Episode 2290 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/12/23, Illuminating Commentary About The News
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, President Trump, Placebo Effect Increases, Bill Burr's Wife, Thomas Massie, Ben Ray Lujan, CVS Theft Strategy, HomeSchool Socialization, Nord Stream Pipeline Responsibility, Washington Post, Hamas Tunnel Strategy, Palestinian Demands List, Reinterpreting Quran Strategy, Gaza Solutions, Mayor Eric Adams, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
- Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this already transcendent experience to levels that nobody can even explain with the human language, and maybe AI can't do it either, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tinkered chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine is today.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous.
And if you'd like to join me now, it happens now.
Now, go.
That's good.
Do you know what I do so I make sure I don't forget putting on my microphone?
I've got a little process I do.
So I take the microphone, because you see it's on a cord, the one for YouTube, and I put it directly in the middle of my work area, so it's a big pile of cords sitting there, so that when I take my papers and I go to put them down, there's no way I can miss That I have my microphone off because I would be laying my papers on my microphone.
So it's sort of a foolproof plan.
So what I did was turned on YouTube and immediately said, oh, there's a mess in front of me.
I moved it out of the way.
Yeah.
So that that process didn't work as well as it should have.
So don't do what I do.
All right.
Let's talk about all the funny news or interesting news.
So yesterday was Veterans Day, and the protestors, the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protestors, notably tore down some American flags.
And even Elon Musk commented on X. He said, did they just tear down an American flag on Veterans Day in America?
Am I understanding this correctly?
Now, I would like to give you my contrarian view of this.
Number one, as an American, How do you feel about having an American flag torn down on Veterans Day?
Worst thing ever?
Totally insulting?
No.
I remind you that the value of the American flag is that you can tear it down and it's still the same.
You can set it on fire and it's still the same.
You could burn it up, you could cut it into little pieces, you could drop it at the bottom of the ocean.
Still the same.
You can't hurt it, because it's a symbol.
You can hurt the cloth.
Go ahead.
You can rearrange where the cloth is.
You can change how it looks.
But you can't hurt it.
That's the whole point of it.
The whole point of the American flag is that, go ahead, knock yourself out.
If you want to be an asshole, If you want to be disrespectful, you can, but you can't hurt the flag.
Because the more they try to hurt it, and the more you just wake up tomorrow and you're still here in America and the rules are about the same.
So, to me, the fact that people who don't like the flag can disrespect it right in front of you as hard as they want, and you still wake up the next day and you still have the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that's the America I want to live in.
That's exactly, precisely, the America that's right.
But of course, it's supposed to offend you.
That's the whole point.
Free speech works that way.
Well, Trump is... You know, I guess I'll just say it as many times as I need to.
Trump will definitely, definitely win the election in 2024 if he never talks again.
Can we agree?
If he never says another thing in public, he's definitely going to win.
But it wasn't a good day for that this week.
So here's just a few of the things he said to try to work his way out of winning.
He said a quote about Chris Christie at a rally.
I'm defending Chris Christie by saying you can't use the words fat pig.
I'd like to remind President Trump that his base is not what you would call svelte.
That's right.
Have you ever seen an article in the mainstream media that said there was a big rally of Trump supporters and my oh my are they thin and svelte.
So I'm going to teach you something I learned as a cartoonist, Mr. Trump.
It goes like this.
Calling somebody a fat pig will win you exactly zero votes.
There's not a single person who would say, you know, I was a little bit on the fence.
But when he called two-thirds of America fat pigs, indirectly, that really won me over.
Said nobody.
But, do you think there's even one person in America who's concerned about their own weight, you know, who's doing what they can to battle it, but it's just a tough battle?
And they hear the president just say that somebody else in their same situation is a fat pig.
It's all downside.
He got a laugh out of it.
And, you know, I like the fact that he can get a laugh and he's politically incorrect.
You know, I like that about him.
But I'm not going to vote for him because of it.
But could I be offended enough that I wouldn't bother to vote for him?
Because you seemed a little disrespectful.
The answer is yes.
I think this is something where you could lose a vote, but you could never gain a vote by that joke.
So that was a mistake.
Persuasion mistake.
There are very few cases where you can say something's cleanly a mistake, because you never know how everybody takes anything.
But this one's cleanly a mistake.
A persuasion mistake.
And remember how I always say Trump is good about not insulting Americans?
He goes after his critics, that's fine.
He goes after his opponents, that's fine.
But he doesn't go after the American people.
No matter what you say, he doesn't go after them.
But when he calls Christie, in his joking way, a fat pig, I feel like there are a lot of ordinary Americans who are doing the best they can, battling their own weight problems.
And it's probably not, I don't think, I don't think it was appreciated.
Now you can say to yourself, but, but, but, President Trump has extra pounds too.
And I have a question for you.
I saw some pictures that I thought were recent where he was a lot thinner.
Is that, is there anything to that?
Or did I just see an old picture and thought it was a new picture?
Because if he did that, I mean, he does look different.
To me, he looks like he's losing weight, but I don't know.
So it could be that he's having some success losing weight.
But if you want it to be useful, don't call your opponent a fat pig.
Maybe lose some weight yourself and maybe encourage Americans to exercise and eat right.
So maybe that'd be better.
But I don't think that'll make or break his election.
Brian Rumeli had an interesting post, says the placebo effect seems to be increasing over time and nobody knows why.
So the placebo is, you know, you're testing a new drug and you test it against the pill that doesn't really have anything active in it and it turns out that the people who took the pill with nothing in it, a large percentage of them also say they got better.
But You know, there is some controversy about that, because some people say, but you really needed to compare it to people who didn't even know they were in a trial.
Because people get better on their own, all the time.
You know, just for no reason.
Because your body heals itself.
So, if you think it's because they had a placebo, you really needed to test that against somebody who didn't even know they were in a trial.
It's like, I didn't know there was a trial.
Well, how did you feel last week and how do you feel today?
And, you know, then you could see if they got better on their own without even knowing there was a pill.
So that would be the real test.
My understanding is they haven't always had that third category.
Now, I do understand that often they do, but it might be at least one of the sources is that they're just measuring wrong.
So is it possible that the placebo effect is somehow increasing Substantially.
And it has over time.
It's like a straight line up.
What's the most likely explanation for why the placebo effect is increasing?
Just take your own guess.
Just brainstorm.
What's the most likely?
Because it shows up in all kinds of different experiments and different trials.
Why would it be?
Prayer, somebody says.
Here's my guess.
We're getting worse as statistics.
Or better.
It could be better actually.
It could be that there's some way that people normally looked at results.
Remember I said you have that problem if you don't have that third category of people they didn't even know they were in the trial.
You don't really have a good trial at least in terms of the placebo part.
It could be.
That the country just gets a little smarter about how to do statistics and so we're just measuring it more accurately over time.
