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, Rep. Burchett, Kevin McCarthy, Senator Mullin, RFK Jr. Barefoot, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, Adam Johnson, Matt Petgrave, Billie Eilish, Democrat Nikki Haley, Social Media Name Verification, Single Family Home Purchases, President Xi, AI Nuclear Weapons Control, San Francisco Homeless Relocated, Trump Trial, Mayorkas Impeachment, Glenn Greenwald, Celebrity News Never Real, Abortion Support, Big Lie Version 2.0, Bill Pascrell Jr., Soros Prosecutors, Alex Soros, Vivek Ramaswamy, Israel Hamas War, Justin Trudeau, Canada Hamas Importation, UN Gaza Schools, 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.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels, you know where I'm going with this, don't you?
Levels that no one's ever seen before can't even be expressed in human words.
Well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled Oh, that's so good.
That's some good sippin' right there.
By the way, a lot of people ask me for my pronouns.
It's called simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
That's some good sipping right there.
By the way, a lot of people ask me for my pronouns.
I prefer disgraced.
So if you're thinking about that, disgraced.
So a video of something shooting sideways across the sky that could only be a UFO, probably aliens from another dimension.
Or it could be number 6,523 fake videos of UFOs.
6,523 fake videos of UFOs.
It's one of those two things.
It's either 6,423 fake videos in a row, and it's another one, or possibly beings from another dimension.
So, So, put your money down.
This is the funnest day of news.
It's going to sound like I'm making this up.
That Representative Tim Burchett accused Kevin McCarthy of giving him a sucker punch in the kidneys.
As Birchette was doing a live interview to the news and apparently, I think Birchette had voted to vote out Kevin McCarthy.
And allegedly, I mean I wasn't there, but allegedly McCarthy elbowed him in the kidneys so hard while he was on live TV that it caused Birchette to actually try to chase him down the hallway to fight.
And then McCarthy acted like Nothing happened, or it was no big deal, or he's blowing it out of proportion or something.
And I'm thinking to myself, that happened?
That's a real thing that happened?
That a member of Congress was assaulted while giving an interview by the ex-Speaker of the House?
Did that actually happen in the real world?
Well, that's the most outrageous and crazy thing I've ever heard of, and there's no way that two things like that could have happened yesterday.
I'll tell you, that's one of those things that happens once in a million years.
Well, did you see the congressional hearing in which Senator Mullen challenged the Teamster president to a physical fight because of something the Teamster representative had said previously?
So they decided they were going to stand up and go fight, but it was stopped by Bernie.
So Bernie Sanders, I guess, was in charge and he banged his little gavel and he stopped it.
Now, have you ever seen men pretend they want to fight, but really, really, they want you to break it up?
You've seen that, right?
Oh, I'm so gonna fight!
I'm so gonna fight!
Unless, you know, unless somebody holds me back.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Oh!
Oh, I wanna heal!
Oh, I'm gonna... Let's go outside!
Let's go outside right now!
Don't hold me back!
Oh!
Oh!
Oh, I'm being held back!
Oh, great!
Great!
I so wanna go outside, but now I'm being held back!
I can't tell you how much I wanna be in a physical fight right now.
If only I could!
I'm not being held back!
So here's what actually happened.
And I'm going to tell this literally, but I'll use funny words to describe it.
But it's accurate.
Senator Mullen really wanted to fight, but he was prevented by an octogenarian with a tiny hammer.
Oh, oh, I wanted to fight so badly.
But I had this octogenarian with a tiny hammer, and he hit that The gavel down and I'm like, oh no, tiny hammer, that's gonna stop me.
So I really wanted to fight until the octogenarian with the tiny hammer weighed in and then what could I do?
What could I do?
I had to back down.
Yeah, those are two stories that happened in the real world that you live in.
Now you might say to yourself, is this a sign that everything is falling apart and society is crumbling?
No, no.
It's a sign that the news has finally turned funny.
Like it always meant to be.
We don't need all this war and killing.
We need more like this.
I would like to see our representatives duke it out.
Or at least pretend they're going to duke it out and be held back by 80-year-old guys with tiny hammers.
That'll work too.
It's just as funny either way.
But I, for one, welcome this new combative Approach.
So what else is happening?
I guess TMZ had a big scoop where it showed RFK Jr.
walking barefoot on a plane, going to the bathroom and back.
And people said, my God, a future president walking barefoot on the plane?
We cannot have this.
This is so bad.
Who would do this?
Whoever walks barefoot in a plane.
And RFK Jr.
cleverly used it to get attention.
So he did a funny video where he's sitting in the airport with a full suit on.
And he says he'd never do that again.
And then they pan back and he's barefoot in his suit.
Very good.
Very nicely done.
It's very hard.
It's really tough for a politician to do an intentional humor skit.
And have it work.
Now what he did was he kept it simple, right?
Keeping it simple was what made this work.
So the joke was just they panned out and he was barefoot.
So all he had to do was deliver like a straight line.
Oh, I'd never do that again.
And then it worked.
Totally good execution.
And then he put out a little meme that said, no shirt, no shoes, no Secret Service protection.
That's actually pretty funny.
No shirt, no shoes, no Secret Service protection.
Well, I mean, it's funny unless somebody attacks him.
So, RFK Jr.
for the win.
There's a little drama over at the Daily Wire.
Candace Owens has her views on the Hamas-Israel situation, which are a little bit at odds with Ben Shapiro, and I guess Ben Shapiro didn't mind saying that in a public gathering of Daily Wire people and somebody caught it on camera.
So it makes me wonder, how long does Candace Owens last at the Daily Wire under this specific situation that Ben Shapiro thinks she's Spreading bad information about Israel.
