Episode 2313 CWSA 12/05/23: Does Trump Really Want To Suspend The Constitution? LOL, Nothing Is Real
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, John Kerry Fart Allegation, Arlington House Explosion, James Yoo, UFO Legislation, White Male Discrimination, AI Mind Reading, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, Jake Tapper, President Trump, Biden Crime Family, President Biden, Conor McGregor, J6 Trump Charges, Democrat Simon Rosenberg, US Economy Fake News, GDP Inflation, Douglas Mackey, Vivek Ramaswamy, AI Coalition, Trump Dictator Poll, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I'm thinking of making merchandise for the Simultaneous Sip beyond the coffee cup.
Bedroom slippers.
Bedroom slippers.
And they would be labeled the Simultaneous Slippers.
That's my idea.
Well, I saw a post today that I can add to the list of reasons people don't have children.
Reasons people don't have children.
So you know it's expensive and you know that, well, it's expensive and there are about a million reasons not to have children.
And of course, that's going to have a big impact on the population going forward.
But on top of that, I saw a A post by somebody called Nua, Nua Peasant, who said, Has anyone else concluded that the typical K-12 school schedule is impractical, unnatural, and exhausting?
Does anyone else find it odd that everyone just goes along with it and acts like it's normal to spend hours a day in your car schlepping tired children to and fro?
How many of you have had this experience?
This is my experience in two separate families in my life.
And the entire time I'm doing it, I'm saying to myself, oh, this system can't be something that people agree with.
There's no way that people think this is okay.
From the moment the kid wakes up, at least in the school system where I'm, the kid has to do everything they can to get to school.
Immediately after school, they might have like a sport or an activity or a thing you gotta pick them up to and drive them to.
But here's the thing.
If you've got two kids, there's a good chance they're going to two separate schools.
Because, you know, you got your grade school and your middle school and your high school.
If you have three kids, They might be in three separate schools, and you might have to drive them each to each, and you'd have to take them to all their activities afterwards, which would be impossible, because they're all at the same time.
Somebody raised seven kids.
The system for raising children is so impractical that going from one kid to three kids becomes almost impractical.
So, if you want to have more natural reproduction, and not have to depend on immigration, you need to fix all of that stuff.
In fact, one of the strongest arguments for homeschooling is to get rid of that forced driving.
In my opinion, there are years of a family's life that are destroyed by the inefficiency of the school system.
The school system that says you gotta take a sport after school or you don't go to college.
Stuff like that.
I think the whole thing is so poorly designed it guarantees lower reproduction and lower happiness.
It's really hard to be a happy family with two or three kids in the middle of the week.
It's just really hard to find, you know, carve out any happiness in that situation.
It's just a forced march.
So you should write.
Well, the most important news is that there's a video of John Kerry at a big climate event.
And as he's talking, there's the alleged sound of a big fart.
Now, some say it's John Kerry farting.
Some say it's just the sound.
May not be a fart at all.
But what I like to think is that I like to think that the chef who is doing all the meals for this event, I like to think he's a Blazing Saddles fan and kind of a practical joker.
And he thought it'd be really funny to serve them all baked beans and have it turn into a scene from Blazing Saddles.
So I just have this picture.
If you remember the Blazing Saddles scene where they all eat beans, the cowboys, and they sit around the campfire and they just have outrageous gas.
And that's a little joke.
I remember, I'm just picturing this entire scene, except instead of the cowboys, it's all the climate people.
So it's John Kerry.
It's Greta.
You know, it's Bill Gates.
And they're just coming for lunch.
Well, do I have to complete the picture?
Can I depend on you to finish the picture in your heads so I don't have to get into the details?
But it would be very funny.
Very funny.
And if AI were sufficiently advanced, I would go to my text to Image AI and I'd say, do a scene that's like the Blazing Saddles bean scene, except put in the climate people, John Kerry, make sure you throw him, Greta, and make sure that the farts are really loud and funny sounding.
It'd take me like five minutes to type that in and I'd have the greatest meme of all time.
Well in other news, did you all see the video of the house that exploded in Arlington?
So I guess police had some suspicion about a perp and they surround the house and the whole thing just goes BAM!
It didn't just blow up a little bit, like it blew up completely.
Now here are the things we're hearing today.
None of this makes sense.
The entire house exploded because of a flare gun.
So they're thinking that the flare gun might have ignited some gas from an oven or something and blew up the whole house?
Maybe.
But then here's the funniest thing.
They're saying that nobody died and the perpetrator might still be inside.
Inside what?
The entire house is gone!
How could he be inside the house that's gone?
Did he blow up the whole house and he didn't die?
He's in the middle like laying under a couch somewhere and saying, this is the best plan I ever had.
They'll never know that I'm under this rubble.
Was that his plan?
And then apparently some people say he's posting on social media.
Could that be true?
I guess he's a cyber security expert, so that makes it interesting.
He's a big anti-US intelligence person.
His last name is Yu, and he looks like he's Chinese-American.
Some people are saying, is he a spy of some kind?
Because you're racist.
You're all racist.
That's your problem.
Well, the funniest part of the story is that his last name is Yu.
It's James Yu.
name's U, Y-O-O.
And if your last name is U, wouldn't you change your name just to make things easier?
So, who wants to pick up the garbage?
You?
No, I didn't vote.
No, not you.
Not you, you.
All day long.
All day long, everywhere he would be like, excuse me?
No, oh, you.
Oh, not you, but you.
Okay, got it.
What a mess.
What a mess.
Yeah, change that name.