It could be.
But it could be we're getting worse at statistics because we're bigger weasels.
It could be That the people doing the tests are finding a new statistically valid but kind of a weaselly way to do the work that is more likely to give them the outcome they want, but at the same time the weaselly statistical thing gives them a better outcome, it also boosts the placebo.
Is that possible?
If you had to guess, is it more likely that the placebo effect is increasing for mysterious reasons Or more likely that all the fucking weasels who are doing all the fake science since the beginning of time have figured out that there's a better weaselly way to do their weaseling.
I'm going to go with weaseling.
If I had to put money on it, it would just be a wild guess.
But if I had to put money on it, I'd say it's the way we measure it that's changed.
But I don't have evidence of that.
All right, Trump went to another UFC big event last night, got a lot of news.
It's one of the brilliant things he does, because he goes into a room where everybody except one person seems to love him.
We'll talk about the one person.
That's its own story.
So he gets this, you know, wild applause.
But in such a Trump-like fashion, he enters and he's walking with Who was he with?
He was with Kid Rock, Tucker Carlson, and Don Jr.
was around there somewhere too.
Can you even imagine a better show?
Then watching Trump enter, I mean, watching Trump enter with those two characters that automatically just increase your, you know, your thought process about Trump.
Because you think, talking to Carlson, what's he doing there?
Because they're talking about him as maybe a vice president.
Like, were they talking about him being vice president?
So that's automatically cool.
Then Kid Rock, who's long had an association with the Trumps, he's just interesting.
So he makes you look.
So the UFC makes you look.
Joe Rogan's there, so that makes you interested.
The fight itself is interesting.
Trump's there, that's interesting.
Kid Rock's there, that's interesting.
Tucker Carlson's there, that's interesting.
And they're all celebrities in the audience, and that's interesting.
And then something even more interesting happened.
A photographer caught a photo of Trump entering the UFC and the audience was behind him.
And two of the members of the audience were Bill Burr and his wife.
And his wife was giving the double finger to Trump behind Trump's back.
So...
Now, I'm pretty sure Bill Burr has talked about, you know, he and his wife and maybe some political differences and stuff like that.
I'm sure that's been part of his act.
So there's probably nothing new we're learning, right?
So it's not like we just learned his wife is not a Trump supporter.
But I've listened to Bill Burr for a long time.
One of my all-time favorites, one of the best in the business.
And he is a little politically incorrect, wouldn't you say?
I feel like he occupies a space that's definitely not Republican, but it's definitely not progressive, like real left progressive.
He's somewhere in that sane middle ground.
And that's a perfect place to be if you're a comedian who has to fill an auditorium or an event venue.
You know, you want everybody to say, you know, he's a little bit on my side.
And then you see his wife gives the double finger in public to the, you know, ex-president.
Now what do you think?
So here's the interesting part of the story.
I would love to know how the conversation went when they got home.
Honey, did you see this picture?
We're trending on the X platform.
Really?
We're trending?
Why?
Well, it turns out you just gave the finger to 40% of America.
What?
Yeah, you just gave the finger to 40% of all the people who come to my shows.
Basically, you just reduced my income by 40%.
And she's like, no, I was just giving the finger to Trump.
It was just about Trump.
And then Bill says, I don't know if I have to be the first one to explain this to you.
Well, you just gave the figure to 40% of America.
And my income and our income just went down 40%.
Would I go to Bill Burr's show?
Well, I actually had bought a ticket to one once.
I couldn't go.
There was some conflict, so I ended up not going.
But I wouldn't buy one now.
Do you know why I wouldn't buy one now?
Because that's a house I wouldn't be welcome to go to dinner.
Like, I wouldn't be welcome in their company.
Right?
So fuck him.
They're a team.
Fuck him.
I would never buy a ticket to his show.
He's dead to me.
But only because it's clear that at least one part of his marriage would feel the same way about me.
Probably both.
But once you know, you can't really see it the same, can you?
You know, it's one thing to say, oh, I think that performer has some political opinions I disagree with.
That's not what's happening.
I don't mind at all watching a performer who completely disagrees with me on politics.
You know what I don't want to see?
Is somebody who gives me the finger in public, by proxy, and thinks that's okay.
That's not okay.
And so, fuck both of you.
Really.
That's my opinion.
All right.
But it's a free country, so free speech, yes.
I definitely agree with the free speech.
Every right to do it.
All right.
Here's a funny political story.
Somebody named Senator Ben Ray Lujan.
Never heard of him.
But Ben Ray decided to get in the technology debate with Representative Thomas Massey.
Now again, if you know the players, this is funny before I tell you the story.
Thomas Massey, MIT graduate, basically runs his own home on an electric system he designed and built himself from an old Tesla battery.
So he's got this whole solar thing he literally built himself.
And probably Probably the most technologically savvy member of Congress of all time?
Maybe of all time?
So the Luhan was saying that, what did he say?
So there's this act where the government can shut down your car after a certain year.
They'll have the ability to shut down your car remotely.
Now, they say it's about stopping drunk drivers, but obviously You have to worry about that.
It's slippery slow because of the simultaneous sip.
See, it's an inside joke.
Dad joke.
That was a drive-by dad joke right there.
Anyway, there's a concern that it will act randomly and then Senator Lujan says it won't act randomly.
It's only if there's a good reason to do it.
And he also said the technology is not used to track anybody.
It's not used to track anybody.
So, you know, don't worry about it.
Thomas Massey responds, maybe, you know, it will trigger falsely more often than not dangerously stranding people in cars.
Now, which one of these two people actually understands how technology works in the real world?
In the real world, it's going to turn your fucking car off for no reason.
Why?
Because everything that adds complexity is another reason to turn your car off.
This is just one.
And this is an obvious one, right?
If you've got a little bit of a problem with your car, you can still get home.
But if it turns off, you're stranded.
You're not going anywhere.
So yes, any new technology is going to have false positives.
There's no question about it.
Don't know how many.
And then as Massey says about tracking, how would the technology know if somebody was driving properly and at the right speed limit if it didn't know where you were driving?
And I'm thinking to myself, hmm, that's a pretty good point.
How is it going to know anything about you if it doesn't know where you are?
It doesn't know if you're allowed to do 55.
So, yeah, don't argue with Thomas Massey on technology.
It just makes you look dumb.
This is the funniest, most absurd story.
In Washington, D.C., the CVS stores have replaced what used to be goods you could buy on shelves with photographs of the goods you could buy if they were on the shelves.
Photographs, actually, on a little stand.
Here's what the toilet paper would look like if it were here.
And then I guess you ask for it?
Now, is CVS really just a living marketing department for Amazon.com at this point?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can get toilet paper in like 16 hours on Amazon.
So the one and only time, and you know, roughly the same price, right?
