Episode 2310 Scott Adams: CWSA 12/02/23 Don't Miss My James Carville Impression, Pre-Trumpers, More
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, Vivek Ramaswamy, Psychological Slavery, Immigration Policy, Babylon Bee, Elon Musk, Disney, John Fetterman, Nate Silver, Ivy League Schools, Pre-Trump Voters, Federal Abortion Ban, Tucker Carlson, Visual Persuasion, Governor Newsom, Brainwashing Industrial Complex, Michael Shellenberger, J6 Committee Data, Bill Maher, Bidenized James Carville, Fine People Hoax, Israel Hamas War, Grok AI, 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, the best thing you've ever experienced.
And if you want to take it up to levels that nobody will ever achieve again.
Well, all you need for that is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tankard, shells, or stein, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hint of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Savor it.
Go.
All the way to my bones, I've I feel this coffee in my toenails.
Mmm, feels pretty good.
Pretty, pretty good.
Well, I've got a show for you, and it's got a theme.
The theme will be revealed as we go along, because they're better with a theme.
But first, top of the news, Vivek Ramaswamy has coined a new term that I'm going to borrow Which is another word for stealing.
I'm stealing it.
I'll call it borrowing.
And Vivek posted on X today, the left says our race and sexuality govern who you are and what you can achieve.
If you question them, they call you a racist.
This is psychological slavery.
Ooh.
Hello.
Yes.
Yes.
It is psychological slavery.
You're not allowed to say what you think or you will be destroyed in civilization.
It's psychological slavery.
That culture of fear has completely replaced our culture of free speech.
And Vivek says, I am running for president to fix it.
Damn.
Damn.
That is so good.
Anyway.
I saw a graph showing that 45 million immigrants, counting legal and illegal immigrants, make up our country of, I don't know, what are we up to?
380 million or something?
What's the current population of the United States?
380?
350?
It's only a 350?
I thought it was more than 350 now.
It's only a 350?
I thought it was more than a 350 now.
Is that the current number?
350?
Okay, people say 350.
All right, so 45 million of the 350 million are immigrants, legal and illegal.
And, you know, I think the point of the post I saw was that there are too many immigrants.
Now, certainly it's a huge burden on the system to have too many immigrants too quickly.
So it's a flow rate problem.
It's not a question of immigrants, yes or no.
It's just a flow rate issue.
However, I think that the context has to be that, and by the way, this is showing that there's been a huge increase since 1980 in immigration.
Now, what would have happened if there had not been?
Because this is what I like to teach you, with my background in economics, that if you don't say, what would it have been if it hadn't happened?
Would it have necessarily been better?
And would it be just different?
Now, it could have been better or worse.
I don't know.
But here's the thing that we don't know.
Would the population of the United States have declined Without immigration, would we have a declining population?
Or, alternately, a population that's growing but not fast enough?
Because one of the things that Elon Musk is sort of brilliant about explaining to us is that overpopulation is far less of a problem than underpopulation.
Because you can't pay for your old people.
Probably it wouldn't be a problem if old people weren't living so long, but you could have a real big population of non-workers to workers under the current situation.
So really success is a pyramid scheme.
I hate to say it, but the only way you can succeed in the long run is a pyramid scheme, where you're having lots of new babies that have to work hard to pay for the older people.
As soon as you're not bringing in new people at the bottom of the pyramid, the top falls apart too, eventually.
So, let me agree with you who are all screaming in your brains, but Scott, but Scott, it would have been far better to control immigration so we vetted the right immigrants, and to financially incentivize big families.
Would you agree with that?
Would have been better to control immigration, get plenty of it, but control it so you get the right mix.
And then also, you know, financially incentivize the population.
That's good.
I agree with that.
And can we also agree that we should use our time machines to go back in time and fix it?
Who's with me?
Time travel?
Anybody?
My point is, you don't get to compare it to the thing you didn't do, and that you wouldn't have done.
That's not the right comparison.
The only thing I'm saying is that the past is already over.
If you're comparing it to the future, then you want to bring in this, let's do good vetting, let's maybe incentivize families of people who are already here.
In the future, that's the way to go.
No doubt about it.
But you really can't change the past.
I'm just saying, would we be better off if we didn't have 45 million immigrants who came in without as much vetting as we could have had?
And the answer is, I don't know.
I don't know.
If you think you know the answer to that question, I'm pretty sure you don't.
In the short run, I would agree it's bad.
In the short run, it's a burden on the system.
But how many of those people are homeless?
You know, prior to the most recent surge, which is over the top, for 20 or 30 years, how many immigrants became homeless?
About zero.
And I'm going to say something super, super racist, but it's okay because it's about white people.
So I'm allowed to do that.
Have you ever tried to get a white guy to mow your lawn?
I was trying to get a white guy to do some work on your house.
It depends where you live.
It depends entirely where you live.
But I gotta tell you, there's a huge part of the economy that wouldn't work at all without immigration.
Because you just can't get people to do that work.
For whatever reason.
