Episode 2322 CWSA 12/14/23 Presidential Polls, Space Aliens, Hoaxes And Lots 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, Bard AI, NewsGuard, DEI State Bans, Claudine Gay, Mayor Michelle Wu, Vivek Ramaswamy, Abby Phillip, J6, DEI Hostile Work Environment, Ted Cruz, Section 702, Weaponized Government, Elon Musk, George Soros Funding, Ukraine War, President Trump, J6 Supreme Court, Hu nter Biden Testimony, ChatGPT News Sources, Axel Springer, Palestinian Hamas Support, Civil War Movie, Predictive Programming, 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
And all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, just die in a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
That's a little thing I learned from Joe Biden. - Good luck.
You whisper the important parts.
Go.
Savor it.
See?
Very effective.
Oh my.
Okay.
Well, here's some news about AI.
I asked Google's Bard about myself.
I like to see what AI thinks about me.
And it said that I wrote several books.
And I thought, well, that's pretty good.
That is correct.
I am an author.
I have written several books.
And then it listed several books.
Several of them don't exist as books at all, and I certainly didn't write them.
But it also says I'm the author of a book called Influence.
It's actually written by Bill Deeny.
So Google's borrowed me as the author of Cialdini's famous book, Influence, which I had nothing to do with, of course.
But it does say I wrote several other books that literally don't exist.
So can somebody tell me what good AI will be if it just lies to you?
I don't know.
All right, so you all know that Elon Musk is starting his own school.
He's got approval, I guess, for high school.
I think it's a high school and maybe a grade school.
And they'll prepare kids for STEM.
To which I say, does Elon Musk have to solve all of our problems?
Could we have one problem we could handle on our own?
Elon, can you give us one thing?
Give us an easy one.
I know we can't do the hard things.
If you said, all right, you're on your own.
Go to Mars.
I'd be like, okay, you handle Mars.
Okay, you handle Mars.
We'll do the easy stuff.
Mars.
All right, all right.
But you can handle the universal internet connection via satellite.
No, no, we can't do that either.
You do that.
You do that.
What about education?
Oh, okay, we got this.
Teachers unions.
Okay, we can't do the education thing either.
Okay, you got education.
But I swear to God, the next thing we're gonna do.
You don't have to do everything, Elon.
The next big problem, we'll take care of it.
How about regaining freedom of speech?
Okay, you do that one too.
You do that one too.
But I swear to God, the next thing we're gonna do.
The rest of us have to do something.
We've got to chip in a little bit.
OK?
Speaking of X and Alex Jones, I saw a funny post by Sean Davis who said, the people who brought you the Russia collusion hoax, the Ukraine impeachment hoax, the fine people hoax, the Kavanaugh rape hoax, the Covington hoax, and the COVID-19 origin hoax are big mad that Alex Jones is back on Twitter.
Well, I call it X, Sean Davis.
But your point is well made, well made.
I wonder if anybody's done a straight up comparison of Alex Jones versus CNN.
Now, I'm aware that Alex Jones has made some claims that may not have panned out, may not have panned out.
Crisis actors being at the top of the list.
But here's the thing.
Is his track record worse than CNN?
Because there is a qualitative difference.
Here's a qualitative difference.
I think Alex Jones believes everything he said, including about Sandy Hook.
He was wrong.
But I think he believed it.
Do you?
Because I don't see another reason he would have done it, really.
It doesn't sort of make sense unless you believe it was true.
Now, it wasn't true.
But I'd love to see his overall track record compared to CNN.
I think he'd do well, actually.
I mean, I don't know how many other things are like Sandy Hook.
But here's my other problem with Sandy Hook.
I don't really understand how he lost the case.
How was it defamation if he believed it was true?
Did a court prove that he knew it wasn't true?
How could that have happened?
Is that possible?
I don't understand how he possibly could have been found guilty of defamation unless he knew it wasn't true.
Isn't it a requirement that you know it's not true?
I thought you could be wrong all day long and it wouldn't be illegal.
You can't be wrong?
Because I feel like I'm wrong about a lot of stuff.
Am I defaming people if I'm just honest and wrong?
I don't understand any of that.
Maybe somebody can explain it to me.
It's a default judgment.
What does that mean?
Didn't pay attention to the trial?
It's complicated.
All right.