So basically the only time you should go to CVS To buy toilet paper is if you just took a shit and you haven't pulled up your pants and you just realize there's no paper products anywhere in your house.
So you keep your pants by your ankles and you shuffle down to CVS and buy something off the shelf and you're like, Oh God, there's only a photograph.
It's only a photograph.
So my plan of, I mean, it's like CVS is trying to go out of business as hard as they can.
Anyway, enough about that.
New study on homeschooling says it's awesome.
Homeschoolers learn as much, do as well academically, and seem to be as well adjusted.
Now, I think, I have a theory that homeschoolers are better adjusted.
Better adjusted.
Here's why.
If you take any child and you throw them into the prison system called public school, They will have some positive encounters, because some people are nice and they might become your friends.
But mostly, you would be with the biggest assholes who have ever existed in the history of the planet.
Young American kids.
Young American teenagers.
The worst fucking people in the world, who will try to destroy your psyche, make you mentally ill, hurt you physically.
Just the worst people in the world.
Now, the old story was that that's what made you well socialized.
Really?
Really?
How about we put people in maximum security prison for six years just because that's a good way to socialize them?
That'll toughen them up.
They'll really be able to handle all situations because they were in prison.
No, you don't put people in a toilet to toughen them up.
That's not a strategy.
Hey, let's send these kids to Gaza for a few years, toughen them up.
Now, compare what I imagine is homeschool.
I don't have personal experience.
But what I've seen from the outside is that, number one, kids who are homeschooled are more likely to learn how to socialize with adults.
True?
Do you think that's true?
Homeschoolers spend a little more time with adults and they start to, you know, more, I'd say more quickly acclimate to an adult persona.
Almost all homeschoolers act polite and they will shake your hands and make eye contact.
Go to any public school and find the kid that will shake hands And make eye contact.
Have any of you had the experience of your teens or younger kids taking friends home to your house?
Have you ever had this experience where your teen will walk in the house with two or three new friends and walk past you?
Just walk past you?
Like you don't exist in your own home?
Do you think a homeschooler would do that?
I mean, seriously, you think any homeschooler would walk past an adult in that adult's own home the first time you've ever been there?
Well, maybe.
I mean, people are different.
But I think they're far more likely to look at you and say, oh, I should introduce myself.
Now, what about the access to all the weird people so that you get toughened up?
Well, the fact is that adults don't act like high schoolers.
I mean, rarely.
So you don't really need to get toughened up to learn how to be a child in high school, because that's not an adult skill.
An adult skill is dealing with adults, and they are pretty much different.
So the homeschoolers are learning a life skill, which is how to deal with adults.
The teens are learning a useless skill, which is how to deal with assholes that they won't have to spend time with when they're adults.
So does it surprise you that the homeschoolers are, and probably, I'm just assuming this, this is speculative, that the parents of homeschoolers are also going to be a little bit more rigorous about checking on their friends, maybe do a little more due diligence about who they hang out with.
I mean, the whole thing looks like a better model.
So it doesn't surprise me that the science is catching up to them.
All right, here's a funny story.
The Washington Post talking about Ukraine here.
They dropped what some people are calling a bombshell.
A bombshell.
They're saying now that there's a member, some person in Ukraine is taking responsibility for planning the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.
So now a Ukrainian colonel and covert ops guy, you know, may have worked with the CIA, but now Ukraine is kind of taking the heat for blowing up the pipeline.
And this is reported in the Washington Post.
Now the Washington Post is long rumored to be sort of a deep state organ, as in not really news.
They're the ones who are pushing the propaganda.
That's what people say.
All I know is that Phil Bump works there and that's not a good sign.
But here's phase one through three.
In phase one, the Washington Post blamed Russia for attacking itself.
Attacking their most valuable asset, their pipeline.
One of them.
So that was phase one.
That was the Washington Post.
Blame Russia for attacking themselves.
In phase two, everyone laughs at the absurdity of that propaganda and assumes that America was involved.
And phase one is a total failure because nobody believed it.
It was just so fucking ridiculous that nobody believed it.
Well, except some Democrats.
I guess some Democrats actually believed it.
But most people did not believe it.
So then phase three comes and now Washington Post is saying that Ukraine has admitted it and Ukraine did it.
So that's believable.
Do you believe?
That we went from Russia did it to itself to obviously America did it.
You made that up.
That's an obvious lie.
Well, what I mean is, no, no, no.
Did I say Russia blew itself up?
No, no, no.
No, it was Ukraine.
Ukraine led the operation.
We don't know if they talked to the CIA, but yeah, it was a Ukraine operation.
Is that conveniently Pro-Biden administration.
Because you know Biden is going to have to explain why he's pro-environment but created the biggest environmental disaster of our time by blowing that thing up.
So Biden actually needs some deniability and the Washington Post shamelessly at first blaming Russia for attacking their own pipeline and then blames Ukraine because there's somebody in Ukraine who's willing to, you know, go with that story apparently.
Like the Ukrainians did it without informing America, or NATO, and they did it without any help from NATO in any way, or America.
How about Phase 4?
We laugh at Phase 3, just like we laughed at Phase 1.
Because it's ridiculous.
Like the news is just ridiculous.
If you want to know how much you should trust the Washington Post, just know that they cancelled me and they kept Phil Bump.
That's all you need to know.
They cancelled me, but they kept Phil Bump.
If you don't know who Phil Bump is, it's not as funny.
Do you remember my prediction that we would learn that Israel has developed new and awesome technologies for handling the tunnels, the Hamas tunnels?
Well, Lieutenant Colonel Kornelikas tells us that, yes, they have developed new technology for handling tunnels, and Hamas probably doesn't see it coming.
Now, what are those new technologies?
They're not going to tell you.
So they're not going to tell you.
Let me tell you what technology I would use.
I would use robots and or drones so it doesn't it doesn't matter if they're flying or not because you know they could fly a few feet off the ground or they could they could be robots but if you were sending a drone down a tunnel wouldn't you lose signal?
That's the problem right?
You'd lose signal to the surface?
Suppose they had found a way to get a signal to a remote drone.
In that case, robots would be the only way you would clear a tunnel.
The only thing you would need is to know that it had a little flashlight on it and that it could get a signal from whoever was operating it.
Here's how I would do it if you couldn't get a signal to penetrate the distance down.
Now they might have some technology that can do that, That can penetrate surfaces, I don't know.
But, here's what I would do.
I would send a parade of drones, or robots, it works either way, down the tunnel.
And the first one would be the shooter drone, or the spotter drone.
So that's the real, you know, the action end.
But each drone behind it would just be a signal booster.
So you'd have one that's, and then each of the drones would learn that if it loses contact, it simply backs up until it gets contact again.
So if the head drone gets taken out, the next drone behind it is a parade of drones, and it just takes its place.
And then all the other drones are only signal boosters, so you can get the signal to it.