Doesn't pay an offer.
Whatever.
I don't know what the reason is.
But you're not going to get white people to do that work.
They just won't.
They'll just sit around and die instead.
I don't know why.
Yeah.
Good luck with the teenagers.
And in the comments, somebody says, well, you could get the teenagers to do that work.
Good luck.
Good luck.
All right.
Try your way.
Now, I don't know.
So let me be very careful about this.
I don't know that we're better off.
But I think more likely yes than no.
Now, even with all the negatives, of which there are tremendous negatives, I think we're probably down OK in the long run.
In the short run, maybe not.
Last four years, probably more bad than good.
But you have to look at the longer run.
Most of them will have kids who went to American schools and really bought into the American dream.
The immigrants are pretty much more American than the ones who are here.
Let me say that again.
A lot of our immigrants, not all of them, and that's a problem, but a lot of the immigrants, especially the ones coming from south of the border, are more American than the Americans.
They're more American than the Americans.
They want to work hard.
They worship their God.
They're huge on family.
And they want America to do well, because it's their new country.
That's as American as you can get.
And, by the way, they're not woke.
They're not woke at all.
They're not even a little woke.
Not even slightly woke.
You're telling me they're bringing the average down?
I don't think so.
Have you seen the people who are here?
Well, I just want to put some doubt in your mind About the mix and the quality of immigrants and what that looks like in the long run.
Might be more good than you think.
Well, the Disney bashing is at an all-time high.
We have some stats that say the child grooming content on the X platform has reduced by 83% recently.
Wow!
Child grooming on X is down to 83% and that's because Disney pulled their ads.
That's the Babylon Bees joke.
Babylon Bee is just killing it.
The Babylon Bee has gone to national treasure level to the point where you feel sorry if somebody isn't watching it every day.
That's some good stuff.
That is some really good stuff.
So the mockery guns are firing non-stop now.
So yesterday I posted this, because I like to pile on.
I said, does Bob Iger know Disney no longer makes relevant products and their theme parks have all the fun of Gaza during wartime?
So that's what I said.
And I looked at the comments today.
One of the comments on that was from Elon Musk.
And he says, Disney has a major content problem.
Almost their entire upcoming slate is unwatchable.
They're the world's biggest example of go woke, go broke, LOL.
LOL.
Now, is it my imagination or is it now obvious that there's more than one Elon Musk?
There's more than one, right?
Because how do you explain that There are 8 billion people in the world and I can wake up and see the richest person in the world commenting on my post.
That's not possible.
I mean, just consider the odds of that.
That's not actually possible.
He's running the major companies, he's on every podcast, he's commenting to people.
I think AI has already cloned him.
I think there are at least five to seven Elon Musks.
Possibly robots.
Possibly.
No, I don't know.
I'm just making that up.
But I honestly don't know how he does all the things he does.
It just seems like there's way too many things happening in the world where he's the most important player in that thing.
I mean, I get that he's the most important player in space.
I get that.
I get that he's the most important player in social media.
OK, I get that.
But why?
Like, he's also he's also the main person, like, posting on X. How is it possible to do all those things?
Yeah, EVs, etc.
Well, there's some stats that show that TikTok and Instagram are like an order of magnitude worse than X in terms of anti-Semitic comment.
But Why is nothing happening with that?
Is it obvious to everybody that anti-Semitism on the X platform had nothing to do with why the advertisers pulled out?
It's really obvious that it's just political, right?
Everybody can see that?
Now, I get that businesses have to respond to their customers, and it's just one less thing they think they have to worry about.
But do you think that any of these companies are going to do better because they pissed off 45% of the country?
Or whatever is pro-Elon Musk, I guess, or pro-X, or pro-free speech, however we want to put it.
But I'd like to, again, read the names of these companies.
Because these companies are just shit.
On this topic anyway.
I mean, I have no respect for these companies.
These are major respected, they were respected, but this decision is so despicable.
And so counterproductive, I just want to read their names again, so you can hear who's the assholes, right?
Apple Computer, Disney, Washington Post, Paramount, NBC, Marvel, IBM, Sony Pictures, CBS, The Colbert Show, Comcast, Lionsgate, Warner Brothers, and now Walmart.
I guess the president of Walmart was a college buddy of Hunter Biden.
Everything's about who knows who.
If you don't know that part of the story, you usually don't know the story.
That's the real part, is who knows who.
But yeah, these companies got some explaining to do.
I saw a post today that says that Apple iPhone has a, you've been stopped by the police app.
Is that real?
Have you heard of that?
That you can tell your phone, you can talk to the S-I-R-I app, And tell it you're being stopped by the police, just verbally.
And apparently it turns the screen off, but it starts filming and recording, so you can have a recording of it.
The screen is off so it doesn't look like the phone is doing something, but the front camera is working.
And it records it, and it also sends a message to whoever you designate, you know, to tell them that you've been stopped and, you know, just to monitor the situation.
Is that real?
I've only seen one reference to it, but is that real?
I'm seeing a yes.
