking sides.
But I'm telling you that directly.
In this specific case, I will not attempt to be a both-sides person.
It's a war.
And I'll tell you why I back Israel.
Is it because they've done everything right and the other team did everything wrong?
No.
I'm not even looking into it.
It's much simpler.
Israel does not want to kill me next.
Are we done?
Israel does not want to kill me next.
That's it.
So I'm on their side.
That's the whole story.
That's the whole story.
I don't care about anything else.
I'm on the team that doesn't want to kill me, and in all likelihood, if I were at risk, would probably do what they could to help.
They're on my team.
I'm just saying I'm on the same team as the people who are on my team.
The people who don't want me to die, and would not try to kill me.
Now, of course, any statement about a large group of people is only about the statistical likelihood.
It's not about any one person.
So if you say to yourself, well, Scott, there's somebody in Israel who does want to kill you.
Okay, that's not really on point.
And if you say to yourself, but wait, there are tons of people on the other side who are just innocent people.
That's not really on point either.
It's a statistical self-defense argument, and that's it.
You get to use statistics for self-defense.
That is the appropriate way to discriminate.
If you're going to discriminate, it should be about keeping yourself alive.
That's completely fine.
Discriminate any way you want.
Completely ethical.
All right.
So my point of that was not that I'm biased, but so is the news.
So I don't know how anybody could say the news is good, like doing a good job, because don't you think that the news has taken a side the same way I did?
Do you disagree?
To me it looks like the major news sources have all decided that they're just on Israel's side.
And they're going to show things that are newsworthy on both sides, but clearly they're on the side of Israel.
And I don't think... We're in an environment in which news people say directly, we're going to get rid of being unbiased.
So that's the current standard in the news business.
is to be biased.
It started with Trump, right?
We can't be unbiased about Trump.
We have to take a side.
It's the end of the world.
But I think that extends to all the other topics as well.
So if you think the news is doing a good job, well, they're doing a good job of being on your side and making sure the news is largely compatible with supporting the team that they want to support.
But no, the news is not trying to give you an accurate anything.
But neither am I. All right, the hospitals in Gaza, I guess there are four hospitals in Gaza surrounded now by Israeli forces.
And they're letting the innocents out, filtering them out.
But it looks like they're basically going to go after whatever's in the hospitals and the schools and all that.
Now, you know, the best and worst things about Hamas Somehow Israel has turned all of Hamas's strengths into weaknesses.
Here's what I mean.
Strength number one, Hamas and the Palestinians had, you know, years of complaints, so they felt like victims a little bit, right?
You could argue who's the victim, you know, that goes on forever.
But at least they had some argument that, you know, they're abused in some way.
But Hamas basically eliminated that.
So, you know, even though there are plenty of non-combatants and people who are innocent people, they've ruined the brand of their team.
So they've just destroyed the brand.
So that works for Israel.
The other thing that works is Hamas had all these 200 miles of tunnels.
And so you say to yourself, my God, that's such an advantage.
They've got all their stuff in tunnels.
They got tunnels.
But once Israel surrounds the city and starts destroying the tunnel openings one by one, those tunnels become pre-burial sites.
It's just a burial site for the entire Hamas army.
I don't think there's any situation that could be better than most of the army being underground when you can find their exits and entrance just by interrogating people you find.
So I got a feeling those tunnels are going to turn into the biggest mistake.
Now, my assumption is that the tunnels are the best idea if you're just occasionally being attacked, but that they're the worst idea if a superior force is going to do a siege and then just start shrinking you and knocking down the tunnels.
Under that situation, you're guaranteed to die because you're just in a tunnel.
Now the other thing that Hamas did that seems smart for a while, but now is being reversed, is that they put their military most vital assets under hospitals and schools, or even in them in some cases.
So that seems like a good idea, right?
Because it keeps them from being bombed.
Until there's a siege.
It's a great idea until there's a siege.
Now you've got boots on the ground.
And do you know what the Israelis are doing?
They're going directly to the headquarters.
So they just surround the hospital because they know below the hospital and in it is all the good stuff that Hamas is trying to protect.
So instead of being this ultra clever place to keep them from being bombed, it turned into the biggest indicator of where their good stuff is, so they just surround it and take it.
I think that everything Hamas did worked until you get a siege.
The moment it's a siege, all of their advantages turn into the biggest disadvantages in the world.
Now take the hostages.
Hostages would be an advantage for them, right?
No.
Every day they hold the hostage is a day that Israel's backers say, as I will right now, do whatever you need to do.
I don't even need to know.
As long as they have the hostages, Israel has an open hand, free hand, we'll say free hand, to do whatever they want according to its supporters anyway.
Its enemies will still be enemies.
Every part of what Hamas did was a good idea until the siege started.
Now they just gave Israel a perfect validation for doing the siege, doing it the way they want to do it, doing it slowly, which is the right way to do it.
They should do it slowly, because I think Hamas get... If you have a siege, the people that are being sieged get weaker every day, and the siegers probably stay the same or get stronger.
So doing it slowly, so that you can argue that you were doing what you could to get the innocence out, was exactly the right answer.
And if you really want to be a bastard about it, killing Hamas quickly would have been the kind thing to do.
Keeping them in their tunnels for weeks, waiting to be buried, would be the worst thing you could do to them.
And under these circumstances, Israel might want to do the worst thing that can be done to them.
And that's what they're doing.
A slow squeeze.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is the news that's fit to talk about.
Probably, once again, the best live stream you'll ever see.