What do you think?
Would that work?
Now, the secret would be it would have to be self-adjusting, so a little bit of AI or something like it, to know that if it loses a signal, it has to operate autonomously until it gets it back.
And its first mission is to get the signal back.
So it just backtracks until it finds the signal.
I think it's pretty clever.
Now, I don't think Israel is using my idea.
That would be weirdly awesome if they were.
And I don't know if we'll ever hear what they used.
My guess is we will.
And I think the reason we would learn it is that presumably Hamas would figure out what was happening.
Somebody in Hamas will survive and say, damn it, it was those robots down there.
Everything was going well until they sent their robots.
So I think the secret will get out.
I think Israel will just tell us so that people will be less likely to build tunnels.
Just a little less likely.
Now I also wonder about some kind of a particle detector or something that they can just shoot through the ground and You know, give some kind of idea what's down there.
So they may have some better tunnel detection technology, too, from above.
I don't know.
We're going to find out a lot of interesting things.
But my prediction was that Israel had technology for tunnels that would be way more effective than anything you've ever heard of.
And they weren't telling you until they needed to use it.
But here we are.
So pretty good prediction.
I'll take the credit on that one.
Kamala Harris had some words to say about Well, what I took away from that is that she's even worse when she's sober.
Because she actually looked sober.
She wasn't giggling.
And I thought, oh, maybe I understand why you drink now.
understands this is not binary.
Well, what I took away from that is that she's even worse when she's sober.
Because she actually looks sober.
She wasn't giggling.
And I thought, oh, maybe I understand why you drink now.
Because if this is what you produce when you're sober, rah.
And I saw Bill Maher criticized on his recent show.
He criticized Obama.
And he said, this is something I've never done or rarely done or something, but that Obama was totally wrong on saying that, of course, October 7th was hideous.
But in order to understand the situation, said Obama, you have to understand that both sides had some blood on their hands.
And Bill Maher rejected that as a reasonable message, saying that at the moment, the both-sides-ism is just the wrong message.
We understand the truth of a long history, like everybody gets that there's history here.
But at the moment, that's not where your focus should be if you're an American leader.
Now that's Bill Maher.
That's Bill Maher.
Is he getting closer to voting?
It seems like every time he talks, We just glitched over on YouTube.
I criticized Obama and we just glitched.
Are you back yet?
I think they're back.
All right.
Well, so CNN and other U.S.
news outlets have cut ties with these photojournalists that were apparently along for the ride.
They did a ride along during the October 7th attacks.
Which would make them more like terrorists than photojournalists.
Because if they went along for the attack, certainly they had some warning the attacks were going to happen.
Right?
They didn't just get thrown on a motorcycle the moment the attack started.
So they must have known a little bit.
So they do seem a little complicit, or we worry that they could be.
So the AP and Reuters and CNN, a number of them have used the same embedded photojournalists, but it turns out they might have been a little bit more pro-Hamas than we thought.
But I'd like to point out that, speaking of Kamala Harris, if you were to do a Venn diagram of of our media and then a Venn diagram of the terrorists, there'd be a little bit of an overlap.
A little bit of an overlap.
So that's all I'm saying.
All right.
I would like to turn on my sarcasm filter.
What I read next is what I just posted this morning.
But I'll tell you in advance, it's sarcasm, so that you can enjoy it all the way through.
It goes like this.
Do you remember the time you saw the list of totally reasonable demands that the Palestinians have made of Israel?
Do you remember seeing that list?
You know, the list.
The list of the total reasonable demands.
You've all seen the list, right?
You know, it was a list that didn't rely on some sort of historical narrative.
Yeah, it wasn't that list.
It was the one that didn't seem to try to fix the past, but just sort of focused on what's real and in the present.
You remember that list?
Yeah, it was a very constructive starting point for conversation, and I thought, hey, that's a good step toward a permanent solution, that list of totally reasonable I'm not talking about the terrorists, I'm talking about the reasonable Palestinian people with reasonable demands.
So you've all seen the list, right?
What's important about that is that it's the most important document in the world.
If you think that the Middle East might spark a larger world war, I mean, it's the most important document.
So we should probably, you know, all refer to it.
You know, go Google it and take a look at it.
And once we have that, that would be a good step forward.
Because you want to not deal with the terrorists, of course, everybody agrees with that, but the reasonable demands of the Palestinian people, you know, the part where they need, I don't know, water, electricity, some security, you know, things like that.
The reasonable stuff.
Maybe travel, less travel restrictions, sort of stuff.
What?
Well, you're acting like that list doesn't exist.
How could that list not exist?
It's the entire news.
The entire news cycle assumes that exists.
How could it not exist?
When I printed my sarcasm, published it, somebody immediately went in and said, no, Scott, there is in fact a very specific list of the reasonable Palestinian objections.
Number one on the list is that the Israeli leaders who were part of war crimes against the Palestinians be punished.
So what I said, that list that does not include historical narratives, I was given a list that has number one on it, an historical narrative.
Your side is bad, and you've got to do something about the badness first before we're talking about, you know, food and water and education and stuff.
But you've got to address your past badness first.
It's like they're not even trying.
Who exactly is trying?
Literally nobody.
Do you know why nobody's trying?
Because on average they both prefer the fight to the peace.
Let me say it directly.
Israel's getting bigger.
Israel just gains land every time they get attacked.
Their narrative and their reason for existing and their justification for a big defense budget, everything.
It's all supported by the fact that they're under continuous threat.
The worst thing that could happen to Israel is complete peace.
Do you know why?
Because they would lose their reasons for not having a bigger Islamic presence within Israel itself.
It's like, we're all at peace.
Why can't we buy property here?
We're all at peace.
Do you think Israel wants to live in peace and lose their, let's say, primarily Jewish character?
I think it's maybe 20%?
20% Muslim.
What is the percentage in Israel right now?
It's a substantial piece, right?
20%?
Or is that too much?
Why don't we know that?
Isn't that like another important thing to know?
If you're trying to understand the area, And you don't know the percentage of Muslims living, you know, happily in Israel.
Somebody's saying 25, 20, 25.
Okay.
So there are a number of people who generally had the right idea in their head.
That's good.
Like I say, you're the most informed consumers of news.
Literally, I think you are.
All right.
So would you agree with my statement that if Israel were in a permanent peace situation, It would be impossible not to lose their Jewish majority in time, because there's such a difference in procreation levels.
Would you agree with that?
I just don't think it's in Israel's best interest to have a permanent peace.
It just doesn't work to bolster the strength of the Jewish state.
And I don't say that as a judgment, right?
That's not a judgment.
It's just sort of an obvious fact.
So, how about the Palestinians?
Do you think the Palestinians want peace more than they want war?
There's no indication of that.
All indications are that they want to die in a war and they don't mind if their children die.
Not much.