That's pretty cool.
I would like to remind you that when Black Lives Matter was first protesting, and George Floyd was in the news, and they were looking for solutions for all the alleged police problems with black pedestrians, or black innocent people.
Or some of them being arrested for real reasons, but still.
Wouldn't it have been nice if the tech company said, hey, we could do something about that.
We're working on a product.
But I don't think at any point Black Lives Matter was serious.
I think they were very invested in keeping the problem the problem, because that's how you raise funds for the people who run the organization.
You can't solve the problem.
That would be very economically unwise.
Alright, a number of people on the right are noticing that John Fetterman is making sense and doing things that you would want an elected official to do.
What?
Here's what John Fetterman said about a politician in his own party, about a prominent Democrat.
He said, quote, we have a colleague in the Senate that's actually done much more sinister kinds of things.
And the context was the Santos expulsion.
And he said, he needs to go.
If you're going to expel Santos, how can you allow Menendez?
Remember, Menendez is in his own party.
How can you allow Menendez to remain in the Senate?
Menendez is really a senator for Egypt, not New Jersey.
What?
What?
Who exactly predicted that John Fetterman would do something that is unambiguously positive for the United States while being negative for his own party?
Didn't see it coming.
You know what?
I can see his appeal now.
I never saw it before, but I can see why people like them, right?
Now that doesn't mean I like everything he does, I'm not going to support him for president, etc.
But you've got to call out good behavior when you see it.
So I'm going to go against a lot of Republicans on this.
I actually am kind of happy that there were enough Republicans to treat Santos as an outsider, basically, to vote against him.
And I like the fact that Fetterman is willing to vote against a prominent member of his team.
Those are good signs.
Now, I know some people are saying, hey, you know, the Republicans are acting like losers.
I think Sticks and Hammer made this point.
You're not playing to win if you're going to take out your own person for something that wasn't even a crime.
I mean, at least he hasn't been convicted of a crime.
So it seems like the Republicans were being too hard on their own side and not hard enough on the opponents.
I get that.
I get that.
But you know, they were also acting under principle.
And they were trying to do something that they thought maybe was good for the party in the long run.
Maybe it's good for the country in the long run.
I'm not going to complain about that.
I'm not going to complain about that.
Yeah.
So I'm not going to compare the two and say which was worse.
I'm just going to say that both parties, you know, through Fetterman on one side and the Republicans on the other, have shown a willingness to police their own side.
That's not terrible.
That's not terrible.
Yeah, it could be a lot better.
You know, again, you'd like them to handle Menendez as much as the Republicans handled Santos.
I get that.
Those are good points.
But trend-wise, directionally, to have two prominent instances of people looking at their own team?
Yes.
Yes on that.
Yeah.
No, I get the counter-argument.
I have full respect for the counter-argument that you play to win.
I get that.
But I don't hate the fact that people are trying to do what's right as well.
I don't hate it.
All right.
I saw a Robbie Starbuck post that there's some Christian Tennessee trucking company that got fined $700,000 by the Biden administration for trying to make sure they don't hire illegal workers.
So they were requiring people to show that they were legally citizens of the United States and they're being fined.
Do I even need to add any commentary to that?
Or could we all just say, what?
What?
Is that really happening?
Yeah.
Absurd.
Jumping the shark.
Going too far.
You know, it's one thing to open the borders too far.
It's another thing to say that in American.
Here's my problem with it.
Here's my problem.
I do, you know, I'm a I'm kinder on the immigrant issue than many of my audience, so that's stipulated.
But can somebody give me a fact check on the following question?
My understanding is that if you're an employer and you hire illegals, and you know it, and you know it, that you're in big trouble with the law.
Am I wrong about that?
It used to be the case if you knowingly hired illegals, that your whole company would be shut down.
Now, the way people got around that in the past, do you know how they got around it in the past?
It was not illegal to be fooled by the immigrants.
So as long as they had documentation, which they often do, you know, forgeries and stuff, as long as they had some kind of fake ID that you couldn't tell because you're just an employer, You're not a forgery expert.
So as long as they had something, then the employer was safe.
Because they could say, well, we checked, you know, they lied to us, what are you going to do?
So that was okay.
And that worked, even though it was kind of stupid, but it worked.
Now the situation looks to me like if they try to check using the minimal amount of intrusive investigation, which is, do you have ID?
Whatever they asked for must have been demonstrated they were citizens.
The most basic thing you would ask is, is it legal for me to hire you?
Imagine this.
That the employer can't ask if they would be breaking the law.
If I hire you, would I be breaking the law?
Can't ask that.
Crazy.
Crazy stuff.
Now there might be more to this story than we know.
That's always the case.
But it certainly raises an eyebrow.
Somebody on X-Platform posted a survey, now this was like 20 years ago, but it's relevant today.
And the survey showed that the college majors that were, you know, the really hard ones like chemistry and engineering and physics and all that, were like 90% men.