Well, I don't understand what happened to him, but it does make sense that he's back.
Speaking of misinformation, have you heard of a group called NewsGuard?
How many of you recognize the name NewsGuard and kind of know who they are?
Right.
Unless you follow people like Mike Benton's, You probably don't know what Newstart is, but allegedly it is a primarily a misinformation purveyor disguised as a misinformation fighter.
So they probably do fight some misinformation, but that's the cover they use if you're really a political entity.
So they seem to be a political entity pretending to be a information guarding entity, and X itself Reported today that NewsGuard is about to publish a quote report.
They put report in quotes because this was on X. Report on misinformation on X. And that as a for-profit company they will only share the data that underpins their purported research if you pay for it.
So if you have to pay for it and X is warning you.
And of course the reason for this is going to pressure companies to Buy their fact-checking services.
So anyway, they're asking people who buy their service, X is asking, if anybody wants to see that quote, misinformation, ask to see the source information.
Ask to see how they determined it.
Do you think that they'll be able to show their clients the process exactly by which they determined this?
I doubt it.
I doubt it, because I don't think the facts would support their conclusions.
So we'll see.
Now, everything I know about NewsGuard just comes from other people.
So just so they don't sue me, I'll say, I don't know.
I don't know what's true about NewsGuard.
But what I hear from credible people is that they're in the misinformation game, not the information game.
Well, science ...has found a way, or they're getting close, to mimicking photosynthesis.
So, as much as we like to use our solar panels, they're not as efficient as nature, and nature uses photosynthesis.
But apparently there are some researchers now.
There's a report in ACS Engineering.
There's some researchers, they've got some technology that looks promising.
It's not too close to being operational.
But it looks promising, and they've got something that would chemically change carbon dioxide, water.
They create methane, and that's a high-energy fuel.
They create it from nothing but carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight.
Now I ask again my provocative question.
Can somebody tell me which of the hundreds of climate model predictions include the variable That we would turn carbon dioxide into methane.
What happens if the carbon dioxide is the fuel?
Because apparently we're on the verge of being able to turn the worst thing in the world into free fuel.
Or not free, but you'd be sucking it out of the air.
So who saw that coming?
I don't know if this will ever become operational and economical, but it's knocking on the door.
Likewise, separately, quantum batteries are getting close to being a real thing.
Now, let me explain how a quantum battery works compared to a regular lithium battery.
With your regular lithium battery, you've got lithium things happening.
But then, as opposed to your quantum batteries, which are not developed yet, but are getting close, maybe they might work, they would use a quantum-y Non-lithium process, which would have nothing to do with methane.
I think I've clarified that enough.
Do you need the details, or are you good with that?
Yeah, quantum-y stuff.
Quantumized particles, in the quantum through the black hole, in the quantumized quantum way.
And that's how they work.
And if you need any more clarification than that, well, you came to the wrong place.
But it's exciting.
We might have these amazing batteries that are quickly powered up and stuff like that.
So again, which climate model accounted for the quantum batteries?
None.
None.
There's no climate model that accounts for your quantum battery that's coming any day now.
Probably not any day now, but maybe.
All right, Oklahoma is the next state to kick DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, out of their public education.
So you can't be a college or a school in Oklahoma and have DEI.
Now, how many states have banned it now?
Is it seven?
Seven states?
How many states?
Florida, Texas, Oklahoma?
What's the count now?
I think there's more.
By the way, how would you like to be going to school and being taught a subject that is literally illegal in other states?
Just hold that in your head.
Is there anything else like that?
Where you go to school and you pack your little lunch pail?
You know, you're 10 years old and you go to school and you sit there and you learn something that is literally illegal in another state in the United States.
Probably.
There are probably some other stuff like that.
But does that tell you what direction we're heading?
I'm pretty sure that we're heading in the direction of, you know, Disavowing all DEI eventually.
I mean, it's obvious that it has to happen eventually.
All right, the NAACP issued a statement that says the attacks on the Harvard president are probably white supremacy and racists.
So Bill Ackman, who's the most notable advocate, big investor, he's advocating the three college presidents who gave inadequate answers about Hamas, that they all be fired.
One of them is gone.
But Claudine Gay is still there, and it looks like she's going to stay.
And Harvard says attacks on that are racist.
And Bill Ackman says, how is it racist to attack three college presidents, two of whom are white?