But the part of the story that was not reported, but I very much suspect, is that I don't think James Yu was in the house.
I think James... I think John Kerry might have been.
I'll wait.
I'll wait for you to connect the dots.
I'm here all day.
I'll just be here all day.
I'll just use my phone.
I'll wait.
All right.
Everybody catch up?
Everybody's up to speed?
All right.
All right.
I don't want to have to explain that joke.
All right.
So we'll find out what's going on with the exploding house.
But that's fun.
All right.
Let's talk about UFOs.
So here's the score so far.
We have 10 whistleblowers who have strikingly similar stories.
Ten!
Ten whistleblowers.
They're on record.
They seem like credible people.
And they say that there are two secret programs.
One, for reverse engineering the captured or downed crafts.
And one, to analyze the remains of the aliens.
Oh, and we're told that there's not just one.
Oh, not two, not two or three.
But it turns out we might have a warehouse just full of downed spacecraft.
But wait, it gets more interesting.
Apparently, say the whistleblowers, the spacecraft are not totally in the control of the U.S.
government.
They've actually hired contractors who have taken possession of them, apparently, to study them on behalf of the government.
That's right.
We're actually doling out UFOs to private citizens.
Because they might want to reverse engineer them for the government.
Does any of this sound real?
How many of you think any of this is real?
Okay.
I'd like to go on record as saying none of this sounds real to me.
Not a single bit.
But it gets more interesting.
Gets more interesting.
If it's not real, why would anybody object to more transparency?
Unless it's real.
But apparently, so Chuck Schumer, I guess he and others want some legislation that would create more transparency and a controlled release of what the government knows.
Here's the fun part.
There are at least two people in the government who are vigorously opposing that.
One of them is Mike Turner, Republican.
He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Uh-oh.
What does the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee know about these UFOs that makes him not want to release it to the public?
But he's not the only one.
You've also got Mike Rogers.
It's the two Mikes.
Mike Turner and Mike Rogers.
Also a Republican.
But he probably doesn't have an important job in the Senate.
He's just the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Okay, that's not good.
The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee The people who are most likely to know the real story don't want the public to know the real story.
What do you think?
Why would they not tell you unless there was something to it?
Can you think of any reason they wouldn't tell you unless there was something to it?
Yes, I can.
They don't want you to know that there's nothing there.
They don't want you to know that there's nothing there.
Because if you don't know, then China doesn't know.
What would be better than having a nuclear weapon?
There's only one thing better than a nuclear weapon.
Well, two things.
There are two things better than a nuclear weapon.
One is advanced alien technology, the likes of which no human could ever understand that would be put into our arsenal and make it impossible to even have a war with the United States.
So that's one possibility.
The other possibility is that we just Want them to think we have it or think we might have it.
So they don't mess with us.
That seems far more likely to me.
It's also probable that our intelligence agencies have been lying to the public for 50 years.
And maybe we don't want to tell the public that the intelligence community has lied to us for 50 years about UFOs for the same reason.
So I think it's all bullshit, and I think that the reason it's not being released is not because it would be secrets that would shock us to our core, but rather the secret would be there's nothing there.
Does anybody think there's really a warehouse full of captured UFOs and we don't know about it?
Really?
Really?
Yeah, well some do.
All right, well you might, you know, I hope you're right.
I really do hope you're right.
Well, three college presidents are being asked to talk to Congress and answer for their alleged racism.
It's the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Now, I'm old enough to remember when this type of college was considered prestigious.
And now they just look like racist idiots.
Now, clearly that would be an exaggeration of what's going on.
Many qualified people coming out of these fine institutions.
But boy, I've never seen a brand reputation drop as quickly as this, except Bud Light, I guess.
And yes, I would say that all available information suggests that they have turned into massively racist institutions.
Like unambiguously, massively racist.
Like just massively.
Well, now here's the interesting part of the conversation to me.
I'm seeing people complaining on social media that nobody was complaining about white people being discriminated against until it happened to Jews.
Does that match with your experience?
That nobody was complaining about the mass discrimination against white people in colleges and corporations until it happened to Jewish people?
I'd like to say I've been saying it for 20 years in public.
For 20 years, I've been saying it in public that white people are, white men especially, massively discriminated against in corporations and colleges.
And do you know what usually happens when I said it?
People would tell me I'm lying.
They would actually say, you're lying.
That didn't happen.
I'll bet you were just fired, Scott, because you were not a good employee.
And then a number of black people tell me, they have some insulting word for white people.
It's like average white people or something like that.
Some word that is like demeaning, that suggests that if you're an average white person, you'll do great in life.
But if you're... There's a specific insult that they have, real racist insult.
Anyway.
But no, joke's on you.
It's been the case for 40 years.
And as Adam Townsend Sat on the X. First they came for MAGA and I said nothing.
Because that's exactly what happened.
They came for MAGA and a lot of fuckers were silent about it.
And here you go.
It just got worse, just like you would expect.
Well, if there's anything I've told you over and over again in politics, you know how people are always reading minds?
They're like, if Trump does this, what he's really thinking is this.
No, you can't read minds.
What somebody said is this.
And I say, OK, that's what they said, but you're interpreting what they're thinking.
That's different.
And you can't read minds.
So can we all agree there's no such thing as mind reading?
Everybody on the same page?
Have I finally convinced you?
Finally.
My next story is there's some new technology to read minds.
Damn it!
Damn it!
I thought I was just getting ahead of this thing.
And I lose again.
Yeah, so they use AI.