I mean, I'm exaggerating, right?
Obviously everybody cares if their children die.
But they're creating a culture that seems to prefer permanent war So they're getting what they want.
So I think that when we look at it from the outside and we say, why can't they make peace?
It feels like, you know, there's not enough work toward peace.
Maybe nobody wants it.
Well, that's an exaggeration too.
Obviously plenty of people want it.
But the people in charge, do they want it?
Do you think the people in charge really want a permanent peace?
I don't think so.
I don't think it makes sense.
And the reason they wouldn't want it is not because they're bad people, at least in the case of Israel.
It would be just sort of common sense.
They get more under these conditions than the other conditions in the long run.
It's expensive in terms of lives.
Scott is admitting to be a supremacist.
What are you drinking this morning?
Somebody's drinking their breakfast.
Anyway, so this mirrors another situation.
Do you remember when BLM first started and I, with great futility, I kept saying, BLM, if you could say specifically what you're asking for, then we could all have this big negotiation and conversation and I'll bet we could solve a few.
You know, and I use as my example, more body cams on police.
Probably that's something the BLM wanted.
More body cams.
And probably, Republicans would be persuaded to say yes.
Because it feels like a win-win.
So I thought to myself, well why don't we make this list of totally reasonable demands.
Maybe you can't do every one, but you know, let's take a bite out of it.
And I very quickly found out that BLM had no incentive to solve anything because the leaders were being paid to be leaders.
They couldn't lead to a solution because they stopped getting paid.
So it was the conflict that was the payoff.
So never try to make peace with somebody who gets more benefit from the conflict than the peace.
It's a waste of time.
Here's an interesting angle on this Middle East stuff.
So the Saudi Crown Prince, Bin Salman, he held a groundbreaking high-level meeting with the President of Iran.
Now, I didn't know quite the history of their situation.
I knew they were obviously enemies in the region.
But apparently it's been a very long time, over 11 years, since the Saudis and the Iranians met at a high level.
Now, I'm loving Saudi's Crown Prince's political posturing.
I don't love his, you know, bonesaw murdering stuff, but I also don't think it's my business.
You know, it's a tough area over there, and there's a little bit of murdering that goes on, and unfortunately, if you didn't deal with people who sometimes did things you really, really don't like, Wouldn't be able to do anything.
So, you know, I'm not going to ignore the fact that he presumably ordered a bonesaw murder of a critic.
Can't ignore that.
But he does seem to be doing productive things in terms of the future of Israel and the region.
And I think there might be something really important that could develop if Israel, I'm sorry, if Saudi Arabia and Iran Could make some kind of accommodation that made them both happy?
I don't know if it's possible.
But the fact that there's any attempt at it at all is kind of impressive.
Because it's sort of the root.
If you could take Iran out of the fight by simply saying, look, the fight's not helping anybody, why don't we Islamic people at least get along with each other, have some kind of accommodation, and we could be a dominant world power collectively?
Why don't we make our region at least a powerful region?
Then when we deal with the rest of the world, we're all dealing together and it could be like one big happy situation.
So you don't have to go Sunni or Shia.
You can stay separate.
But at least when you're dealing with the rest of the world, deal with it as a coherent entity and leave Israel alone because it's just trouble.
It's trouble for everybody.
So if that's what The Saudi Prince is going for, and I suspect he is.
Because I think the Saudi Prince wants to be seen as a senior peacemaker, which would be a real good look, and wants to be friends with everybody in the region as well as America, and he's going to have to do it himself.
It looks like it's a job for one person, basically, if he could pull it off.
Now, here's the interesting part.
The Crown Prince is friends with Jared Kushner, and if he's watched Jared work at all, he's learned some of his persuasion.
My guess, it's just a guess, is that the Crown Prince has more game than you could possibly imagine.
And I think he came by it honestly.
I think he got it through watching the Trump team work.
That's what I think.
I think he learned by watching the Trump team work.
Now, if you haven't heard his latest incredibly awesome idea, and I mean that seriously, that's not sarcasm, one of his ideas is to reinterpret the Koran so that instead of saying you must convert everybody, even by violence, into Islam, he wants to reinterpret that as you must inform everybody about Islam.
So it'd be more of a conversational, informational victory.
As long as everybody knew it, then it's up to God.
Which I love.
Right?
As long as everybody's been informed, then it's up to God.
Let God decide if he wants to turn their souls.
I like that.
Now, what are the odds he can push that and get away with it?
If he controls the schools, it's 100%.
You got that?
Could MBS, you know, the Crown Prince, push something that is such a completely radical reinterpretation, at least to some parts of Islam it would be radical, as long as he controlled the schools?
Absolutely.
Do you think Gaza will ever have schools that are Controlled by Hamas in the future?
No.
No.
There isn't the slightest chance Israel would be dumb enough to recreate that mistake.
They're going to control the schools, either directly or through proxies.
They're going to control the schools.
They don't have a choice.
Israel cannot exist in the long run if they don't get the children trained to not want to kill them all the time.
That's a got to do.
But, so this is a positive thing, and apparently there was a meeting of the Muslim countries over there, actually an Arab summit, and
There were a bunch of groups, about a dozen groups or so, and the ones that wanted to be friendly with Israel, you know, the Abraham Accords plus Saudis, sort of didn't want to go with the majority that wanted to be, you know, sort of an anti-Israel approach.
So already we're seeing that Saudi is being productive in a way that kind of makes sense to everybody.
Like, it does look like You know, he's friendlier to Israel than we've seen before, but I think he's got solutions that would work for everybody in the region, if they pay attention to him.
So, that's positive.
All right.
I would like to offer the Scott Adams solution for Israel.
Now, when you hear this, you're gonna say, that is the dumbest frickin' thing I've ever heard in my life.
That is so impractical, Scott.
You don't understand the region.
You don't know how they think.
You're missing it entirely.
Well, I give it to you anyway, and then I'll sell it.
It goes like this.
So, the people were chanting they want Islam to own from the river to the sea, which of course would make Israel go away in that version of history.
How can you give them what they want, which is that Islam owns from the river to the sea, But also at the same time, Israel exists.
Because those are opposites, right?
Well, really?
Have you heard of Taiwan?
Do you know what our policy in Taiwan is?
Officially, there's one China.
But then we just act like there's two.
Does that make sense?
No, it's a diplomatic solution, which is absurd.
But absurd diplomatic solutions are actually routine, aren't they?
When the Brits had a 99-year lease on Hong Kong, that was sort of absurd, wasn't it?
We're going to rent your country for 100 years?
But basically it was just a cleaner way to make sure that it went to where it was going to go anyway, but with some orderly long-term process.
So it's not unusual to do totally absurd things in the diplomatic realm.
It's just common.
All right, so here's my absurd solution.
For how Israel can exist exactly as it is, and yet, their critics can own everything from the river to the sea.