Can you survive that?
I would love it if she did.
Because I would rather see the conversation be brought up to another level.
I mean, wouldn't you love to see Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens have a little podcast together now?
I would.
And I'll tell you what would be the outcome of that.
Ben Shapiro would probably provide some historical context that Candace needed.
Candace would probably say, thank you for filling in those gaps.
And then they would be too smart, capable people who went on with their lives.
It could turn out really well.
So I think there's a play here where Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens make us all smarter.
Right?
I mean, nobody gets all the facts right.
You know, maybe Ben Shapiro does.
He is kind of an outlier.
So maybe he does.
Maybe he gets all the facts right.
But the rest of us don't.
So, there's nothing wrong with Ben Shapiro straightening you out once in a while, whoever you are.
You know, we all need a Ben Shapiro sometimes, just to tell us what we missed.
Make it positive.
I like the drama.
I like the fact that Ben Shapiro said, was willing to say directly to the staff what he thought.
I like that Candace Owens is Candace Owens.
Talk it out.
Could be good.
In the what could be more ridiculous category, you know the tragic story of hockey player Adam Johnson who was, how should I say it, another player Lifted his skate and seemed to thrust it into Adam Johnson's neck, which killed him.
He actually died on the ice, tragically.
And today the story is that the player who did that is going to be arrested and charged with murder.
So now, a part of the story that's important, just because it's 2023 and this is the way we talk about everything, Is that the person who died was white and the person who is arrested for murder is black.
Now, as you know, that would be sort of not playing into the most popular narrative of all news organizations.
They like the George Floyd situation where you take a thing that happened one time to one person in the most totally unique situation And you try to make that seem like it's a representative of the whole.
Oh, George Floyd represents all violence against black people.
Which of course it did not.
It was exactly one situation of which I've never heard one like it.
It's not exactly like anything I've ever heard of.
But we like to generalize it.
If somebody's got a narrative that says, oh, let's generalize this once-in-a-million anecdote and try to make something out of it.
But when the reverse is true, and it would look like a black man killing a white man, again, let me stress, it's as anecdotal as the George Floyd thing is.
There has never been another situation of a black hockey player killing a white hockey player.
There probably will never be another one.
So to imagine that it represents anything, it doesn't.
It literally represents two people in a tragic situation.
But how differently they are treated.
One gets a statue and it becomes the biggest story for years.
And the other one, you won't even believe this.
One news entity Instead of showing the perpetrator's face, or even mentioning the name, they're actually not mentioning the name of the famous hockey player who was arrested.
Not even saying his name.
They're not showing his picture, because that would be a bad narrative.
But worse, one entity, one of the news entities, showed a stock photo of a white person being arrested and handcuffed.
I mean, just hold that in your mind for a moment.
They tried so hard to avoid anything that could be turned into a negative narrative, which, by the way, I agree with.
I do not think they should allow that to be turned into some statement about black and white people, because it's not.
No more than the George Floyd was.
It's about one person.
We are infinitely unique.
It doesn't mean anything if one of us does something.
But the wild level that they would go to to not show a picture of the perpetrator who is a professional hockey player.
It's not like some private citizen and nobody heard about this thing.
So you want to give them some privacy?
It was in all the news until he got arrested and then they scrub it out.
So the ridiculous level is off the chart there.
Well, singer Billie Eilish She was in the news because she was bemoaning.
That's what you say when you don't like what somebody said.
They're bemoaning.
Isn't it kind of insulting to say somebody's bemoaning something?
It's like, oh, I'm moaning.
Why can't they just have an opinion and they're saying it?
Are you really bemoaning?
Are you really complaining or are you just describing a situation?
So I'm going to defend Billie Eilish because I don't think that's the right way to characterize it.
It was just an opinion.
But what she says is that being a woman in the public light is a perpetual war.
And she claims that men do not get similarly scrutinized for their body.
Is that right?
Men do not get similarly scrutinized for their bodies?
Oh, let's ask Chris Christie.
Hey, Chris Christie.
Has anybody ever said anything that seemed a little negative at all about your body type?
I think so.
Has anybody ever said anything negative about my physicality?
Are you fucking kidding me?
How about every day?
Literally every day.
Yeah.
Everything.
You know, height, your hairline, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You name it.
How often do... Let's see.
Let's check the headlines.
Let's see.
There's a headline about Will Smith where he's accused of having a small penis.
That's actually in the news today.
That's actually in the news.
Now, by the way, I'm not saying it's true, because the source is very undependable.
We'll get to a completely undependable source, but that's in the news.
So if I check the news, I see Chris Christie being called overweight, I see Will Smith being humiliated about something that's probably not true in the first place.
It seems universal.
Do you know why Billie Eilish doesn't know that men are continually scrutinized for their appearance?
Because nobody gives a shit about men.
Am I right?
You don't even notice.
Insulting men is such a baseline activity that it doesn't even catch your attention.
But at least women, when you insult them for their physicality, at least they make some news.
It makes some news.
For men, it's just business as usual.
You have no idea.
Let me say this to you, Billie Eilish.
And by the way, I'm defending you for, I think this news report is a little rough.
But, and this is not an insult.
This is almost a universal statement.
Wouldn't you agree that men have no idea what it's like to be a woman?
Everybody agree with that?
Men?
You know you have no idea, right?
Not even the slightest idea what it's like to experience life as a woman.
But do women have any idea what it's like to experience life as a man?
It's the same.
It's like, you know, can a white guy know what it's like to experience life as a black guy?
No.
No, there is no way you can do that, and vice versa.
So, Billie Eilish, I think you have a A blind spot about men.
But I appreciate your opinion anyway.
If you haven't seen it, I've got a pinned tweet on my top 10 holiday gifts.