Brian Ramelli's talking about this.
There's a new discovery.
AI was able to reconstruct images from your brain with 75% accuracy.
That's right.
They could put some kind of sensors on your head, and they could reproduce what you're thinking with 75% accuracy.
Now, you've seen this before, it's not the first time you've seen a story like this, but they seem to have increased the accuracy from about 50%, basically a coin flip, To 75%.
But the 50% was not a coin flip.
Let me clarify that.
I don't mean there's a 50% chance of guessing and a 50% chance of getting it wrong.
Because it's not a coin flip.
I'm talking about they can look at your head and the machine will draw a picture of the beach.
And then they'll ask why you're thinking about it.
You go, I was thinking about the beach.
Now that's not 50% because you could have been thinking about an infinite number of things and 50% of the time, half of the time, it could pick out your exact thought from an infinite selection.
That's not a coin flip.
That's like the most remarkable thing you've ever heard in your life.
That 50% just went to 75.
Do you think it's going to stop at 75?
Nope.
Nope.
It's not.
So mind reading is real.
How many of you saw Jake Tapper of CNN interviewing members of The Atlantic?
A disreputable, disgraced publication.
Jeffrey Goldberg is editor there.
He's another one of those disgraced journalists.
Now, if you didn't know, and I always tell you that you can't understand the news until you know the players.
If I just said, there's a big publication called The Atlantic, and they wrote a story, you wouldn't know anything.
Because you'd have to know who they are before you understood the story.
Who they are, are basically a hit piece organization for Democrats, and who Jeffrey Goldberg is, is someone that at least Republicans say is one of the most famous journalist liars in the business.
So this is the lowest level of credibility.
There's probably... I don't think there's a publication operating today that has a lower reputation than The Atlantic.
How many viewers would know that?
How many CNN viewers would know that The Atlantic is a gigantic red flag for bullshit?
No doubt about it.
It's just a biased publication.
You wouldn't know that.
You might think, oh, I've heard of The Atlantic.
That's probably a serious publication.
Nothing like that is the case.
I'm not sure they try.
There's no indication that they're trying to be legitimate.
It looks like they're trying to be exactly what they look like, a Democrat political organ.
Anyway.
So the Atlantic is leading the charge to get the public brainwashed into thinking that they can determine what's in Trump's brain and that this time will be different than the first time.
So after several years of non-stop telling us that Trump was going to become a dictator and nothing like that happened, And all he did was remove regulations and remove government interference and didn't start any wars, and he was the literal opposite of everything they said.
So instead of saying, okay, we better try something new, they're doubling down on the thing that we observed didn't happen.
But this time, oh, this time they can read his mind, it's gonna happen.
But this time they have evidence.
For example, they will point to January 6th, As a clear indication of his criminal intent and his desire to ignore the Constitution.
And, more than that, they now have a quote from Trump saying that he wants to destroy the Constitution.
So, I guess that's a dictator, am I right?
If he wants to destroy the Constitution, I mean, that's what that's all about.
So, let me tell you what's really happening here.
So the Atlantic is just a Democrat tool, and they're basically sending out the message to all the other Democrats that the message that they want to push is that even though it didn't happen before, unless we can sell you that January 6th was a dictator kind of a thing, if we can sell you on that, then we can sell you that that's what he really plans.
He's never going to leave office.
He's going to round up his enemies and put them in prison and stuff like that.
So watching CNN interview them as if they are legitimate sources of news or opinion tells you a lot.
It tells you CNN is not credible.
It tells you Jake Tapper should not be listened to.
And now you know that The Atlantic is not a publication you should pay attention to.
Now, am I in the bag for Republicans and conservatives?
And would I ever say such a thing about a right-leaning publication?
Yeah, of course I would.
Yeah, there are plenty of completely unreliable, right-leaning publications.
That's the thing.
And nobody's right all the time.
But I don't know which Republican ones are just wrong sometimes, and which ones are running an op.
Name one?
No, I'm not going to name one.
You know why?
Because anything I name We'll have a bunch of people who think it's real.
And it's not my day to break your hearts.
Some people are saying the National Review, etc.
I'm not going to name names, but let's just say it's not unique to the left.
So, let's look at some of the evidence here.
You know that one thing we know for sure, and let me check your understanding of the news, one thing we know for sure is that it's illegal to interfere with the government process, as in trying to stop an election certification, and that Trump is being accused, quite credibly, with being one of the... Oh, I just lost my locals.
That's funny.
The locals just went there.
Let me see if I can bring them back.
Will they come back?
No.
It's gonna make me log in again, huh?
Huh.
I'm not sure this is real, but let's see if it lets me.
All right, nothing's working.
Hmm.
I'm going to have to fix this.
Give me one minute.
Why does autofill always autofill the wrong stuff?
It's hard to put it in passwords when you're being watched on livestream.
Not that you could see it.
There's something about the processing in the brain.
All right.
If that doesn't work, this is all I'm going to try.
Yeah.
Looks like Locals is just down.
Dead as a doornail.
Okay.
We will persevere.
We shall persevere.
I think a number of the locals people will jump over here to YouTube in a second.
They signed you out.
All right.
So Locals is dead.
Some of the Locals people are coming over here.
All right.
Let me finish my point.
That was a great point.
The one thing you all know for sure is that there's a law against interfering with a A political or a government process to get the, in this case, to get the election certified.
You all know that, right?
Everybody's aware of that?
That's what Trump and the J6ers are being accused of?
Alright, did you know this?
There is no such law.