And that the occupations at the lower level of the IQ spectrum, this was the point made by the poster, not me, that the lower IQ jobs like social worker and teacher and therapist were done mostly by women.
Now, the male-female part of that didn't interest me too much.
To me that wasn't the main point.
But I doubted that this chart could be true in general.
Because it was arguing that the highest IQ people were going into jobs in technology.
And that the low IQ people were going into jobs like teachers and therapists and stuff.
Now that can't be true.
Because this is 20 years ago.
If this had been true 20 years ago and stayed true, what would we see?
I mean, what we'd see is, I mean, if that were true, so obviously it's not true, but if that were true, you'd see these amazing advances in technology.
You'd be seeing stuff like Rockets getting ready to go to Mars, bullshit like that.
You'd be seeing, what else, like artificial intelligence.
You'd be seeing like artificial intelligence, stuff like that.
So if all the geniuses were going to technology, you'd be seeing rockets and AI and shit like that.
And if it were true that the unintelligent people were going to teaching and therapy, I mean, what kind of a world would that be now?
I mean, obviously that didn't happen.
Because you'd be seeing that the school system was totally fucked.
And if you went to a therapist, you're basically a masochist because they don't know anything that you don't know.
And we know that's not the case.
We know our school system is humming along perfectly.
And if you go to therapy, you'll probably be cured by the third session.
And technology hasn't done anything interesting for years.
So, I'm going to debunk that, that the smart people go into those professions, because we'd see signs of it by now.
I feel like we'd see something like that.
Don't you?
All right.
Do you know Nate Silver?
Nate Silver.
He worked for the New York Times before, is that correct?
Give me a fact check.
Before he left, he was in the New York Times, then he went to FiveThirtyEight.
He sold that, and now he's sort of independent.
I always thought that Nate was, you know, sort of a centrist, but maybe leaning a little bit left.
That's the way I always thought.
But, you know, he tried to... I always thought he was a fair observer of the world.
But here's something he's saying today.
On November 30th, he posted this.
If I were hiring right now, I'd prefer high-achieving state school students better than undifferentiated Ivy League students.
Not a remotely close call.
So, undifferentiated Ivy League students.
I don't know what he means exactly by undifferentiated.
But he would prefer a high-achieving state school over the Ivy Leagues, because what we're seeing really kind of suggests their brains are being destroyed by the Ivy League experience.
So I agree.
Now, this is the beginning of my theme for today.
So the theme is going to be this.
I'm introducing a new term.
You know there are people who are anti-Trump and you know there are people who are pro-Trump.
You certainly know that.
And not too many people are undecided.
But there seems to be a new category that I'm going to call pre-Trump.
Pre-Trump.
They're not pro-Trump.
Oh, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Don't get me wrong.
They're not pro-Trump.
But they're not anti-Trump.
They are.
Trump curious.
They are open.
They're open.
They're open to it.
I would put... I'm going to put Nate in that category.
Yeah, I think Nate Silver... I don't want to put any words in his mouth, so let me be clear.
He's not pro-Trump.
There's nothing about him that suggests pro-Trump, but I don't see a lot of suggestion that he's pro-Biden, if you know what I mean.
So I'm not suggesting he might go full Trump, but he feels pretty close to pre-Trump.
A little bit of pre-Trump going on.
You know what I mean?
Let's watch for that.
All right.
DeSantis is On his debate with Newsom, he avoided the question of whether he would support a national ban on abortion.
Do you think that was the right play?
Because Newsom banged him on it pretty good.
Do you think DeSantis should avoid answering the question about a federal ban on abortion?
I say yes.
That's the better way to play it.
And I think, I don't know what Trump will do, But I think he's smart enough to say, let's leave it to the states.
Because leave it to the states is the most consistent thing to say.
So that explains everything, really.
And it's hard to argue with the state has the closest approximation of what the citizens of the state want.
It's the place where you capture their preferences better than at a federal level where everybody gets averaged together.
So it's really hard to argue that you should use a federal average when the states are very different in their preferences.
It's not really a good argument.
Even if you prefer using a hammer to make it illegal, it's not the best argument.
So I think the best argument is leave it to the states.
Well, Tucker Carlson was on the All-in-One pod, and man, can that guy make news.
Do you remember when Tucker was not so pro-Trump?
You remember that, right?
There have been times that Tucker has been absolutely insulting to Trump.
But what is he now?
He's turned.
Now, he went all the way from pre-Trump to absolutely Trump.
So he's a turnaround case, another turnaround.
But he was talking about Gavin Newsom and this is interesting.
It's interesting because I think Tucker is an honest broker, especially about his personal experience.
I think what Tucker is talking about is personal experience as opposed to an opinion.
I think it's always true.
I don't believe he has a lying bone in his body.
I've disagreed with him a number of times, and I've thought he's gotten some things wrong factually.
Just like everybody in that business, right?
That's really saying nothing.
But I've never picked up a whiff, not a whiff, that Tucker ever lied to you about an actual direct experience.
Like I've never seen that.
I don't think that's happening.