I have this idea that the best gift recommendation is stuff that you've owned for a long time and you don't have any economic interest in.
Isn't that the best recommendation?
Because I hate a recommendation where there's a new product and then somebody opens it up and talks about it.
Because new, you really don't know anything about it.
I mean, you've got to use it for a year before you know if you hate it or love it.
So I gave you ten recommendations of things, two of them are my books, but the other eight are just things I own and have owned for a long time, such as my Coffee warmer and a thing that I use to fill up my tires and a bunch of stuff you might be interested in that just makes good gift stuff.
And people ask me what kind of electronic drum set I use and people ask me what kind of equipment I use for podcasting.
So both of those are there as gift ideas.
You might know somebody who wants to be a podcaster.
Might be a teen who wants to just get into it or something.
And you could buy them a little... I show you What to get for the minimum setup.
So you might like that.
Alright, here's a question for you.
How many Americans say the economy is not on the wrong track?
Let's see how smart you are.
You could probably get this within, I don't know, a few percentage points.
But according to Fannie Mae, what percentage of Americans Don't think we're on the wrong track.
Very good guess.
Very good guess.
78 said we're on the wrong track.
So, 100 minus 78 is 22.
22, exactly.
Yeah, nearly a quarter of people.
It's amazing that you could guess that.
Like, are you all geniuses or something?
How do you always know the answers before I even ask you the question?
It's shocking how smart you are.
If you're new to this live stream, I hope you're impressed about the other people watching.
Look how often they got that answer right.
Pretty good.
Pretty good.
Well, once again, more confirmation that the economists for over a year or so were saying there's going to be this big old recession and hard landing, and that's what the experts Pretty much by consensus, we're saying there's going to be some recession-y thing, and that you wouldn't see inflation dropping down fast enough to save it.
But now the current opinion is that we're expecting a soft landing, and inflation is way too slowly, but is coming down.
And the stock market responded to that.
Now, this is a case again of Scott beats the experts.
Can you remember anyone except me predicting that we would have a soft landing or we'd do fine?
Did you hear any other person making that prediction a year and a half ago?
I'm the only one.
I don't think I heard even one person say that we'd probably make it through fine.
Best prediction of the year?
So I do have the best economic prediction of the year.
If you can find somebody else who said the same thing, then I'll give them credit.
But I don't know anybody else who said the same thing.
So, put that on my permanent list of what I get right and what I get wrong.
I'll remind you I don't get everything right.
But there are some categories that I get right more than often.
More right than often.
The things I get wrong Are things that are purely political, because that's not my domain.
So for example, when somebody picks a vice president, I'm terrible at guessing that, because that's just purely political.
There's too many things behind the scenes that you don't know about.
You can't really predict that.
But I'm pretty good at telling you when a mass hysteria is a mass hysteria, because that's one of my domains.
I'm pretty good with economics and business, because that's my education and background.
And if you see me get out of my domains, you should Immediately lower your impression of my predictions.
So when I talk about UFOs being fake, that's my domain.
That's well within my level of good guessing.
So I'm probably right about that.
That the UFOs are fake.
But what else is going on?
So Nikki Haley trying very hard to completely destroy any chance she would have to be president.
She's saying of Vivek, you know, Nikki Haley and Vivek are going back and forth, and she said in a podcast that Vivek might have a girl problem.
In other words, his problem criticizing Nikki Haley is because he's a sexist.
Who says that?
That's Hillary Clinton.
Do you know who doesn't say bullshit like this?
A Republican.
How do you run as a Republican by acting like a Democrat as hard as you can?
Now, is that my only example in which he's acting like a Democrat?
No.
She seems quite willing to fund the forever wars.
Now that's unfortunately, you know, sort of the military-industrial complex.
So that's neither Democrat nor Republican.
But you know what it's not?
It's not purely Republican.
So her military opinions fit both Democrat or Republican.
You know, there's a big majority of both.
And now she's got this girl power comment that is pure Hillary Clinton.
And that's the opposite of Republican, honestly.
It's just the opposite of Republican.
And then, now she's got this idea that every person on social media should be verified by their name.
And all the platforms should show their algorithms.
Here's what Elon Musk said to a news report that Nikki Haley wanted Everybody to be verified by their name, so giving up privacy on social media.
Musk posts, super messed up, she can stop pretending to run for president now.
I think, god damn, he's just so good at using his own platform.
It's kind of crazy that he's good at this.
Right?
He's good at too many things.
It's kind of bothering me.
Musk is.
He's just so good at a lot of things.
But the fact that he'd be good at building businesses, but also good at the small communication chunks.
You shouldn't be so good at so many things.
That's a lot of things to be good at.
Anyway, I think he summed it up.
There's no way you could take her seriously as a Republican candidate.
Would you agree with that?
Even if there's something you liked about her, would you agree that she's out of the race now?
As soon as you go sexist, remember I called this out early.
I called her out as a sexist early.
It was obvious from the beginning.
There's no way you're going to put a misandrist, someone who's got a feeling about men, there's no way you're going to elect that as a Republican.
It's literally as close to the opposite of being a Republican as you could possibly get.
So what's the Republican part?
She wants more government restrictions on social media, and she wants to spend her money on wars, and she wants to complain about woke bullshit.
She's not even close to being a Republican.
It's crazy.
How could she even be in the conversation?
I don't understand it.
Well, I do understand it.
You know, women are always going to support women.
And you know, I get that.
Everybody wants somebody that's on their team to do well.
All right.
Here's a, you know, the big money companies are reported to be buying up single family starter homes all over the country.
And I didn't know how big this trend is, but apparently it's beyond enormous.