I found that out today.
Today.
Today I found out.
That the whole brouhaha about the January Sixers being accused of delaying a government process, there's no law about that.
Do you know how I know that?
Because three of the January Sixers have something that the Supreme Court is considering.
So it doesn't mean they've taken the case, but they're looking at it.
And their argument is this.
There is no law like that.
There has never been a law like that.
And what the prosecutors did was they took a completely different law and they tried to stretch it over.
Here's what the law was that they stretched.
And you don't have to be in the Supreme Court to know that this isn't going to work.
There was a law that was passed because of Enron, and Enron destroyed some records.
Apparently it was illegal to ask somebody to destroy records that would be part of a legal case.
But there was a problem with that law.
It didn't say it was illegal for you to destroy them yourself.
Just weirdly, it was illegal to tell somebody else to do it.
But you could do it yourself.
So they wanted to close that loophole, and they made it illegal to destroy records in the Department of Justice process.
And they took that law about destroying records yourself for a criminal case about a corporation, and they stretched that to the January 6th people.
Can't delay for one day the certification of the electoral people.
Now, Do you need to be a Supreme Court justice to know that if the Supreme Court takes that case, they're going to say, pretty obviously, this law was not intended to cover this situation.
There's actually no law that Trump or the January Sixers have violated.
And there never was.
Just hold that in your head.
Not only the fact that the insane amount of injustice, and obviously these are political prosecutions, but the fact this is worse.
Well, maybe not worse, but... Why didn't I know this until today?
Why did it take a Supreme Court action, you know, they haven't taken the case, but they're considering it, why did it take that to raise this point to my attention?
What would be a more important thing for me to know in politics than whether it was even illegal to protest and try to get a change made to the official process?
It was never illegal.
And it's still not illegal.
And people are in jail for it.
I think.
Or maybe they're in jail for related charges.
I'm not sure how that works exactly.
But to imagine that the most basic thing that Democrats believe That it was illegal and that Trump was behind it.
He wasn't behind it, and it wasn't illegal.
He's innocent twice.
He wasn't behind it, and it wasn't illegal if he had been.
Amazing.
So, and people like Glenn Greenwald are warning that it looks like the Democrats are creating a narrative for assassinating Trump or jailing him without charges. - Yes.
And the way they're doing that is by telling you he's so dangerous that the regular rules probably shouldn't apply.
And they're saying it directly.
That he's so dangerous, blah blah blah.
Now, I don't know any way to interpret this other than they're They're inciting violence.
Are they not inciting violence?
it looks exactly like it to me.
So, Jeff Clark, who's an attorney, he has a great take on it.
On a post he says, the worst of the Atlantic's anti-Trump festschrift.
I'm gonna have to look that up, but it sounds like a really good insulting word I want to use it.
A festschrift?
I don't know what that means.
Anyway, The article in The Atlantic is called, If Trump Wins, has to be this piece arguing that, oh, they also argue that President Xi of China wants Trump to return as president.
Is that the most insane thing you've ever heard?
That he wants Trump to return?
For years, the left has been a nuclear meltdown that Trump had too many anti-China hawks around him.
Remember Bannon, Navarro?
So Trump was surrounded by anti-China hawks, and that's what they were complaining about before.
So they have complained that he was too anti-China and too pro-China.
And they didn't even stop a beat between going from one to the other.
Hey, pick a complaint.
I just lost the connection here too.
Is that a coincidence?
If we know for sure that the problem on Locals was not on my end, what are the odds that two separate platforms would die on the same topic?
It's never happened before.
So I'm going to repeat the whole topic again.
Trump is part of a political prosecution which is now completely clear By the fact that there are three January Sixers who are trying to take their case to the Supreme Court because we're only learning today that there was never a law against delaying a government process.
There was only a completely unrelated law that the prosecutors stretched so far to the level of absurdity that there's no serious way that if the Supreme Court takes the case, they might not.
But if they take it, there's no serious way that they could allow it to go forward.
It would clearly be overturned.
You don't have to be a justice to know that.
I'm just testing to see if YouTube blocks me again.
But we'll see.
And then on top of that, Comer, who's investigating the Biden crime families, he calls it, now they have direct evidence in writing, they have the documents, showing that Hunter Biden's company was paying Joe Biden on a regular basis from the company.
So if Joe Biden had given money to his father, that might look like just a father helping out, or just a family member helping out.
That's not illegal.
But if it's coming from the company, you lose any illusions you had that Joe Biden didn't know about what was happening, that he wasn't part of the operation, that it wasn't an influence peddling scheme, and that China is a key part of it.
Money from China.
Now, now that we know that, how ridiculous does it look to see that the Democrats are saying that China really, really wants Trump?
Don't you think they'd prefer the guy they're bribing?
And have been bribing for years?
I think they'd prefer that.
Don't know.
Well, Conor McGregor is actually looking kind of serious about running for, I guess he'd be president of Ireland.
And the people he'd be running against are, you know, these old fossils.
He might actually win.
Even Elon Musk commented about his odds of winning, you know, saying he'd win with one hand behind his back.
I don't know if that was just a joke or if he was showing support, but then Conor McGregor answered back and actually sounded completely serious about running for president.
Now how much would you like to see Conor McGregor, if you don't know he's a UFC kind of fighting champion?
I kind of would like it.
I hate to say he seems like exactly the right person for the job.
Doesn't that sound weird?
That he sounds like exactly the right person for the job?
Do you know who one of his bigger influences is on the topic of personal success?
Does anybody know that?