So when he says what his direct personal experience is, I always give that more credibility than most things in the news.
And he talks about Gavin Newsom.
He says, one thing I know for a fact about Gavin Newsom, it's really an opinion, it's not a fact, but he says, I know for a fact about Gavin Newsom is he has the capacity to beat a lie detector test.
Which is really good persuasion.
Because you can see the lie detector test, can't you?
You can see the device.
And you see him hooked up to it.
That's way better communication than just saying he's not honest.
You can actually see the device.
That's visual persuasion.
He says, Gavin Newsom's palms don't sweat, his respiration doesn't increase, his body temperature doesn't change.
Nothing changes in Gavin Newsom when he lies to your face.
I don't know.
I watched him in the debate for like one minute, and I told you this.
The moment he looked at the camera and said with a straight face several times that more people were moving from Florida to California than the other way, I said to myself, my God, he could lie about anything right to your face.
I guess he can.
But then Tucker said that it's well understood that California is the most fixed state for politics, meaning that if the people in charge want Newsom to be governor, he'll be governor, you know, etc.
So, I don't know.
I don't know what the evidence of that would be, but I do think that Tucker is closer to that world than I am, so if he says California is the most corrupt state politically, I'm inclined to believe him.
There might be some competition for it, but I'm kind of inclined to believe it might be the most rigged state.
And you know what?
I'd never thought about it that way before.
I gotta honestly say, I just thought that California had lots of Democrats.
To me, I thought that was old story.
But it might be completely non-democratic, according to Tucker, and I can't dispute it, but I'd have to see more evidence before I buy into that point of view.
All right.
And Tucker is talking about how, even when he was on Fox, he was very aware that if you talk against the interests of your corporate sponsors, eventually bad things will happen to you.
Right?
So he would say things about the vaccinations that the sponsors of the network probably didn't like.
So he knew it was a ticking time bomb and he was not surprised at all that eventually he got kicked off and took it completely professionally because it's just part of the deal.
Which I do respect about Tucker, that he took it as a business decision.
It's just professional.
You don't have to hate the people involved.
Right?
I get that.
I respect that.
But that does make you wonder if somebody is taking advertisement from Big Pharma or from TikTok, can they speak as honestly as they might?
Because they don't need to be instructed to not speak out against their sponsors.
Nobody needs to be told to do that.
When I spent every day on livestream saying the Washington Post was fake news, did I know that I would eventually be cancelled by the Washington Post and other papers too?
Of course I did.
I knew it was a risk.
So like Tucker, I had the same reaction to it.
What?
Oh, wow.
Kind of shocking at first.
But I never felt mad.
I didn't feel bad at anybody who cancelled me, because I understand the forces at work.
It was obvious that I was playing with fire.
It's just what happens.
And as Tucker says, and I respect him for this, if you get into this line of work, don't act surprised when things that happen all the time in this line of work happen to you in this line of work.
Like, if you're not willing to accept that as part of the deal, you know, you're in the wrong line of work.
Anyway, different topic.
Here's Michael Schellenberger summing up what we know about what I call the brainwashing industrial complex.
I think others call it the censorship industrial complex, but censorship doesn't quite capture it.
Censorship is more like getting rid of something that they think is untrue or they don't want you to say.
But brainwashing is that plus making you believe things that are clearly not true.
It's way more about brainwashing than it is about just censoring.
Censoring is too weak.
I call it the brainwashing industrial complex or the BIC.
Anyway, Schellenberger says we discovered DHS, Department of Homeland Security, employees volunteering to use PSYOPs and disinformation tactics against the American people.
Is that an exaggeration?
Does the research show that Department of Homeland Security employees volunteered to use psyops and disinformation tactics against the American people?
Yes, it does.
Yeah, yeah, the record clearly shows it.
They blamed social media platforms for Trump's election victory in 2016.
True?
Yes, it's documented.
Absolutely true.
So they used tactics developed abroad by the U.S.
military and turned them against the American people.
Gosh, that sounds like hyperbole.
I mean, they didn't really do this, did they?
Did they really use techniques and tactics used by the military to propagandize other countries and they used it against the American people?
Yes, that's documented.
That's a fact.
They use these tactics in order to change the conversation online and engage in mass censorship, which is what we saw in the Twitter files, Facebook files, and of course, now part of the Missouri vs. Biden case.
Facts.
Absolutely proven facts.
James Baker, the next part I'm not going to read because I think there's a typo in it.
What we saw was an effort by existing FBI agents and former FBI agents to spread disinformation about the Hunter Biden laptop and say outright to the American people that it was a Russian hack and leak operation.
And of course Biden repeated this in the debates.
All true.
All true.
Now here's your test.
Find any Democrat in the United States who is aware of these facts.
Any.
Find any Democrat, any Democrat in the United States, who will say, yes, these are facts.
None.
Partly because it's complicated, and partly because there's enough bold-faced lying that they'll just say it didn't happen.
Well, this happened.
No, it didn't.
Well, we have it documented.
No, you don't.