And it's not moving the river.
And it's not renaming the river.
That's stupid.
It's declaring all of the land is owned by Islam.
This is Israel doing this.
And then leasing it back for a dollar a year for a thousand years.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, who are they even going to be talking to?
Like, what Islamic people even could make that deal?
Well, you could find somebody.
I believe there's some Islamic umbrella organizations that sometimes will try to speak for the region.
So you just find whatever is the most credible one.
You say, here's the deal.
We would like to officially and tell the world that this is Islamic land forever.
But Israel will be leasing it back for one shekel per year for 1,000 years.
Why 1,000?
Well, because in 1,000 years everything's off the table.
Who knows if nations even exist in 1,000 years?
And if in 1,000 years Israel is a vibrant nation that definitely doesn't want to give its land back to the Muslims, it just doesn't have to.
It could just violate the agreement in 1,000 years.
Right?
They just say, well, things have changed.
It's been a thousand years.
So, you know, maybe we don't need this weird diplomatic thing anymore.
So that's my, that's my thing.
Now, if you say to yourself, but Scott, Israel's never going to agree to that.
Well, what's their alternative?
What is their alternative?
They have only bad choices.
So, do you know about, I don't know my history well enough, so you'll have to help me on this, is that the Temple Mount, within Israel, that is considered Muslim real estate, but yet, you know, the security of the entire region is still Israel, so they have some kind of control, but on paper, on paper it belongs to Islam, right?
Is that true or no?
Do I have my facts right?
Give me a confirmation or a fact check on that.
I'm seeing some no's.
But is it close?
Am I just getting some fact wrong?
Is it roughly what's going on?
Some people say yes, some people say no.
All right.
So here's the point.
The point is you can do any crazy thing when it comes to diplomacy.
And if you have a crazy situation, a crazy solution is actually maybe where you'd go to first.
Like, looking for normal solutions to crazy situations isn't always going to be your go-to.
Sometimes you've got to get as crazy as the situation.
Now, would that idea ever be accepted?
No.
There's no chance that's ever going to happen.
But I put it forward Only as an example of how radical you could get your thinking, because the normal thinking doesn't seem to be working for anybody.
So you might as well go to abnormal thinking.
All right, you want another one?
All right, I can sweeten it.
You take a bunch of topsoil from Israel, literally dirt.
Just take just a shit ton of it, because there's plenty of dirt.
And then you build a Palestinian homeland, That's in, you know, let's say Jordan or Egypt or, I don't know, somewhere.
But somewhere that Israel doesn't have to worry about the security of it.
And you literally, you know, spread the Israel dirt where the other dirt is.
And you say, God says this is good enough.
You know, you basically, you got your homeland.
Because what is it that, what is it that determines a homeland?
Here's something from my book, God's Debris.
Some of you have heard it.
If I said, what makes Israel valuable to both sides, you'd say, well, location.
It's the location.
Like, that's a holy location.
And then I say to you, what is a location?
Then you say, well, OK, I get what you're saying.
Everything's relative.
So the location is something that's located relative to other things which are also located.
So you can only describe a location in terms of describing other things and their location.
Do you agree?
There's no other way to describe a location except in the context of the other things that are also in a place.
But here's the problem.
All of the other things are moving all the time.
You're on a planet that's moving through space.
99.99999% of all the things which determine a location just moved.
Oh, they just moved again.
And they just moved again.
Every moment, your location changes not a little bit, but galactically.
Like the entire galaxy is moving within the universe.
The planets are moving within the galaxy.
There isn't almost anything that's staying where it is.
Like even the atmosphere in the region.
The atmosphere, the air you breathe, it's going from country to country.
It's moving.
The only thing that's kind of staying in one place is some of the dirt relative to some of the other dirt.
It's literally about the location of some dirt on earth to some other dirt on earth.
It's not about location.
Because remember, God does not look at real estate as being this block or this zip code.
If you're God, you understand that location doesn't even exist.
There's no such thing as location, to a God view of the universe, because everything's moving.
What would that even mean?
There could only be a location at a moment.
And even time doesn't exist if you're God.
Space-time exists.
So there's only space-time, there's not even time.
So from a God's perspective, our little ideas of what real estate are, are nonsense.
So the reframe that you want is to take people from real estate agent frame, hey, the thing on the other side of the fence belongs to a guy, and it's always been here.
That's the real estate agent frame.
Take it up to the God frame.
Location goes away.
But, if you want to make people happy, we'll give you all the dirt you want from the Holy Land.
We got lots of dirt.
Just take it with you, put a little jar of it on your shelf.
You can pray to it if you want to.
You can say that your holy people walked on dirt like this, so it means something to you.
Yeah.
But if you want to take it up to the God level, location disappears.
And then you can have a conversation.
So why is it that people are trying to satisfy God by talking about real estate like a real estate broker?
Maybe if you're trying to satisfy God, you should talk like God would look at it, in which case there's no location.
As long as everybody has access to visit the holy sites should be enough.
But I don't expect that to solve anything.
All right.
So some expert I guess it was a publisher of the New York Sun wrote a big piece about the situation in Gaza.
But here's the thing that the closing sentence here It's time for the international community to recognize what many Israelis and some Gazans have already learned.
For the foreseeable future, Israeli control of Gaza will bring the best possible outcome for basically everybody.
But he says before that, after a generation of indoctrination, it will take decades to reverse the culture of hate that Hamas and the Palestinians' authority have meticulously cultivated.
So, remember my prediction.
It would be ridiculously stupid for Israel to attack Gaza, meet some objectives in terms of destroying Hamas, and then turn it back over to the Palestinians to run it.
That would be the dumbest thing they could do.
And is Israel a really, really dumb country?
Do they do a bunch of dumb things when it comes to their security?
Not really.
Not really.
No.
So they're never going to be dumb enough to give it back.
And as soon as you realize that, the sooner the shock will start wearing off.
There is no Gaza anymore.
It's not, I mean, whatever it will be.
And by the way, Israel said that directly.
Before they went into Gaza, they said, we're going to change the reality of Gaza for 50 years.
I think one of the generals said that directly.
We will change the reality for Gaza for 50 years.
In other words, It's not going to be run by Muslims for 50 years.
At least, I don't see how they could possibly do that.
There's a story that the Israeli president held up a copy of Mein Kampf, Hitler's book there, and he said it was found in a Gaza children's room used by Hamas.
I'm sorry, I think it was a hospital room or something.
I don't know.
But the idea is that people in Gaza are reading Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.
Does that sound a little too on the nose?
A little too on the nose?
Do you know Scott Ritter?
Scott Ritter, I think he's always dealing with the Russians.
He takes the Russian side on the Ukraine-Russia war.
I think he takes Russia's side on everything.
But even Scott Ritter says, he goes, the Israelis are not good at this.