No, I can only tell you that my book, Had Affailed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, was influential on his coach.
Yeah.
And so probably influential on him.
But I don't know that for sure.
I just know that his coach liked the book.
All right.
Coach Kavanaugh.
Who might be watching.
If you're watching, hi.
All right.
Do you believe it's true or a hoax that President Trump once said that he would be willing to throw out the Constitution?
Does that sound like a true statement?
Because everybody I hear is saying it's true.
The Democrats are all quoting it and they're saying, no, he wants to throw out the Constitution.
Do you think he said something like it?
Because I kept seeing it and I was just ignoring it because it looked obviously false.
But then it seemed like there was something he said in that domain, so I had to go look for it.
So I guess he did post something on Truth.
And I guess this is what he said, so you tell me how you interpret this, okay?
So, see how you interpret it.
Quote, now this is from Trump, and apparently he did say this.
Do you throw the presidential election results of 2020 out and declare the rightful winner, or do you have a new election?
And then he says, a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.
Trump wrote in a post, on social, and accused Big Tech of working closely with him, blah, blah, blah.
And then that got quoted as Trump saying he wanted to terminate the Constitution.
He wanted to terminate the Constitution.
Do you see the part that they left out?
So I read the part that they leave out when they talk about it.
So he started with this hypothetical.
It starts with a hypothetical.
Do you throw the presidential election of 2020 out?
Or do you have a new election?
So he's talking about two completely constitutional possibilities.
Which would be triggered if, for example, the Supreme Court said, oh, this election is too sketchy.
So they're either going to change the result or, say, just run the election again.
Would that be a process that you would find outside of the constitutional realm?
Would it be outside the Constitution to have a conflict about the process To take the conflict to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court either reverse what happened or propose a solution such as another election.
Now that was the context.
But if you take that context down, that the two solutions he was talking about very specifically was a new election or the Supreme Court reverses it, If you take that out, it says he wants to suspend the Constitution.
It's a root bar.
Yeah, it's a root bar.
So I'm going to add this to the hoax list.
He very clearly is talking about doing it within the context of the Constitution.
But he's also saying, it's worded terribly, but he says a massive fraud of this type in magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.
Now he says it allows for it.
Is he saying that he wants to do it as dictator?
Or is he saying, allows for, as in the system itself, allows for us to dispute these things, and the system itself allows a resolution within the constitutional framework.
Which is he saying?
Well, he's saying it terribly, but it's quite obviously he means it within the constitutional framework.
Now, let me ask you this.
The one and only way you would disagree with them, if you really did a good job of understanding it, is if you thought there was some question about whether the election was sketchy or not.
Maybe there's a little doubt, that's not good enough.
Would you agree?
A little bit of doubt shouldn't be enough to overthrow an election, because you have that every election.
But suppose, suppose that you had proof that it was massively fraudulent.
Under those conditions, what American citizen would be in favor of keeping the result?
Now, that's not the case.
It's not my opinion that there is massive evidence, or even any, that would be enough to change the outcome.
I'm not aware of any evidence that would change the outcome.
But hypothetically, Because he's talking hypothetically.
Hypothetically, if the entire country could see massive obvious rigging that did change the outcome, that's not the case, but hypothetically if they did, what would be the correct solution?
The correct solution would be to rerun the election or to change the result.
But you would do it within constitutional bounds.
Trump did step in it.
He did not do a elegant job of saying what he wanted in a context that would keep him from this happening.
So that's a little bit on him.
But it's fake news.
It's fake news exactly like it looked like.
So there's a good chance those J6 charges against Trump will be dropped if the three people take it in their case to the Supreme Court, if it's found that the law doesn't apply to them.
Then the argument would be extended to Trump before it even went to trial.
So there's a possibility that the whole thing gets thrown out.
Now, what would happen?
Remember the banking trial?
That's a separate one.
So his banking thing, he was already found guilty of exaggerating his assets.
But when the Deutsche Bank executives testified, they said, oh, that's just normal.
That's normal.
Customers always exaggerate.
So we don't trust them.
So there was never any risk that his exaggeration would have any real world effect.
The process guarantees that he can lie as much as he wants and it doesn't affect the outcome.
It's designed that way.
The bank does their own checking on the asset values.
And they made money and they would do business with them again, they said.
Everything was fine.
From the bank's perspective, even after they know about all the facts, they still say, that was no problem on our end, because we're actually a good bank.
Do you know why it was no problem on their end?
Because they know how to make a loan.
They understand their own business.
That's all it took for them to have no problem at all.
So you've got this big old banking thing that the Democrats were positive was going to be the crime of the century.
Not only not the crime of the century, it wasn't anything.
It literally Wasn't anything, at least of a legal consequence.
And I'm guessing that this January 6th thing, at least the part about delaying the official process, I think that's actually nothing.
Actually nothing.
And these are the biggest things that the Democrats have been saying for years.
Does it surprise you that they have to roll out this dictator thing now?
They've got to go for the dictator thing, because all the other things they said didn't pan out.
Do you remember them?
He's a clown, so he can't get anything done.
They can't really say that, because there is a body of accomplishment to compare to Biden, and nobody's questioning whether he did things.
You know, he did a better job on the border, etc.
So yeah, there's a real desperation on the Democrat part at this point to sell this turd.
All right.
Simon Rosenberg tweeted that the economy is actually amazing and you just don't know it.
So I'm going to give you his list.
He gives several facts.
Simon does.
Why, the economy is amazing and doing great, actually.
And you just, you just think it's not good.