Now, what do you make of the fact that the big hedge funds and the big money people are buying up massive amounts of private homes?
Now, the starter type that you can rent.
Now, what do you make of that?
Why would they do that now, when home prices are so high?
Why would the smartest money people buy the assets that are wildly overpriced, it looks like?
Because real estate's really high compared to ability to buy.
All right, I'm going to give you a financial look at this that you haven't heard before.
And it's also going to tell you what to do in your own financial situation.
All right, number one, real estate is a good inflation hedge.
Would you agree?
Because the price of a physical asset will move with inflation, as long as people still want it.
And people will always want housing.
So if you put it in anything else, it could be risky.
But homes, you know there's going to be a shortage of them.
And you know that people will rent them.
It does look like a safe place to port money.
But do you think they're doing it just because it's safe?
And just because it's a potential inflation hedge?
That's not enough.
It's not enough.
Here's another reason to do it, so this will be a little lesson on business models and how business people see stuff.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems in America is all the red tape and regulations about getting anything done in business.
You've heard Elon Musk talk about the size, if you put all the regulations he has to satisfy from every country, if you put them in a pile it would be the size of the ceiling.
Imagine that in the world of building and construction and the 50 states and their different recommendations and they just get tighter and tighter and it's harder and harder to build.
I built my own home in my town and by far the hardest part was getting it approved.
And why was it a problem to get it approved?
Was I building some kind of strange, crazy, dangerous house?
No!
It wasn't really any reason.
It's just that the process, the paperwork, is just so unbearable.
You can barely get it done.
So, the other thing that's brilliant about this is knowing that paperwork and complexity is increasing, so it's really, really going to be hard for somebody to build new homes.
So they're predicting, I think it's a prediction, that the government will be so incompetent that it won't allow enough home building to satisfy demand.
Is that a smart bet by the smartest money people in the world?
That the government will remain incompetent and maybe even get worse and therefore the supply of homes can never keep up with the demand?
That's a good bet.
That is a good bet right there.
So you've got the inflation hedge, and you've got the fact that the supply and demand are kind of perfect, because it's hard to imagine a situation where the government suddenly improves to the point where they're like, oh, these are all unnecessary regulations.
Let us spur development by getting rid of these.
It's just not going to happen.
There is a stronger reason for buying single person homes, and I've never heard anybody say it, and in my opinion it's the strongest reason.
And here it comes.
Robots can't own property.
That's everything you need to know about the future of investing.
Robots can't own property.
But you know what they can do?
They can take your Hourly wage, job, and will.
So if you're working for a salary and your main economic engine is working for a paycheck, you're in serious trouble.
But, if you own any kind of property, you have an advantage that no robot can meet, and we hope the government will keep it this way, that robots can't own property.
So owning a home you can rent Guarantees you have something that humans will want in the future.
Because, you know, real estate is limited, and now housing is limited, and robots can't own them.
So if you own something that somebody has to rent, because they have no choice, they gotta live, then you've got something that's robot-proof.
If you're working for a salary, you are not robot-proof.
You're very vulnerable to robots.
So, if you're hugely rich, you buy single-family homes.
What do you do if you're not hugely rich?
Well, here's how I would orient my thinking.
Orient your thinking toward ownership.
Toward getting a hold of an asset.
Now, in the context of a business, it might be that you own trucks that people rent to do something.
You might own assets that no robot could ever own that get some job done.
So think in terms of a physical thing you can own that doesn't depreciate.
Real estate actually appreciates in value while you can depreciate it on paper.
It's the ultimate.
So look for things that don't depreciate, can be rented, and could become your future financial thing.
I mean it might be, you've seen these little homes now.
They can kind of deliver and just plop in one place, and maybe it's $100,000, but then you can rent it.
I would look into that.
If you can pull together enough to put an ADU in the backyard, that might be your only income at some point.
So think about that.
Now, working against it is that maybe nobody will have any money to rent anything.
But think about the robot future.
Make sure you own something because robots can't own something.
That's the only defense.
Now, the way I do it is owning an intellectual property.
So I own the rights to Dilbert.
But, you know, at some point I suppose the robots and AI will write a comic that's funnier and free.
So I can't last forever.
But I do think ownership is going to last for a while.
All right.
President Xi has arrived and there's some video of him showing off and I thought it was, you know, you should be a little bit more polite if you're visiting somebody's country.
So President Xi is visiting San Francisco and the video of him arriving shows him at the top of the steps from his airplane and then she is walking down the steps and it's gross.
It's gross.
Let me do my impression of him walking down the steps and I'm like really put off by it.
It goes like this.
Hello, everybody.
Hello, everybody.
And I'm sickened.
I'm sickened by it.
Because to show off like that in front of our president, our president who can't walk on the downstairs, and he's like, look at me.
I can walk down the stairs.
No problem.
Look at this.
And I'm like, oh, that's so gross.
That's so gross.
You could be a little bit more polite as an invited guest.
I would expect You know, if it had been me, I would have slipped a little bit.
You know, because you like to make... You've seen our leaders visit other countries, right?
And sometimes they'll even wear the local ceremonial clothing.
I mean, he should have at least, like, slipped on the third one, like, oh!
Oh, good.
And then we could do some pacing and leading, and then they could make a deal.
But I think he blew his big chance there by just walking down the stairs.
Apparently they've already agreed on some kind of limits on using AI on the nuclear weapons arsenal.
And people are saying it might be a bad idea.
To which I think, restricting AI from deciding to launch nuclear weapons might be the simplest decision any human ever made.
Why are we arguing about that one?
You know, first of all, it should be obvious.
I can't imagine any country would want to put AI onto their nuclear weapons in a way that would make them launch themselves or be unpredictable.