One is black, attacking them all basically equally.
Except, you know, one had some extra plagiarism, the others didn't have.
How is that racist exactly?
I got a feeling that the NAACP is maybe, it's not helping.
It's not helping.
Anyway.
That's pretty ridiculous.
So Bill Ackman, one of the things he's doing that's a real service is he's making the Democrats and the left and the people who would be Claudine gay supporters, he's just exposing them.
He's making them say in public exactly what they feel and think and what they want.
And it's sort of devastating, because now you can see it.
You can see it with your own eyes.
Do you think it's changing anybody's minds about politics?
Do you think all of the college stuff is having an impact on the mind of the average citizen?
Or is this just for the wonks that follow the news and nobody else knows what's going on?
There aren't that many people who probably follow this story.
Do you think?
I don't know what percentage of the country would even be able to tell you what this story is about.
10%?
Probably 30% have heard of it.
10% actually could describe it to you.
5% have a strong opinion.
I don't know how important it is, but it might be seeping into the thinking of all people.
At least, here's the good news for Harvard.
At least the good news is that their bad news is behind them now, right?
So whatever's going to happen, it looks like they're going to weather the storm.
And I don't see anything else that's going to pop up in the news that would be embarrassing for Harvard.
Turns out that the mayor of Boston is under fire for having a Christmas party that excludes white people.
She graduated from Harvard in 2007, according to James Lindsay.
OK, I take everything back.
There is no end in sight to how bad things are going to get for Harvard.
That's right.
The Boston mayor is actually having a Christmas party that's called the Electeds of Color Christmas Party.
It's elected officials excluding, directly excluding, white people.
Graduated from Harvard in 2007.
Mayor of a major city.
So... Do you think this will have any impact on anybody?
Do you think people are noticing that there's kind of a trend?
Kind of a pattern?
Anybody noticing the pattern?
How many of you saw the clip or watched live?
Vivek Ramaswamy on CNN.
I guess he was talking to Abby Phillips and looked like a sort of a town hall situation.
And she asked about January 6.
And they did like several minutes of talking over each other.
So you couldn't hear anything and nothing was happening.
And it was really entertaining.
Because neither was willing to let the other Speak their piece, and you run out of time, basically.
You don't want the other one to run out the clock.
So Abby Phillips seemed to be unwilling to let Vivek say what he wanted to say.
He was unwilling to let her stop him from saying what he wanted to say, and he just wouldn't stop.
Because once the cameras are on, and once the show has started, here's something that Vivek and Trump both know.
Once the show starts, you have all the control.
Because they're not going to stop the show.
So as soon as the show started, Vivek simply didn't take no for an answer, and didn't take the interruptions.
He just bulled his way through, which was exactly the right thing to do.
Because she kept asking him for reasons, and when he offered the reasons, she talked over him.
At least that's what it looked like.
You couldn't really tell who was doing what, but I think she was trying to make small points as he was talking, which is not cool.
Let him talk.
So finally he got to talk, and the question was, why does he think there's a good chance there was, let's say, incitement by law enforcement on January 6th?
And here are the evidences he offers.
And I love the fact that he says to the audience, he said it several times, I know this will be uncomfortable for CNN.
That's a great line.
I know this will be uncomfortable for CNN, because they're not going to want to hear it in front of their own audience.
He's going to have to tell them that they've been essentially presenting fake news for a long time.
Now, I've been waiting for somebody who's not Trump to dissect their fake news operation without the hyperbole, to just sit right on it and point it out.
But he didn't quite do that.
I know he could, but he didn't quite do that.
Instead, he went to the evidence of January 6, and here's what he said.
He said, first of all, why did the January 6 committee only select a certain video?
One other video was exculpatory.
In other words, showing law enforcement opening the doors and collegially inviting people in.
That was pretty important.
Should have seen that.
Should have seen the law enforcement firing rubber bullets into the crowd, which didn't seem exactly called for.
It looked more like they were trying to cause trouble.
I mean, it's hard to imagine how it would have worked.
But we can't read minds, so we don't know that for sure.
What about when Christopher Wray was asked how many undercover people were there, he declined to answer.
Do you know what Abbie Phillips interpreted decline to answer as meaning?
There's no evidence that there were undercover people there, because Christopher Wray declined to answer how many there were.
So therefore there's no evidence there weren't any there.