Now, going back to my earlier theme, do you remember I told you that if you don't know the players, then nothing they say makes sense.
You gotta know the players.
So who is Simon Rosenberg?
Would he be an objective observer of fact?
Would he be an economist?
Because that's what I'd look to.
I'd look for an economist who is an objective observer of fact to tell me the economy is either good or bad.
So let's see what he is.
I look at his profile.
He's a political strategist.
Uh-oh.
That's a red flag.
He's a commentator.
Uh-oh.
That's a red flag.
He calls himself a hopium purveyor, which means an optimist.
And he's going to say something optimistic, so that fits.
He's been part of the NDN-DNC.
Uh-oh.
Democrat National Committee.
The DCCC, whatever that is.
He's been part of the Clinton War Room.
Uh-oh.
Part of ABC News.
Uh-oh.
And then he says, Slava Ukraine.
Oh, God.
Oh, God.
So, how do you like his credibility so far?
That's pretty low.
And it's not low because he's associated with Democrats.
It's low because he's such a team player.
If this were a conservative or a Republican, and they had the opposite but equivalent profile, I'm not sure you should take them seriously, right?
If they say, I am a team player for my team.
Oh, and my team did great.
You can ignore that.
But here are the signs that the U.S.
economy is doing well.
And this will be your test for fake news.
Now, I don't know that these are true.
So the first question is, are these even true?
But there's a better question after that.
So here are the claims from Simon Rosenberg, Slava Ukraine.
The U.S.
economy, the GDP growth was 5.2%.
Inflation?
Zero last month.
Zero!
Wage inflation growth remains robust.
Strongest recovery in the G7.
So we beat those other countries.
Lowest uninsured rate in U.S.
history.
Lowest, I guess that's uninsured for healthcare.
Median wealth is up 37% since 2020.
And the Dow is nearing an all-time high.
Now, how many of those things are even true?
Are you telling me that GDP is 5.2%?
It's not even close to that, is it?
I thought it was like 3%.
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
The GDP is not over 5%.
Over 5% would be blazing like no time in my life, right?
I don't think any time in my entire life the GDP has been over 5.
Has it?
Give me a fact check.
Even once in my life?
In my entire life?
Has the GDP ever been over 5?
Yeah, it's like 3.1.
It's around 3.
So the very first thing is not even true.
How about the second thing?
Inflation was zero last month.
Do you think inflation was zero last month?
What?
No.
No.
It's like he reversed inflation and GDP.
Did he reverse inflation and GDP?
Or something?
I don't know.
Where'd that come from?
Then he says, wage growth remains robust.
So wages are going up, but inflation is not?
Are there any economists in the house?
So wages are going up, meaning the cost to produce things is going up, but the inflation is not.
That's the claim.
And, oh, is it inflation that's 5-2, and not GDP?
Did he literally reverse inflation and GDP?
Is that what happened?
It might have.
I don't know.
Strongest recovery in the G7?
Eh, maybe.
But who has the biggest debt?
Can't you have the strongest recovery if you borrowed the most?
And is that a good thing?
Is it a good thing to be the one that borrowed the most?
Because that's how you get a fast recovery.
You borrow a lot, and then the government spends, and that boosts the economy.
That's the worst way to boost an economy.
That's bad news, not good news.
If it's because of borrowing.
Lowest uninsured rate in US history.
Well, if that's talking about healthcare, that might be true.
I'll give them that one.
The Republicans would say they have bad healthcare insurance.
But probably a lot of uptick.
He says the median wealth is up 37% between 2020 and 2022.
Is that even slightly possible?
That's not even slightly possible, is it?
I'm not even going to research that.
I know medium wealth didn't go up 37%.
That's insane!
At no time in history did a number like that ever happen.
At no time in history, am I right?
Literally no time in history, including now, did wealth ever go up 37, median wealth, up 37% in two years?
No, not in the 60s.
You're telling me in the 60s there was a two-year period where median wealth went up 37%?
No.
How about the down-nearing all-time highs?
Is the Dow nearing all-time highs?
I don't think it is.
What?
All right, but here's the funnier part.
Let's see if you caught it.
He's saying that there's no inflation.
But I would argue that the GDP is partly an inflation number.
In other words, whatever that number is, Everything costs more, so it makes the GDP look like it's going up.
The GDP is a fake number now, because of inflation.
If inflation were constant and low...
Then the GDP number is like, that's sort of a solid number you could look at.
But if inflation is going up, it means the price of everything is going up.
So when you add together all the things you sold, all you're catching is inflation.
You're not catching any productivity, you're just catching inflation.
So he's touting the GDP, but really it's just a mark of inflation, which is bad.
At the moment.
He says the wage growth remains robust.
Do you know why wages are growing?
Because of inflation.
Wages grow because people can't afford to buy food.
So the union says, look, you're going to have to give us more money because everything's too expensive now.
We can't buy food with this level of pay.
How about The median wealth up 37%, which of course didn't happen.
But let's say the median wealth did go up.
Do you know why?
Inflation.
The value of my house is up, I don't know, 20% in the last few years?
But is that because I have more money now?
No, I have less money.
I have way less money.
Way less money than I did two years ago.
But my house, on paper, is worth more.
But it's actually worth less.
But on paper, it looks like it's worth more because of inflation.
So here's somebody who couldn't sort out the inflation from the real numbers and the real numbers from the fake numbers.
And if you're a Democrat, you're going to read this and you're going to say, wow, you made a good point there.
All right.
You know Douglas Mackey?