Meaning that it's such obvious propaganda that they're not good at it.
Do you know what my take was?
If you're talking about it, they're good at it.
Scott Ritter, you don't understand propaganda.
I'm talking about it.
That's all anybody's going to remember.
They're going to remember that somebody said Hamas is reading Mein Kampf.
That's all they'll remember.
They're not going to remember that Scott Ritter said it might not be true.
Now, is it true?
I don't know.
Does it matter?
Well, it matters in the propaganda war.
And I would say, whether it's true or not, it worked.
It totally worked.
Because once you get that connection in your head, it's just sticky.
So it actually doesn't matter.
If six months from now, the news runs a story of correction, it turns out that book was planted there by an Israeli soldier to be found later.
Would anybody care?
No, you would never reverse the initial impression that Mein Kampf is something they're reading, the Hamas people.
So no, that was totally successful.
Elon Musk was talking about the situation.
He said, you know, of course he's pro-peace and wants to have a negotiated settlement.
And he says, if you kill somebody's child in Gaza, you've made at least a few Hamas members.
And then he went on to explain That if the idea is to reduce the number of Hamas, you have to be very careful.
If killing people gets you fewer Hamas, then maybe that's a strategy.
But if killing people gets you more Hamas, that's not a good strategy.
Do you agree with Elon Musk?
That the killing probably produces more Hamas, and therefore it's counterproductive.
How many would agree with that statement?
No.
Yes.
Come on, weigh in.
Yes.
No.
Yeah, you're not too sure about this one, are you?
I get some no's, some yes's, some no's.
Yeah, you're all over the board.
Stop at being correct.
Yes, but.
Yes, but is the correct answer.
But here's what I would add to that.
There are exactly three situations that guarantee you have more Hamas.
So these are the three things you want to avoid.
And see if you agree with the three, that all of them will increase the number of Hamas.
Number one is if Israel did nothing.
Would that increase or decrease the amount of Hamas?
I'd say increase.
Because that would show that Hamas was succeeding and winning, and probably they could do a lot of recruiting on that.
So that would increase it.
Suppose Israel, instead of doing nothing, they do a little bit.
They do a little.
Now, a little would be somewhat similar to the way they've been operating before.
So a little would be, you do some hard hits, you do some bombing, you know you haven't really touched the tunnels, you know you haven't degraded them much, but you're playing tough.
You're showing that if you hit us, we hit you back.
That's a little.
Would that make more Hamas or less Hamas?
More.
Guaranteed.
Because now they've got the bombing in their territory.
It's like, hey, they're bombing us.
Join Hamas.
We'll fight them.
So you can't do nothing.
That'll create more Hamas.
And you can't do a little.
That will get you more Hamas.
But what if you did a lot?
And that's sort of what they're doing now.
They're doing a lot.
Does that get you more Hamas?
No, that probably gets you more Hamas.
Because they'll be all worked up, they have better recruiting because you're killing so many.
You're killing innocents, babies, their families become Hamas, right?
So you've got three situations.
You can't do nothing, you can't do a little, and you can't do a lot.
So what do you do?
What is the rational thing to do if you can't do a little, can't do nothing, and you can't do a lot?
And guaranteed those things won't work.
What's left?
Well, one possibility is do everything.
I said do a lot, but that's not everything.
What they're doing now is a lot.
But is it everything?
Let me tell you what everything would be.
Everything would be keeping the displaced Hamas and Palestinians in some place where they control the school system.
They build them some good schools.
They build them some good medical facilities, maybe paid for by the region, not Israel.
And they just run it for two generations to make sure they've deprogrammed the children for two generations.
And then you see what you have.
Just see what you have when you're done.
Do you think they will go that far?
To absolutely just turn it into a separate place?
Maybe even leave Gaza unoccupied?
Have complete control over the population?
And just essentially write them off for two generations while you're training the children to not hate people?
I don't think they could do that.
I don't think they'd be able to do it.
It's like too big a job.
But what else would work?
And if they did that, it would turn into a weaker situation.
It would look like a prison camp.
And so that probably wouldn't work either.
So even doing everything probably wouldn't work.
So what do you do?
What's the most rational thing to do when nothing's going to work?
I'll tell you what I think.
Unfortunately, The most rational thing to do for Israel is to do whatever makes them mentally whole again.
In other words, they're not fighting an enemy.
It's a mental health experiment.
Now, it's also, you know, reducing their immediate risk.
But it's primarily for mental health.
I think that you could not live in Israel unless you knew your army had just frickin' wiped out whoever did the October 7th thing.
I think for the mental health of Israel, the military has to go hard and that nothing else would work.
And that does Israel have, let's say, the moral and ethical right to cure their mental health by killing, you know, boatloads of people?
I say yes.
Because the situation wasn't created by them.
It was created by the population that would lose boatloads of people.
I think the argument is Hamas has already killed their kids.
You know, if you turn your kid into a future terrorist, it's just a matter of time.
I mean, their life isn't going to be that good.
So, you know, it seems like Israel is more of a mop-up operation for people who are effectively already dead, if you're talking about the weaponized children.
Now, that's an exaggeration, of course.
But yes, everything's messy.
There's no clean, ethical anything.
But if you create a situation in which your enemy you've attacked, their best, smartest, medically acceptable thing to do is to destroy your population, it's probably going to happen.
Now, as much as I think Elon Musk He doesn't really have a workable preference.
I'm okay with that.
Because I think he knows it.
On some level, I think he knows it.
But if you're a leader at that level, and Musk is an unelected leader, but he's a leader just the same, you should always be in favor of peace.
And that should be the first thing you say all the time.
That's good for him.
So I'm very much in favor of Musk playing both sides of this.
And just saying, hey, you know, both of you all the time try to make peace no matter how hard it is.
And people like me who are, you know, less of a leader, I can tell you a more realistic thing, which is, I don't think there's a way to win.
It looks like a permanent situation to me.
Because both sides want it.
Well, let's see what else has happened.
Bill Ackman, Went after Biden hard, saying what a lot of people are saying, that he should just retire.
Bill Ackman, you know, a very notable Democrat supporter, rich, rich guy.
So it matters that he says it.
So every time you see a new person say it directly, you know, you feel the initiative is building and building.
It'll be easier for anybody else to say it after that point.
All right, so Trump has a radical immigration plan in which he wants to round up all the four million immigrants that came in under Biden, put them in large detention camps, awaiting to be expelled from, I guess, the country they came from.
And that would include people who had been settled in our country for decades.
And he'd go back to, you know, all the Trump policies about immigration, etc.
And the way he would do it is he would deputize local police and National Guard troops that volunteered from Republican-run states to be the force that would get this done.
What's your take on that?
Excellent idea?
Round up four million people and put them in prison camps?
I tell you, I go back to my earlier comment.
If Trump would just stop talking, he would so easily get elected.