So I guess that's an easy one.
Now, as you know, the streets of San Francisco were cleaned up.
You may not know that the homeless and also all of the excrement from the sidewalks, they were They're temporarily moved to Oakland.
And once President Xi is gone, then the homeless will be repatriated back.
They'll take the feces and return it back to the sidewalks of San Francisco, repatriating the feces.
And that's the plan.
Now, that was literally a joke I wrote yesterday for my comic Robots Read News that you can only see on the Locals platform.
I saw a tweet today that suggested they really did move the homeless to Oakland.
Can anybody confirm that?
Did anybody see a news story in which in the real world they actually moved the homeless to Oakland?
I just want to make sure that really happened.
And you know why that would be funny?
Because it's the only place you could move them that's close that they couldn't walk back.
Because you can't walk over that bridge.
So they're putting them on the other side of the bay.
If they put them anywhere in the South Bay, they would just walk back.
So they had to make it hard.
Anyway.
More details on this Trump trial about the valuations of his properties that the government or the DA says he overvalued.
So Don Jr.
has testified now and I guess the accountants have or will testify.
But here's where that trial is going.
It won't be clear who came up with the estimates.
Because I think the Trumps are all saying, well, we didn't come up with that estimate, or that was just conversation.
And then the accountants are like, well, we don't come up with estimates.
We just take your word for it.
So it's actually that so far the trial has been unable to identify anybody who came up with the estimates.
Where did they come from?
The most basic fact in the trial is, who came up with the estimates?
And they don't seem to be able to determine that.
So what do you do if you're trying to decide on the merits of the case, and they can't determine where it even came from?
Because if it came from the accountants, then the Trumps are innocent.
If it came from Trump, it would depend how he said it.
Was it just an opinion, or did somebody hear him say something once and made too much of it?
Rose says, Rose Blindstein, Scott, this isn't smart.
Well, Rose, when I want to know what's smart, I ask you.
So please do tell me.
Or you could just act like a Democrat and say there's something wrong with me instead of the content of my discussion.
All of my trolls this morning seem legitimately drunk.
Like actually, literally, just drunk.
You should see the comments I got this morning.
Every one of them I could just say, drinking?
And they'd just stop.
Because I think that's actually, literally, I think that's what's going on.
I didn't talk about this when it happened, but I'm still blown away that the The attempt to impeach Mayorkas for his bad handling of the border failed.
And it failed because some Republicans, I guess eight of them, decided not to.
What exactly was the argument for not impeaching him?
Did anybody even have an argument?
Somehow I follow the news and never saw anybody say why they voted to not impeach him.
Because to me that's just a slam dunk.
That's the most obvious impeachment I've ever seen.
Now is it just because he was following orders?
Maybe.
Maybe because he was following orders?
I don't know.
That one just baffles me how that went.
I suppose that's a follow the money situation, right?
Is that one of those you assume corruption?
and some of the eight Republicans?
Yeah, you think the cartels bought off the Republicans?
Here's what I'd say.
If you've seen news reports in which the Republicans who voted against it gave you a reason for it that sounds like a real reason, even if you don't agree with it, does it sound like a real reason?
Because I don't know that anybody offered a real reason, did they?
Oh, it was trivializing impeachment, is that what it was?
This doesn't look trivial to me.
To be the open border and the destruction of the United States is like a peak of concern.
Anyway, I don't understand that one, so I'm going to assume corruption.
Poor Glenn Greenwald, by refusing to be on a team and just calling things like he sees them, he's getting quite a bit of pushback.
So, I guess he's insufficiently pro-Israel, so he's getting a lot of pushback.
Anyway, I told you there's the Will Smith rumors, but the bigger part of it is that his former assistant, who's allegedly his former best friend, claims that he walked in and watched Will Smith as, let's say, the recipient of some vigorous gay sex.
Now, What have I told you about celebrity news?
Can you tell me?
What have I told you about celebrity news?
It's actually never real.
It's so far from being real that your opinion of this story should be that you didn't hear any story at all.
The quality of the credibility of this story is in the category of things that never turn out to be true.
And in fact, Will Smith is threatening to sue him for saying it, which would be sort of a baller move if it were true.
Now, I'm not saying it couldn't be true, but that would be true of every human being.
There could be something they're doing that you don't know about and don't care.
And by the way, let me say as carefully and clearly as I can, I don't care.
Apparently he was behind a locked door.
That's the accusation.
So if it were true, it would have no meaning in any of our lives.
It would just be his personal life.
So I don't care about it.
But I'm going to back Will Smith on this one and say that you should assume it's not true.
And it's because it's in a category of celebrity public figure accusations that generally are not true.
You can usually bet against them and be correct.
So I don't know what's true.
But I'm definitely going with innocent until proven guilty on this.
I'm pro Will Smith on the don't believe accusations.
Like that.
Now in this case it comes from a named source.
So that gives it more credibility.
But I'd certainly wait to hear at least one other source.
This is the type where if you're two or three people who are close to him say, yeah, you know, we all knew it or something like that, then maybe, but one person who doesn't work for him anymore, which gets you to potentially disgruntled, we don't know.
And he's getting a lot of attention for it.
That's a, you know, that's a red flag.
So I would say, don't believe this one.
Target, It has a new Santa Claus you can buy.
So if you'd like to get a little Santa Claus decoration, they've now got one that's super inclusive.
It's intersectional.
They've got a black, disabled Santa.
Black, disabled Santa.
Well, black's fine, but disabled?
Now, you're starting to stretch my disbelief.
I already find it difficult to believe the Santa Can fit down the chimney.
I mean, already I've got a problem with it.
I don't know about the math of getting to every house in one night.