He got convicted for making a meme that mocked Hillary Clinton voters by saying that they could vote by taxing.
So basically it was mocking them for being dumb, thinking they could vote by taxing.
But he got convicted because it was election misinformation.
And if somebody believed it, well, if they believed it, they would have not voted and that would be bad.
But he got a motion For an appeal.
So it looks like a higher court thought he had enough of a case that they're going to look at it.
I think that his conviction will be thrown out.
I'm going to predict that he will not be convicted of a joke.
But just to give him a little bit of support, I showed him the Dilbert Reborn comic that normally is available only to subscribers, but it was about Dilbert being arrested for a meme.
So I was supportive of Douglas Mackey.
He saw it this morning and thought it was funny.
I'm glad he can still laugh.
All right.
The next debate coming up, presidential debate on the Republican side is down to four people who had enough good polling numbers to qualify.
So Chris Christie made the top four.
I did not see that coming.
I did not see Chris Christie making the final four.
I thought he'd be one of the first down.
But he's there.
So it's DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Chris Christie.
Now, I thought that when the lesser candidates dropped out, that Vivek would get more of a bump.
But to me, I think Vivek's best strategy is the one he's doing, which is the more you see of him, the more you like.
Now, that doesn't mean every one of you, so if you have the opposite opinion, I respect that.
But I would say that Vivek was sort of an unknown.
You know, Christie is unknown.
The more you know about Vivek, the more you like him.
So now, if you can get him down to a group of four people in a debate, his power increases.
I don't think that seeing more of Chris Christie makes you like him more.
Am I wrong?
I don't believe extra exposure makes him extra good.
That might be the case for Nikki Haley, but I don't think it's the case for DeSantis.
So what we might see is both Nikki Haley and Vivek make a little move here.
And then if we see Vivek, for example, doing well in one of the first two primaries, could get interesting.
Could get interesting.
All right.
Keep an eye on that.
Apparently a number of big companies such as Meta and Intel and IBM launched a coalition of more than 50 AI companies and research companies and they want to make AI more of an open model.
They want to make it open so that whatever happens in AI is available to the industry in general.
Now do you know why they want to do that?
Because they all lost.
These are all the losers.
These are the people who do not have, or in their own minds apparently, they don't have a shot at being the AI company.
So they can't compete with Grok, they can't compete with OpenAI, they probably can't compete with whatever Apple's going to come up with.
Apple is notably missing in this.
Amazon.
Amazon is notably missing.
Probably because those are two companies that will have their own proprietary AI.
So all the losers are pretty scared.
And they're like, um, we were in a lot of trouble if we don't have AI.
So, oh, I've got an idea.
AI should be open.
Yeah, that's it.
Everybody should have access to it.
So we'll see what happens with that.
Do you think that Trump wants revenge and to punish his critics?
Do you think that's true?
Because he says it directly.
He wants revenge.
So should you be afraid of him?
Because he wants revenge.
Do you think that Trump will weaponize government if he's elected?
Will he weaponize government to go after Democrats?
Yes he will.
Yes he will.
Will those Democrats be people who did real crimes and should really pay?
Probably.
Probably.
So how you feel about this has more to do with whether you think that is justified.
If you think he's just going after political enemies, well it's the worst thing in the world.
I'm not in favor of that at all.
If you think that he's going after using a legal process, people who did flagrantly illegal things to him and tried to end the republic as we know it, well then it sounds a little better.
Because revenge, here's how I hear it.
When Trump says revenge, I don't really hear it like revenge.
I'm too close to it.
I'm too involved.
Here's how I hear it.
I hear that you tried to illegally fuck us for years and we're going to make sure you pay for it.
I'm totally in favor of that.
If you want to call it revenge, that's just shorthand.
But there is a body of people who have been very much trying to jail and ruin people like me.
And they did it for political gain.
They didn't do it for moral reasons.
Nothing like that.
It was for political gain.
If somebody fucks you for political gain, revenge is completely appropriate.
Completely.
Now it has to be within the legal framework.
I'm not talking about death squads.
Don't want that.
But within the legal framework, yes, there should be, there should be hell to pay for this.
The amount of pay that they've created for their own personal gain is, I mean, it's not Hamas level, but it's whatever is the lesser violent version of that.
I would say it's violent, because jailing people on trumped up charges is violence.
Would you agree?
Putting people in jail is violence.
Putting innocent people in jail is violence.
Talk to Derek Chauvin.
Putting innocent people in jail is violence.
There's no way around that.
So I did a little poll in which I asked people, would they favor Trump becoming a dictator in America?
How do you think that went?
78% of respondents said, yeah, yeah, we want Trump to be a dictator.
You idiots.
Now, I know you're joking.
All right.
I get that it's a joke.
I get that you're trolling.
And I get that the way people interpreted it was, you'd rather have a Trump dictator than a current version of a Biden dictator.
Because if you think Biden's already a dictator, because he's jailing his political opponents and stifling free speech, which is pretty much the definition of a dictator.
So if you think Biden's a dictator, then the way you're answering the question is, I'd take Trump as a dictator over that.
But here's what you should have done.
You should have had zero response to, yes, we want a dictator.
You know why, right?
You just handed the Democrats the win.
All they have to do is publish my poll.
Even unscientific as it is, it's just a Twitter poll, but as unscientific as it is, that's going to be a fucking headline tomorrow.
You know that, right?
Somebody's going to publish that as part of a story that says, yes, Republican voters do want a dictator.
You don't want a dictator.