Just stop talking.
This plays exactly into his enemy's hands.
What is the number one thing that they're going to say?
He's Hitler.
What is the number one thing you don't want to do if people are calling you Hitler?
Say, let's put 4 million people in large detention camps.
I don't think this could be worse.
Now, does his base love it?
Oh yeah, the base loves it.
But he already won the base.
The base was with him all the way.
Do you think he picked up one extra vote because of this?
I'd say no.
Because nobody was going to vote for Biden to secure the border.
So basically, he had already won every single person who wanted better immigration control.
He already won every single one of those votes.
But was there anybody... Actually, I'll go back to Bill Ackman.
Bill Ackman said on X the other day that lifelong Democrats are coming to him and saying they're planning to vote for Trump.
Lifelong Democrats.
Because they can see that Biden has just lost the scent.
Now, you know, that's anecdotal.
But don't you think that there are lifelong Democrats who are very much thinking about just this one time.
You know, you get Trump to close the border.
And then Trump does the only mistake you could make in this situation.
He goes too far.
It's the only way you could make a mistake.
All he had to do is just wake up in the morning and eat lunch, and he'd be the President of the United States.
Really?
Just stop talking.
Right?
But did anybody think he would stop talking?
No.
I mean, it's not realistic.
The thing that you like about Trump is that he continues to say whatever he thinks is the best idea.
He just, he'll say it.
Now, you can love it and hate it at the same time.
From a political strategy standpoint, I think it's a loser.
Unless he's so sure he's going to win at this point, but I don't know.
A little early to be that sure.
Here's what would have been the better play.
Just be as silent on that as you can.
And just say, you're going to fix it.
Just be silent on it.
Because remember, he said he would deport the, I don't know, 21 million people who were here illegally the first time he ran?
And the first thing he did when he got in office was, well, that looks hard, so let's not do that.
But he used it to sell the idea that he would be the toughest on immigration.
So at the time, I said, well, that's a good opening offer because, you know, you can negotiate that away.
And then, sure enough, he negotiated it away, which is what I preferred.
I preferred him to negotiate it away.
Now, is this just that same play?
Is he doing the same play where he really doesn't mean this?
But he's got something now to negotiate away, so he'll seem like a moderate.
Given that the number one attack against him is that he's going to be Hiller, and that he tried to take over the country and take away your democracy, you don't want to be anywhere near detention camp.
You don't want to be near it.
But part of this is also he would get back to blocking some Muslim countries from immigration.
He could sell that.
Do you think he'd have any trouble selling the blocking some Muslim countries, not all of them, but some of them from immigration?
Yeah, he could get away with that.
Because October 7th and the Israel situation, that just sort of settles that question, in my mind.
So to me, this looks like a mistake, but I'm willing to reassess this.
Like, we'll see how it goes.
But I feel like he just played directly into the hands of the other side.
So no matter what you think is the best policy, I don't think it's the best politics.
All right.
Mayor Adams, Eric Adams of New York.
I guess he's under some legal scrutiny for something his campaign may have done.
And here's one of the first things that we hear as his potential transgressions.
You ready for this?
So this is what Eric Adams, now remember he's a Democrat, but he had turned on the question of sanctuary cities, and so he had become very Republican-like in his criticism of the way immigration was being run.
So he was a bad Democrat if he happened to be Biden.
Right.
But Republicans were probably saying, you know, there's a lot of there's a lot about you that we like, Eric Adams.
You know, like you're not being crazy about this.
So you're actually being like like a normal person who would try to stop crime.
And, you know, like what's going on here?
So, of course, he immediately, coincidentally, he immediately becomes under fire from his own administration, DOJ.
And here's an example of something terrible he's alleged to have done.
All right, listen to how terrible this is.
Very terrible.
So there was, I guess the Turks were building some kind of new facility in New York City, and they had finished the facility, but it needed some kind of temporary certificate of occupancy from the fire department.
You know, just a little legal thing that was tripping them up.
They wanted to open.
Everything was done.
They just needed the fire department to say yes, and it was taking too long.
So, Mayor Adams takes that call, or I don't know, it might have been email or something, but the communication, and then he reached out to the person who was in charge of that part of the government, the ones that could handle it, and asked them to look into it.
Then that part of the government looked into it, And the building's already built, and the Turks had asked for a faster response.
The mayor had said, look into it.
And then they looked into it, and they said, yeah, well, we can do this.
And they completed it.
And then the Turks got their approval.
So I guess he needs to go to jail, doesn't he?
What are you talking about?
How horrible that the government was responsive to Well, residents.
Residents in the sense that this Turkish facility was right in the city.
Now, I don't know, this might be the first time you've ever heard this, but what Eric Adams did is exactly what you want your politicians to do.
It wasn't a little bit sketchy.
It was perfectly down the center of exactly what you want your elected officials to do.
I, myself, As a younger man, once asked my state senator to look into a delay in another big government entity that was bothering me and a bunch of other people.
Long story.
The senator wrote a letter to the government agency and said, hey, what the hell's holding up your, it was an approval.
It was also an approval.
So it was an approval that was being delayed for something that was important to big population.
And the senator sent me, I mean his staff, sent me a copy of the letter and I looked at that.
I remember this is the most American I've ever felt, except for jury duty.
I recommend everybody do jury duty.
It'll make you feel very American, like, you know, being part of the system.
But I get this letter from my senator that says, yeah, we talked to that department and we asked them, like, what the hell is going on?
And I looked at that like, really?
I was a complete nobody.
I was just a person who had an issue, and it was an issue that the Senator wasn't aware of.
And as soon as he became aware of it, he said, yeah, this looks like it should be looked into.
So did the Senator order the other department to do something?
No, it wasn't even their ability to order them.
He simply said, I'll look into it.
Can you explain why this is delayed?
And do you know what happened?
The government agencies sped up and they approved it.
I'll never be able to tell you the details of this story.
Probably one of the most useful things I've ever done for the world was that.
I actually sped something up that really needed to get sped up.
As just a citizen.
With no power whatsoever.
And the system worked perfectly.
I had a problem.
Talked to the person in charge.
Person in charge says, what's going on?
Problem solved.
Now, that's what Eric Adams did.
He did what my senator did.
He took a constituent's complaint.
Sounded reasonable.
He didn't know all the details, but said, hey, look into it.
And then it got solved.
Now, some people say, but Scott, That took the Turks and put them at the top of the list, you know, is that unfair?
To which I say, I don't know.
Were the Turks the only people who could contact the mayor?
They're the only ones?
This is what you should do.
You contact your government when you have a problem, and then they see what they can do.
I don't know, it just makes the Turks look smart to me.
That's all I see.
I see the Turks are smart.
End of story.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, You have now been witness to the greatest live stream on this Sunday.
I'm going to say bye to the folks here on YouTube.