The flying reindeer, especially the one that can light the way with its glowing nose.
I believe all of that stuff.
Alright, I believe all of that.
But, how do you get a wheelchair down the chimney?
That's too far.
Too far.
Now you're starting to make me question whether Santa's real at all.
Alright.
What do you think about the issue of, I think this was Erasmuson, about abortion?
Apparently there's a 10-point advantage of Democrats in, quote, handling abortion.
Do you think abortion is going to be a big A big topic for this election?
Or do you think that kicking it back to the states takes it a little bit off the at least the federal level?
I don't know.
I think it's going to matter.
I think it's going to matter a lot.
But we'll see.
It is probably the biggest thing that Democrats have an advantage on.
All right.
21% don't think abortion will be important.
21%.
That's getting pretty close to one quarter.
All right.
So the big news is you can now tell what the Democrats' approach will be to the election in terms of Trump.
If Trump is the nominee, they're preparing what I call the big lie version 2.0.
I'm going to see if I can label it that.
I'm going to try to make that a thing.
The Big Lie version 2.0 is, first of all, you know that the Democrats said that Trump had the Big Lie.
And the Big Lie was that the election was rigged.
So that was their branding.
But of course, for Republicans and people who are not brainwashed, the Big Lie was the insurrection claim itself.
And the claim that Trump is a dictator by nature and had no intention of turning over power no matter what, And that he was basically Hitler-invading.
So they're starting to roll the sound again.
So here are the early signs.
So there's Bill Pasquale Jr.
He's a congressperson in New Jersey, I think.
And he actually tweeted this with a picture of like a tank with a Trump sign on it.
He goes, Donald Trump is openly planning to impose a military dictatorship.
Really?
Where is he openly doing that?
And put tanks in the streets against his enemies if he sees his power again.
I'm going to post this repeatedly so no one can say they haven't been told.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't one of the charges, maybe it's not anymore, against Trump that he, quote, incited violence on January 6th.
Isn't that a thing?
That you can get in trouble for inciting violence?
Is Bill Pasquale Jr.
not inciting violence by lying and saying that it's obvious that Trump is going to be Hitler?
Calling somebody Hitler, if you mean it, like you're not just exaggerating in an obvious way, this suggests he means it in a literal way.
If you're telling somebody that a politician who has a good chance of being elected, likely to be actually, if you're telling half of the country that he's literally Hitler, as opposed to in some hyperbolic way, you're inciting violence.
How else can you see it?
This is basically telling Democrats it's okay to kill Republicans.
That's how I take it.
If they were to believe this to be literally true, and he's selling it as literally true, he's very careful to make sure you know he means literally.
Right?
If that's the actual message, and it looks like it is, that is inciting violence.
I don't see any other way.
He should be immediately Impeached.
Is that not grounds for impeachment?
He's literally, he's trying to create an insurrection.
He's literally inciting an insurrection in a way far more than Trump did.
I mean, Trump never came close to this.
Would you agree that Trump never came close to this level of inciting violence?
Fair?
Is that your opinion as well or am I going too far on that?
To me it's obvious.
These are not even in the same ballpark.
Trump was literally saying protest peacefully.
Like literally in those words.
And here he's telling you that this Hitler-like dictator is going to have tanks in the street.
What would be the reasonable response if you believe this were true?
The reasonable response would be violence.
If he got elected.
Before then it would be, you know, vote against him.
But you're setting it up for if he wins and the polls say he will, you're basically giving the green light to violence, because everybody thinks that violence against Hitler is appropriate.
Everybody.
Alright, so that's the Big Lie version 2.
Now, here's how the Republicans, and Trump in particular, should respond to the Big Lie.
There's three things that don't work.
I'll list those first.
If they say you're going to be a dictator and take over the country, here's what doesn't work.
Ignoring it.
Doesn't work to ignore it.
Does not work.
Number two.
Saying your side is worse.
You're the real Hitlers.
Does not work.
Because the other side is completely, you know, they can't hear you coming from the Republican side.
The third thing that doesn't work is being extra nice so that it's really super obvious you're not Hitler.
Doesn't work because the other side controls the media.
So they'll just invent things that make you look like Hitler even if you're the nicest person in the world and you did the most anti-Hitler things you could ever do.
Won't make any difference.
There's only one thing that can work.
You have to mock this bullshit out of existence.
You have to mock the January 6th people who believe that Republicans take over countries without bringing guns.
You have to mock anybody who thinks that trespassing is the first step to an overthrow.
You have to mock anybody who thinks that delaying a process in one building for one day somehow takes over a country.
You have to mock them for thinking that having alternate electors somehow is a takeover of the country.
You have to mock them for the fact that Don Jr., according to the documents we've seen on January 6th, was completely unaware that there was some kind of insurrection planned.
Don Jr.
If there's one fact that you can take to the bank that proves there was no planned insurrection, It's Don Jr.' 's private messaging in which he very obviously was not part of any kind of even conversation about some kind of an insurrection, right?
If you know Don Jr.
didn't know about it, it wasn't there.
That's the minimum.
The minimum would be for President Trump to get Don Jr.
on the same side.
You can't even imagine a scenario in which he would try to take over the country and his son was on the other side.
That's ridiculous.
So this whole thing is so stupid that you should mock it in a hilarious way, much like RFK Jr.
mocked the coverage of him going barefoot.
You cannot take this shit seriously.
You have to make them look like clowns for pushing the worst thing.
And the other thing is, can you name what Trump did in the first term that qualified as the Hitler dictator?
What was it?
The only thing it was, was the thing that the Democrats did, which was try to turn January 6th into something it obviously wasn't.
That's it.
And if they had not rescued their narrative on that last day, just think about it.