You were supposed to say no.
Because that's your actual opinion.
You know, I'm not asking you to lie.
Your actual opinion is you don't want a dictator.
If you had said that, then it would have really worked in your favor.
Because you could say, look, there's no Republican, there's not even one Republican who wants a dictator.
Even their own person they don't want as a dictator.
I could not have made this easier for you.
It should have been easy.
Oh, that's their biggest weapon, is the belief that Republicans would support a dictator.
And then you fucking voted for it by like 80%.
80% of you thought it'd be funny to say, yeah, we like a dictator.
That is the worst practical joke ever.
You just gave away the country.
The reason I published it is I didn't really imagine anybody would be dumb enough to say yes, even as a joke.
I couldn't process it.
So you're right.
Probably is my own damn fault.
But somebody was going to ask the question, right?
If I didn't ask that question, somebody would have.
But it's going to be taken as people being serious, and then it's a problem.
So if I could give you any advice, you should be honest about that question.
I mean, if you really want a dictator, I'd like to know that so I could oppose you.
Because I don't want a dictator.
But if you want to win, don't joke about that.
Don't joke about that if you want to win.
Play to win.
Play to win.
So that's my lesson for you today.
And some of you are saying, I was honest.
I do want a Trump dictator.
All right.
If you want to lose, just keep saying that.
Free speech.
Well, I don't think you believe it, so... But then we mock the media.
Mocking the media doesn't work, because only your own team sees it.
The Democrats will just see that a bunch of Republicans want to conquer the country and have a dictatorship.
Yeah, it's like the right—it does almost feel like Republicans are trying to lose sometimes.
It does actually feel that way.
I don't think they are, but they act in a way that from the outside you think, hmm, I don't know.
Would Trump want to be king?
You know, here's the thing.
Anybody who had an opportunity to be king would probably take it.
Except the Duke of whoever, Duke of Wellington I guess.
But it's not really an option.
I think Trump's best bet for his family and everything else in his legacy is to just be a really good president.
By far.
That's what he could do for his kids.
That's what he could do for the country.
Just be a good president.
That's all anybody wants.
All right.
Um, Thank you.
Thank you.
Better dictator Trump.
Trump is a grandiose narcissist.
Your show buffers at 34 minutes after an hour on almost every show.
Oh, that's interesting.
I'll keep an eye on that.
He has no clue how to be a good president.
Was it just luck the first time?
All right. - What?
I'm rejecting him over Breaking War stuff.
They used to love him.
Yeah.
Did he win already in my mind?
No.
It just seems like it's heading in that direction.
Could crime be solved by fixing the prison system?
Awesome.
Well, not solved, but you know, there's nothing you couldn't make better.
75% of your poll?
It was several thousand.
The Twitter polls, you don't really need to give the number, because I wouldn't have told you the number if 10 people responded.
but on a big account, I'll probably get 2,000 to 10,000 respondents.
Well, thank you, Colton.
Thank you.
Repatriation?
Maybe.
Alright, did we hit all the big stories?
I still say that Trump's best play is to get the Democrats fully invested in the dictator narrative and then humorously mock it out of existence.
What you don't want to do is, I will not be a dictator!
Because you're talking like a dictator?
So simply saying it's not true, or you won't do that, doesn't work at all.
But if you laugh at it, and you're laughing at it with genuine amusement, it would be hard for people not to feel that.
Right?
Because when you mock somebody and you laugh at them, they kind of feel it.
More than they feel just political talk.
So I think he could do, and this is the way I do it, what exactly did he think I was going to do on January 6th?
Did he think the army was going to obey me and take over the country?
Did I have any contact with the military except to ask for the, what was it, Coast Guard?
He asked for some kind of forces to protect the capital.
That's the only conversation he had with anybody military.
Here's what else he should say.
I'd like you to talk to my generals.
Talk to the generals.
Talk to all of the generals.
Ask them which one I talked to about conquering the country.
And ask them which one of them would have gone along with it if I said National Guard.
I'm sorry, National Guard, not the Coast Guard.
But don't you think that would work?
Your Trump, just say, talk to the generals.
Do you think there was, you know, do you think I was trying to overthrow the country without talking to the military?
How would that even work?
Talk to the Supreme Court.
Ask them how many would have backed me to take over the country if the election, the way it was counted, that I don't agree with, but the way it was counted, who would have backed it?
Ask why my son, which you can see in the emails that happened at the time, ask why my son didn't know I had this plan to take over the country.
Has anybody even stopped to think that there wasn't any mechanism in play, nor had any been contemplated, other than publicly protesting and badgering the government to try to take a closer look at the process.
You show me any mechanism that would have looked as if we were trying to take over a country, or how that could have even happened.
And the other thing that is most interesting, how many people do you think it would take to be on the same team for anybody to become a dictator?
If you didn't do it militarily, and nobody's even suggested that was on the table, you couldn't do it by persuasion.
There are just too many people involved in anything.
So if you said, all right, I'm the dictator now, so you people go do this dictator thing.
It would be like half of them would be Democrats.
Because the permanent bureaucracy is not all just his people.
So the people who actually have to do things would have to be on board with it or nothing could happen.
And there's no way that the Democrats who make up a big portion of the government are going to be on board, so nothing would happen.
It would just be too hard to get anything done.
So no, it couldn't happen.
There was no reasonable way that could have happened.
All right.
It's happening now.
All right, that's all for today.
I'm going to go do something else.
Maybe the locals platform will get fixed tomorrow and I will talk to you tomorrow.