Well, technically it's true.
It's technically true that he did not provide evidence that there were anybody there, undercover.
But, Abbie Phillips, you know they were.
You know they were.
Of course they were.
The only question is how many, and the question is why wouldn't he answer that question?
And then Vivek went through the Whitmer example, Governor Whitmer, a perfect analogy or let's say precedent where the government did in fact get caught red-handed inciting people to do things that they wouldn't have been inclined to do on their own.
So now you've got a perfect recent template To show that the government does this kind of stuff.
We don't have to guess.
Hey, does your government do this kind of stuff?
Yes.
Proven in court.
Remember how the Democrats say there's no election problems unless they're proven in court?
Well, the government inciting people to do crimes they wouldn't have ordinarily done has been proven by the same bunch of people.
So now you've got the model that proves that they do it, and it's a normal pattern.
It's not abnormal.
You have the FBI who won't tell you how many there were, which means there were people there.
The fact that they won't tell you how many suggests it's more than a trivial number.
Because none of us can imagine Ray would have hesitated to tell you If they didn't have any impact.
It would have been easy to say, oh yes, we always have operatives, but just a handful, and certainly they didn't have anything to do with what happened.
How easy would it be to say that?
Yeah, there were a handful.
I don't have the exact number, but you know, we had half a dozen people there at least, somewhere in that neighborhood, less than 10, and they didn't have much to do with anything.
They weren't inciting anything.
Just observing.
Now, he didn't say that.
He didn't say that.
But if it had been a trivial amount of undercover people, why wouldn't you say that?
It's not really giving up any secrets, because everybody assumes that they were there.
In fact, they wouldn't be doing the job if they weren't keeping a close eye on people who might be doing something close to the line of legal activities.
Totally appropriate for their organization.
Yeah, and then there's the Ray Epps thing that's still kind of a question mark to some of us.
So I think Vivek made his point.
And I'm going to support Vivek additionally by saying, and I wish he had said this, because I think more people need to say it.
If you're talking about an individual, such as Ray Epps, Ray Epps is innocent until proven guilty.
That's my take.
It doesn't matter how guilty you think he is, by looking at it, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Might he be guilty?
Well, that's for the courts to figure out.
Someday, if there's any charge, there's no charge.
But an individual has a different standard than the government.
If the government is hiding things from you, and you know that they've cherry-picked some information they gave you, your assumption of their guilt is completely legitimate.
You might be wrong.
You might be wrong.
But your assumption of guilt should be your operating standard.
It should be an operating assumption that they're wrong because they can't confirm that they didn't do it.
Now that's what I would have loved to hear Vivek say.
Look, there's plenty of evidence to suggest we've got a pattern we can look to.
There's evidence to suggest.
And all I'm saying is that given the evidence we do have, You have to make the assumption of guilt for the government, because there's no transparency.
If there were transparency, I would rethink this.
But the government is not an individual.
They're not innocent until proven guilty.
They're absolutely guilty until proven innocent.
So we need to make sure that the public understands that standard really clearly.
The government is guilty until they prove they're not.
It has to be that way.
That's not unreasonable.
They have to be transparent or else you don't know what they're up to and you could assume they're up to no good.
So what about the election?
Do you as a citizen have confidence that you know what the code of the voting machines is doing?
I don't.
How would I?
So my assumption is elections are rigged.
Not because I have information affirmatively proving they are.
I don't have anything like that.
What I have is a non-transparent system run by the government.
In every case, I will assume a non-transparent system run by the government is corrupt every time.
It doesn't matter if it's elections or anything else.
Military-industrial complex, the reason we go to war, The reason we do anything?
Yeah.
I assume the worst in all those cases whenever there's a lack of transparency.
And how often am I going to be right?
How often will I be right by assuming the worst in a non-transparent situation?
Probably most of the time.
More than half.
Probably more than half.
So that's the attack I'd like to see on that.
Here's another attack.
I say that DEI, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, creates a hostile work environment.
How many of you would agree that DEI creates a hostile work environment?
Now, didn't we used to think that was bad?
I used to think that was the worst thing that could happen because, you know, the Me Too stuff is not just the individual acts of, you know, Me Tooism.
Those are bad, of course.
But beyond that, it creates a hostile work environment, right?
So we do we do value this hostile work environment as a major, major problem.