They called him Hitler for, what, five and a half years straight?
And then he did no Hitler things, and their narrative had gone to zero because he's going to walk out of office not doing any Hitler stuff.
But they got him.
On that last day, they twisted the news to turn it into Hitler stuff, when clearly it was the opposite.
But they controlled the news enough that they could just, you know, grab out that one, you know, last Hail Mary.
But they did make it work.
They did make it stick.
So mock that shit.
All right, there's another Soros prosecutor who got defeated narrowly in, where was it, Virginia.
And I told you that my Soros-backed prosecutor, where I am, Pamela Price, there is a recall petition that's going around.
So there is some pushback.
But let me ask you this.
Have you ever seen an interview with Alex Soros asking him to explain the thinking behind the open borders and the DAs?
I haven't.
So now that Sam Bankman-Fried is out of the political picture, that would make the Soros the number one donator to the Democrats, doesn't it?
So don't you think that the leader of the number one Democrat donor and the person who is most responsible, we think, for the border disaster and the destruction of American cities.
Now just hold this in your mind.
I've never seen him interviewed.
Not with a serious interview.
I think I've seen them on a friendly, where they didn't ask him anything serious.
But have you ever seen him answer the question, how are these liberal DAs and the open borders, how's that working for America?
And what is even the thinking behind it?
Just defend it as a political strategy and explain it.
That is the biggest dog not barking I've ever seen in my life.
Now, I'd like to think, That the right-leaning media has been trying very hard to get him on camera.
And failing.
You can imagine that he would never take an interview at Fox News or Breitbart.
Would that be fair to say?
There's no way he's ever going to.
But he might do an MSNBC hit.
Because it's just going to be a friendly.
So, here's what Trump and Vivek should demand.
I'm throwing Vivek in there because he's the best communicator in the race and I'm endorsing him.
They should demand that Alex Soros sit for a real interview.
In fact, it could be even with Vivek.
Wouldn't you love to see Vivek say, look, Alex Soros, you're one of the biggest players in the country?
And we have a disagreement, but we've had no conversation about it.
I invite you to my podcast to explain why what you're doing is good for the country.
And I would almost ignore what the other Democrats said.
You know, if you were Trump, let's say you got the nomination, or Vivek, let's say you get the nomination, I think you could say there's no point in debating Biden because he's dead.
But I'd like to do a debate with Alex Soros.
Just imagine that news hit.
I want to do a debate, but not with Biden.
I want to do it with Alex Soros.
Because our biggest problems are directly related to Soros.
They're not even directly related to Biden.
So I don't want to talk about the person who's not in charge.
I want to talk about, you know, money is in charge.
Right?
The money person is always in charge.
So I want to talk to the person in charge.
I only want to debate Alex Soros.
Just imagine, imagine the news coverage of that.
I only want to talk to him.
Because nobody else matters in this conversation.
And why is that missing?
Like why isn't that happening?
I don't know.
It's like a big mystery to me.
The most important question from the most important player, and nobody's even asking him.
Nobody's even asking him the question.
All right.
Israel apparently is making progress at the El Shifa Hospital in Gaza.
We don't know the details and never will because it's fog of war, but they seem to be making inroads in a very large compound.
There are lots of civilians there.
It won't be pretty.
It will not be as surgical as you wish it could be.
But I do think that they're doing their very best because the entire world is watching.
And anything less than their very best would be, frankly, unacceptable.
But it does look like they're doing it.
Now I'll tell you one other thing I'm feeling watching the Israeli response to this.
Now even though you can criticize why they got caught off guard and they didn't see the attack coming earlier, that's a fair set of questions.
But since then, I believe what we've observed is some of the highest level of just sheer competence.
And it's making me feel good.
Now, not about war, and not about what's happening in Gaza.
You can't feel good about that, of course.
But I feel good that I'm seeing people display high-level capability and competence.
Today we learned, you know, Joel Pollack is over there reporting, The most dangerous job in the world.
I can't believe he's over there.
But he's talking about how the harvests have been left because I guess the Gaza workers couldn't be there to harvest it.
But the citizens of Israel have actually organized and from all walks of life are showing up in the fields and they're harvesting.
So even the harvest is happening.
Can you imagine that happening in America?
Could you imagine America being so well organized that we could get citizens to leave whatever they were doing, probably even retirees and students and everything else, and that they would meet in one place and they would pick the fruit because they were all on one team?
It's hard to imagine in America, but we're not under that kind of threat that also drives you together.
So I'm going to say that simply watching Israel handle this politically, persuasion-wise, strategically, militarily, is really heartening.
Like I'm just seeing high-level capability.
In all those areas.
And it just feels good that humans can do high-level stuff.
Just feels good.
But we'll see what's happening over there in those tunnels pretty soon.
I saw Dave Rubin criticizing Justin Trudeau.
Because Justin Trudeau is calling for a ceasefire, I guess, which makes him look to many people a little bit too pro-Hamas.
And Dave said this about Justin Trudeau.
He said, Justin Trudeau is an evil communist piece of shit.
Also, he should just come out of the closet already.
Now, I'm not going to compare Mike Gaidar to Dave Rubins.
I will allow that his gaydar might be stronger than mine.
So I don't have an opinion.
I'll just say he looks like the gayest person I've ever seen in my life.
That doesn't mean he is and there's nothing wrong with it and it's not a criticism.
But if he is gay, I feel like he does have a responsibility to maybe be a little bit more forthcoming about it.
So I'm not saying he's gay.
I don't have any special insight in that.
I'm not saying that that would be a problem.
In fact, it'd be kind of cool to have a gay leader just so we can get that over with.
Just get it over with.
Can we just get past it?