Well, here's the document.
I don't see it.
Here it is!
Here it is!
Yeah, no, I don't see anything.
Sounds like you're lying again.
What, are you gaslighting me?
Here it is!
Look, look, it's right here!
I don't see anything.
And the Democrats, that works.
That works.
All right.
Do you remember when Trump got interrupted by that NBC hack, Kristen Welker?
And Trump said that the January 6th committee destroyed all the evidence of their investigation.
And she pushed back, oh, there's no evidence of that.
No, that's not a fact.
But now it's confirmed.
They destroyed it all.
Who destroys all of their data from something that's like the most important thing that happened that year?
Nobody.
Nobody destroys it accidentally and nobody does it intentionally unless they're trying to hide a crime.
They're obviously trying to hide a crime.
I'm going to add this to my prediction that Trump would start looking better every day from 2020 on.
That his reputation would rise and you can't stop it.
And here's the reason why.
I think the brainwashing bubble has too many cracks in it.
It's starting to dissolve.
And you're creating a bunch of pre-Trumpers who are saying, I'm not sure this whole story we've been told the whole time is exactly true.
I feel like maybe people lied to me and maybe I was better off under Trump.
Right?
So you can see that all the forces that would cause the pre-Trumpers.
So the biggest force is that every day that goes by, something Trump said that he was, you know, attacked for turns out to be true, and hoaxes that he was blamed for are being debunked over time.
So his reputation It's just rising every day, just one tick at a time.
One news story, one more news story, polls go up, one more news story.
Here's some more.
Well, first of all, let me talk about Bill Maher.
He had some interesting things to say.
He had a good joke at his monologue.
He was talking about the Newsom and DeSantis debate, and he said, at the end of the day, nobody's mind was changed about anything.
What's going to make the difference?
Gavin Newsom is 6'3 with a smile like a movie star, and DeSantis is 5'10 in heels with the forced smile of a serial killer.
Okay, that was perfect.
That was, that was perfect.
Yeah.
Yeah, that was exactly, he summed it up.
That's it.
That's, that was the whole thing.
All right.
So that was good.
So Bill Maher was talking about, he was talking with James Carville and Dave Rubin was there on the panel.
And Trump was talking about how, I'm sorry, Bill Maher was talking about how Trump wants to teach school kids to love America because they're not being taught that.
They might be taught the opposite.
Now, this is a concrete example of somebody who is very anti-Trump, who's now saying something leading pro-Trump, right?
He's definitely not saying he's going to vote for Trump.
So he's not a pro-Trumper.
But is he an anti-Trumper?
I don't think he is.
I mean, there are things he hates, and he may hate him personally.
But he's sort of a pre-Trumper, meaning that it's not out of the question that he would vote for him.
He's not saying he will, and I'm not predicting it, but it's within the realm of possibility.
He's a pre-Trumper.
But it goes further.
At one point, James Carville, in responding to this topic, throws in something that has nothing to do with the topic.
It's just bad for Trump.
So in other words, even Carville couldn't find anything wrong with teaching school children to like America.
Because that was the topic.
What are you going to say about that?
Except that, well, okay, Trump's right about that.
But if you're Carville, You can't say Trump's right about anything.
You can't give him, you know, even one little sliver of positive.
So Carville, instead, he starts melting down.
And it looks like maybe he's lost his step.
I don't know how old he is, but he's not the old James Carville, let's just say.
Let's just say the Bidenization of James Carville has begun.
You know what I mean?
The Bidenization?
Yes.
So, Carville brings up the fine people hoax in Charlottesville, and he wants to sell that as a fact before he makes his next point.
So here's what he does.
He says, as a question, he goes, were there good people on both sides in Charlottesville?
Now, you have to see it to know that he brings this up completely out of context.
He just needed something anti-Trump to throw in.
So he looks at the audience, he looks at Dave Rubin, he looks at Bill Maher and he says, were there good people on both sides in Charlottesville?
Did I hear that?
Here's the best part, he goes, did I hear that or did I make that up?
Dave Rubin, sitting right next to him, Turns to him and a foot away from his face says in deadpan, he didn't say that.
A few seconds later he said, I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Right to his face, a foot away from him, in front of the world.
Now what did Carville say?
Did Carville defend himself and say, oh yes, he definitely said that?
I want to play for you what he did say before I give you my impression of James Carville answering this question.
Right, so there's a little preamble.
I see when I see kids demonstrating, these progressives demonstrating for Hamas, the most illiberal people in the world, that, oh good, we're going to give America its comeuppance, asshole America.
This is, they kind of have been indoctrinated this way.
And Chuck Schumer made a speech this week, he said anti-Semitism is a five alarm fire.
That must be extinguished.
This is the highest ranking Jewish politician we've ever had in this country.
Wait for it.
You talked about when Jewish people hear chants like from the river to the sea.
You understand that means wipe us out by any means necessary.
Vulnerabilities in the party, James.
The Democrats have a big split generationally on this issue.
Wait.