In fact, Biden himself said he would not tolerate a hostile work environment in his administration.
He said, basically, I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like, if anybody in my administration is being an asshole, they're fired immediately.
You just can't be an asshole.
No hostile work environment, you gotta go.
No questions asked.
So DEI creates that hostile work environment, and if you're a leader of one of these organizations, and you don't know that DEI is creating a hostile work environment, do you know why you don't know that?
Why would a leader of a big company be unaware that DEI is creating a hostile work environment?
Why would that be?
How could you possibly be unaware?
I'll tell you why.
Because it's a hostile work environment.
The reason the leader doesn't know it's a hostile work environment is because it's a hostile work environment.
Do you know who raises their hand in a hostile work environment?
Nobody.
Nobody.
Because it's a hostile work environment.
So if you say, Scott, I've never heard of these claims you're making about white men being grossly discriminated against for 40 years.
Do you know why you haven't heard about it?
It's a hostile work environment.
It's a hostile work environment.
Nobody's going to tell you the truth in a hostile work environment.
So there's your fucking truth.
Well, I guess Congress voted away our privacy, as if we had a... by six votes.
The Senate just approved this warrantless backdoor surveillance stuff that's part of a bigger package, I think.
Now, there were some what I would call good Republicans, like I believe Senator Cruz voted in favor of this.
Am I wrong?
Didn't Ted Cruz vote in favor of it?
Yeah.
And how about Rand Paul?
Did he vote in favor of it?
No?
Just trying to figure out.
So here's my question.
How many of you don't trust Ted Cruz on this question, on privacy?
Is there anybody who doesn't trust Ted Cruz?
All right, that's fair.
He's a politician.
It's always fair if you don't trust a politician.
But here's my problem with this story so far.
I don't really understand why so many Republicans would favor it.
If the story is what we're told, and we're not missing some context, how does that really explain the number of people who supported it?
Here's what I think.
I feel like we're not hearing the whole story.
Now, you know, you could assume people are bought off and it's corruption.
Maybe.
It's a non-transparent system in a sense, so maybe.
But I feel like there are too many probably good people, I'll say probably, who voted for it, who had full knowledge of, you know, its risks, but may have had additional knowledge about something that we don't know about.
So I'm only going to put out there that it looks terrible.
It looks terrible.
But I feel like there's a little bit of a documentary effect going on.
Like, I would like to hear Ted Cruz sit down and explain in detail why he voted the way he went.
And I feel like we would have a different feeling about it If we heard somebody that you thought was generally credible on other topics, at least you find them credible on other topics, and just listen to what he has to say.
So I'm going to put a maybe on this one.
I don't like giving up privacy, but I'm not sure it's that different than it ever was.
I mean, we never had any real privacy.
So let me speak to you as someone who hasn't had privacy for forever.
I don't know.
It feels about the same.
It doesn't feel that different.
But I don't like it.
If I could have more privacy, I would take it.
All right.
Tucker Carlson is quite sure that UFOs are real or there's something up there.
He posted on X, it's becoming obvious.
So he says it's obvious that the US government has made contact with non-human beings.
So, why are they lying to us about it?
We asked UFO whistleblower Dave Grush.
Now, I've asked you this before, so I know your answers.
You don't believe the UFOs, do you?
Because I don't believe them.
But Tucker does.
Now, Tucker probably has way better information than you and I have.
And he believes them.
I do see a few people believe it.
All right, here's my current understanding of it.
So this will be my opinion.
Mr. Grush looks like an honest patriot.
I believe he's telling the truth about everything he's saying.
He doesn't give off any he doesn't give off any signals for a liar at all.
Like if he's lying, he's really good at it.
But I don't think that's what's going on.
He looks like he's telling the truth, as he understands it.
Now, did he tell you that he put his hands on a UFO?
Did he touch one?
No.
No, he didn't say that.
He says other people say they exist.
Has he seen some biologics, as he calls it?
Has he seen a little bag of alien remains?
No.
He's been told by other people they exist.
So, I think he's telling the truth.
I think that other people said it existed.
So the real question is not whether Grush is telling the truth, because he's not the one with the source information.
You'd have to ask other people.
The other people are not talking.
Well, there's one, but not the highest credibility.
Yeah, Bob Lazar I don't put in the high credibility category.