So it'd be great to have a gay leader sooner or later.
I don't care about that part.
But if he's in the closet, as Dave Rubin says, and it certainly looks that way to me, why not just come out?
Everybody's going to be cool with it.
It's not going to be a problem.
If that's the case.
We don't know that's the case.
Anyway, here's my take on this.
I think Trudeau is foreshadowing a massive importation of Hamas supporters into Canada.
Because I don't think you can be that friendly to the Hamas civilians and then say we're not going to let you come into the country and help you in your dire situation.
So he's either painted himself into a corner where they will have to accept a lot of refugees or he would look like a hypocrite and that's not ideal.
So I believe he's now created a situation where the design of the Canadian government guarantees that they will fall.
By design.
Because if their design is to bring in people whose attitude is anti-democracy, anti-Canadian, what do you think happens?
What happens always when that group of people, whoever it is, from anywhere, the people who are anti-government, if that group gets big enough, well, it doesn't have to be 80%.
At around 10%, it's too late.
Because Islam has a really good system that allows it to grow and reproduce and procreate and gain power over time.
And it's a pretty solid system.
But if they don't get 10%, they can't do that.
But it looks like Trudeau is on the path of being a safe space for all Palestinians.
Which on paper sounds like the greatest, kindest humanitarian thing, but in practice might get you a lot of Hamas supporters on our border.
So, no joking aside, we need to get serious about building a border with Canada.
Vivek is totally right about this.
As shocking as that sounds, Canada is designed to fail.
So I'm not saying something strange could happen.
I'm saying they're designed to fail.
They've created a structure, the woke structure, that guarantees the importation of people who will destroy their system.
What would stop it?
Name anything you see happening that would stop this from happening.
Canada falling.
There's nothing.
It's designed to fall.
So let's treat it seriously.
I saw a bunch of video of Palestinian children talking about the education they're getting from the United Nations.
So the UNRWA, UNRWA?
Do they pronounce it?
UNRWA?
But apparently, I didn't know this.
So the United Nations must have been providing schools for the Palestinians.
And the children were all saying, without prompting, They all said that they're being taught to kill the Jews and the children say, I want to stab them again and again.
I want to become a suicide bomber.
So you think your schools are bad?
You think that your kid isn't learning to read and that's bad?
Well, that is bad.
But over there, they're learning to be suicide bombers.
So if you want to look at it on a relative basis, your kid learning not to read is way better than their kids learning to blow themselves up.
Way better.
So you got that going for you.
Why in the world is the UN allowing that?
Is it because the UN also agrees with it?
Is it because they don't manage it well?
Is it because the UN sets up the structure but the teachers are all locals so there's nothing they can do?
What is it about this that we can't stop this where somebody doesn't stop it?
So, but I'll tell you what the UN has done.
They've made it easy for Israel to kill as many children in Palestine as is required to get the job done.
Because everybody's playing the, don't kill our babies, you kill more babies.
No, you kill more babies.
No, you kill more babies.
But you kill more babies.
The whole war became who kills more babies.
So whoever could get an excuse to kill more babies has an advantage.
And the UN is actually running cover for Israel.
They don't mean to.
But if the UN is going to teach the Palestinian children to become suicide bombers, You tell me how sad I should be if those kids get killed.
There, I said it out loud.
You're not supposed to say that out loud, right?
But, you know, I'm cancelled, so... Now, my preference is that no babies are killed anywhere.
You got that?
My preference is there's no war anywhere.
And the last thing I'd want is for any children to be killed because they're the ultimate innocence.
But the UN is making it easy.
The UN is providing Israel with all the justification anybody would need.
Now, historically, children can never be combatants, but they are weaponized.
They have been weaponized.
Yet, let me tell you this.
Ethically, if you saw a 10-year-old child running at you with a suicide vest, And it was the 10th time that month a 10-year-old with a suicide vest came running at you.
Could you blow their head off?
Of course.
Would it be unethical or immoral?
Nope.
Nope.
It would be horrible beyond belief, but completely ethical.
Self-defense.
So I don't know where the line is on killing innocents, but the UN is certainly moving that line to make it easier.
Which is not good.
It's just, it is.
All right.
There's some talk, but I don't think it's confirmed, that there's some negotiations about a three-day truce that may produce 50 hostages.
I don't believe anything about any of that.
It's not confirmed by Israel.
If you were Israel, would you do a three-day stand down to get 50 Hostages back?
I think the offer is designed just to make it difficult for Israel to banish public opinion.
I think that's what it's about.
So Israel's best play would be to treat it like there was no offer at all.
Now might that get 50 hostages killed that wouldn't get killed otherwise?
There is no way to know that.
No way to know it.
So if you don't know it, sometimes it makes sense to see if you can do it.
But if Hamas wants you to stop for three days, it's because they're in bad shape.
So I feel like I would say no to the offer.
Because first of all, you don't know if it's real.
You don't know if 50 of them are even alive.
You don't have any proof of life.
I wouldn't take the deal.
Would you?
I would counter with, If you give all of them to us, we'll consider talking.
But probably I would just destroy them after they give the... I mean Hamas knows that, I think, if they give all the hostages back, they're going to be fully destroyed.
But they also know if they don't give the hostages back, they'll be fully destroyed.
I think.
I think they know that.
So all they could be getting would be some kind of a You know, some kind of reprieve for three days and I don't know, it's probably just to get the leaders out of the tunnels.
So I would say no to that if I were Israel.
We'll see what happens.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the finest live stream you've ever seen.
I'm going to say thank you to the YouTube people.
I hear that a Michigan judge just ruled that Trump is allowed to be on the ballot.
Yeah, the effort to keep Trump off the ballot, apparently they're failing.