The kids seem to be with the Palestinians.
And the older generation seems to be with Israel.
Well, the kids are with TikTok.
They're with whatever TikTok tells them to be for, basically.
Perfect.
Well, that is where a lot of their... Were there good people on both sides of Charlottesville?
I don't know.
Did I hear that?
Or did I make that up?
Trump said there are good people on both sides.
He didn't say that.
He did not.
Well, he said it for the sentence later.
He said, "I'm not talking about the white supremacists and the neo-Nazis." Yeah, I have to.
It's like, you know what I'm talking about here.
It was badly phrased.
It was inelegant.
Yeah, it was inelegant.
Now, the first thing you need to understand is that Bill Maher backed up Dave Rubin.
When Bill Maher says it was inelegant, he's saying directly he didn't say it.
He's saying he didn't say it.
So here's Carville He's got Dave Rubin, who was born a Democrat, but now I would call him more independent.
And he's got Bill Maher, very associated with the left, and they're both debunking him to his face in front of the world.
So did you hear what Carville's response was when Dave fact-checked him right in front of him?
I'd like to give my impression of James Carville getting fact-checked By Dave Rubin.
First, Dave Rubin.
Well, he didn't say that because a few seconds later he clarified that he was not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white supremacists.
And now James Carvill fact-checked on the biggest hoax in American politics.
Would you like to see it again? - Okay.
Yes, you would.
James Carville explaining his side of his opinion of what Trump said in Charlottesville.
Maybe the finest day in American politics. - How long have I been waiting for this?
How long have I been Trying to get rid of this stupid hoax?
Now, this won't get rid of the hoax, because the people who were sold on it will still be sold on it.
But here's what we do know.
James Carville knows it was a hoax.
We do know that.
Now, you tell me.
Do you think anybody in the audience caught this?
Do you think that the, at least the Democrats who are watching the show, do you think that they caught that?
I don't know.
But maybe a few.
Maybe a few people just became pre-Trump.
All right.
What do you think will happen if Biden dropped out and it's Newsom?
How do you think the match-up would be between Newsom and Trump?
Just give me your first impression.
How would it be as a match-up?
Now remember, Newsom would have the full power of the Democrat machine, which is awesome.
What do you think?
Here's what it feels like.
Imagine, if you will, the biggest complaints about Trump.
What are the biggest complaints about Trump?
Let's see.
He's a lying womanizer, older white guy.
You see where I'm going with this?
They're both six foot three older white guys who have womanizing problems and are accused of being serial liars.
The only thing Biden had going for him is that people didn't yet know he was the bigger liar.
That's all they had.
The only thing they had was they didn't know that.
And of course I'm being superficial because that's how voting works.
On the superficial, what do you feel about it?
Do you think Newsom can get women?
Well, he can get women, that's the problem.
But can he get them to vote for him?
Once the Republican machine turns him into the Harvey Weinstein of politics?
You don't think the Republicans are going to turn Newsom into Harvey Weinstein?
He's going to be the Me Too-er of all Me Too-ers by the time they're done with him.
And if they try that with Trump, people are going to shrug it off.
It's like, okay, we already did this.
We already told you we don't care.
We're way past that.
I feel like, in some ways, I feel like Newsom is the worst match against Trump.
But he does have, presumably, the Democrat machine behind him, which I think is part of their problem.
If Newsom were the best match you could imagine against Trump, and he had the whole Democrat machine behind him, He would already be the nominee.
They would just force Biden to bow out.
I think their lack of an acceptable nominee is the only reason he's still there.
And I think that Newsom is the Unfortunately, he got ripe for the presidency at the wrong time.
Because he got ripe at exactly the time he'd be running against the worst possible choice.
Just the worst choice.
So the problem is that, in my opinion, Newsom is the poor man's Trump.
He's a womanizing, lying, white guy who owns a winery and doesn't think the rules apply to him.
Let me say it again.
Newsom is a divorced, womanizing, lying white guy who owns a winery and doesn't think the rules apply to him.
How's he going to win against Trump?
He's got all of the bad stuff without any of the good stuff.
That's an exaggeration, of course.
Yeah, that French laundry thing will haunt him.
I think that's the least important thing that ever happened, the French laundry, but politically it'll haunt him.
All right, let's talk about Gaza.
So it looks like behind the scenes, this is being reported by an Israeli publication, Haaretz.
So people have different opinions about how much you can believe that publication.
But they're reporting that behind the scenes almost every Arab leader is urging Israel to not stop fighting Hamas until it's destroyed.
I believe that.
I do believe that every leader in the Arab world wants Hamas destroyed.
Because Hamas is their enemy as well as Israel's.
Not Qatar.
Not Qatar?
Are you sure?
I'm not so sure.
I think things are complicated over there.
I think just because Qatar is keeping the leadership protected, it doesn't necessarily mean they want them to win.
Not necessarily.
It's complicated over there.
All right.
The ceasefire is over apparently because part of what Hamas did not do is they'd agreed to hand over all the women and children, and they did not do that, and no Americans.
So clearly, they're gaming the system, and so Israel's saying, all right, we're done with that.
We're pulling our negotiators out, and it's back to war.
Now, some are speculating that they can't release the women because the worst possible reason.
You know what the reason is, right?
When the women are released, they're gonna have stories to tell.
Well, that is a possibility.
Very much a possibility.
But even more than that, they're going to tell stories of... You know.
I'm not even going to say it.
You know what stories they're going to tell.
And Hamas is not going to be benefited by releasing people who tell those stories.
So, and in my mind, Israel has the greenest of green lights.
Because by not releasing the women, They have now activated the deepest male kill switch.
Let me say that again.
If you convince all the men in Israel, which I guess they just did, that the remaining hostages are probably past or current rape victims, you're not just incentivizing the soldiers to fight.
Because they already have that.
You're giving them the kill switch of all kill switches.
As in, if they ever wanted to capture you before, they don't now.
They're just going to kill them all.
And I think, what are you going to do?
I mean, Hamas created this situation.
If you incentivize your enemy to kill you completely, don't be surprised when they do.
So I would say that this is Hamas's biggest mistake so far, is that when you do this with their women, they're going to kill all of you.
They're just going to kill all of you.
There's no going back from that.
And I support Israel 100% on the Hamas stuff.
Elon Musk said about the Tesla's version of AI.
Now keep in mind, Musk has two versions of AI at least, maybe more, working.
There's the Tesla version that's being trained at the moment primarily on video.
So it watches a gazillion videos of cars driving, and just from the video, it gains intelligence on how to self-drive.
So he thinks his is way above, he says it's the best real-world AI.
And it might be, because of the video.
But he also has Grok in beta right now.
So the Twitter platform will have its own AI.
And that's separate.
That's different from the one Tesla is using with the video.
So the Grok AI probably will have access... I don't know.
Do you think the Grok AI will have access to whatever was trained by the video?
Because they are separate companies.
I don't know.
Maybe.
If it did, then I would immediately agree with him.
It's the most powerful AI.
But on top of that, Grok is going to have something that ChatGBT and the others do not have, which is immediate real-time access to Twitter.
Now, here's what you get with immediate real-time access to Twitter.
Grok's access to the reactions of Twitter users is very analogous to your brain's access to your five senses.
Your five senses are what's informing your brain in real time.
Grok will be informed by this body of human beings reacting to real-time stuff as it happens.
That's a body.
More specifically, it's a cyborg, where there's a human element, the users, on X, and then there's a non-human element that may have some control.
Elon Musk has invented the Borg.
It's going to be a collective.
In which there's a centralized brain and all the individuals are feeding into it and then they have access to the intelligence from the main brain that they help create access to.
That's the Borg.
That's a collective cyborg.
It will be an entity of its own.
Logically.
That's so wild.
Now, if you're not a Star Trek fan, the Borg is these aliens that absorb other planets and turn them into, you know, half cyborgs and it's all part of a collective.
But if you take what Tesla can do with video and add that to what Grok can do connected to real live users in real time, nobody else's AI is even in this class.
I think that he's probably two weeks away from lapping ChatGPT and Google's BARD and everything else.
Maybe.
Looks like he's just going to leave them behind.
The Borging Company.
The Borging Company.
That's pretty funny.
I wish I'd thought of it.
All right.
So basically, Elon Musk is creating the Borg, but it's more of a subscription model Borg.
That's the big difference.
It's like the Borg, but a subscription model.
I don't know why that's funny to me.
I think you'd have to be a Star Trek fan to know why that's funny.
It's the Borg, but subscription model.
All right.
Trust me, that was funny.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my excellent, excellent commentary, not to mention impressions that will last forever.
So I like to think that my impressions are as good as my commentary.
Every bit is good.
I'm enjoying being a disgraced cartoonist.
Cancelled everywhere.
So far it's working out for me perfectly.
I don't know if I gave you this update or only I did it in the man cave.
Tell me if this is a repeat.
So I got cancelled February of last year, so it's eight or nine months ago.
And it's kind of a scary thing if your entire career just disappears at the same time.
I'm kind of hard to kill.
So I want to report to you that nine months later, my income has regenerated up to break-even cash flow, which means I can pay my employees and pay my expenses.
I'm at break-even.
But as long as I'm at break-even, you can't kill me.
I'm unkillable.
So if it had been more of a financial disaster, you know, maybe I'd have to disappear and get a real job.
But thanks to all of you, YouTube and especially locals, my beloved locals people, you made it possible by becoming the counterforce to my cancellation.
You collectively, individually formed a protective coat around me.
So that I could continue being the spear.
Because for a lot of you, I become the spear, right?
I'm the one who's poking people that you can't poke, because you're gonna get fired, and I'm willing to take the chance.
So, just know that your plan worked.
Your plan, for me, worked.
You wrapped me in a protective coating, which I could feel on the first day.
On the first day, that protective coating formed around me and has protected me to this day.