And you'd want to see multiple people with multiple reports to believe something that incredible.
And you'd want them to all say the same stuff, etc.
So here's what I think.
I disagree with Tucker that it's obvious we have these non-human contacts.
I think it's obvious that the U.S.
wants our average theories to think we have them.
Because apparently one of the things that Grush saw He had high-level clearance, so had some part in his work.
He saw some captured intel that showed that one of our adversaries, he didn't say which one, but an adversary believes we have captured aircraft, UFOs.
So our adversary believes we have them.
So that was part of the evidence that convinced him we do, because our adversaries are spying on us and they're pretty sure we have them.
So maybe their spying is a good job.
But we do know that the CIA has consciously and directly, and it's in writing, we've seen it, used UFO stories as distractions for the news.
So we don't have to wonder, does the CIA use fake UFO stories to distract us?
That's a given.
There is a history.
It's documented.
You can see the actual CIA saying, yeah, maybe we should do a UFO story to distract people.
So I would say, given that we don't have credible people who put their hands on anything and held it in their hand and all that, and the fact there are no good photographs, and the fact that Elon Musk says, I don't think so.
I think it's just a story that we want our adversaries to hear, because it's free money.
It's free money.
If you're trying to protect your country, persuasion is maybe the biggest part of it.
You need a good military, but it's not going to help you unless you can also persuade people not to attack, ideally.
So it seems obvious to me That the CIA is aware that it would be a good thing to do, to say we have it, because it gives just that little bit of extra doubt.
Do you know how Trump said to Putin, he sort of threatened that he would bomb Moscow?
And even Trump says out loud, now he probably thought there was no more than a 10% chance that would happen, but 10% is a lot.
10% is enough for you to say, you know, I'm not going to take the chance.
Trump says that directly.
That if you can put in your opponent's mind the doubt or at least the idea that you've got some superpowers or something, it's effective.
They only need a 10% belief.
They don't need a lot of belief.
So if you could make Russia and China think there was a solid 10% chance that we had advanced, you know, alien technology, You don't think that would affect their war plans?
Of course it would.
Even if it's only a 10% chance of being true.
Yeah, just like Moscow.
All right, so I think it's obvious that we don't have this unless we're keeping it with those secret sonic weapons that we used on the embassies.
Maybe we keep them all together with the Russian supersonic weapons.
All right.
How many attacks on Elon Musk are there now?
Let's see.
NBC is telling us that the Cybertruck, according to experts, because it's a big heavy truck, could really hurt pedestrians and occupants of lighter vehicles if they hit it.
Yeah, that's a story that was just begging to be told, wasn't it?
The a truck is heavy story?
Do you know it's also heavier than a Prius?
Every truck.
Every truck.
Every single truck.
They're all bigger than a Prius.
Yeah.
Does this look like an important story and nobody could have figured out that a truck... Just look at the Cybertruck.
You don't think you could tell that would hurt your car if you hit it?
I think you could tell.
But it's not just NBC.
As others have pointed out.
Who else?
Let's see.
Let's see, we've got, as Brendan Carr said, we've got the, these are the entities that are going after MUST.
The DOJ, FAA, FTC, NLRB, the Southern District in New York, and the FWS, whatever they are.
And then NBC.
Now some say that NBC is just a government intel The NBC people say is the one that just tells you what the government told them to say.
It's sort of their outlet for fake news.
So you got NBC, which I just put as a government entity.
It's basically a Democrat entity at this point.
So NBC, DOJ, FAA, FTC, NLRB, SDNY, and FWS, whoever they are.
Who's the FWS?
FWS.
Somebody tell me what that is.
Why don't I know what that is?
SEC?
Or are you saying that also the SEC?
All right, well, some government agency, I guess.
So it's not our imagination, right?
Joe Biden did say at the podium, he said out loud, How would they get back at Elon Musk?
And the President responded, there's a lot of ways to investigate, not get back at him.
He was asked, you know, whether he would be investigated, and he said, there are a lot of ways.
Well, here are all the ways.
I mean, it's pretty clear that Biden has weaponized government against one citizen, because that citizen has essentially rescued free speech, and free speech is really dangerous.
To the Biden administration.
So it's not my imagination, right?
This is 100% obvious that your government is weaponized against at least Trump and at least Musk.
And I would argue that they're weaponized against me and a lot of people who are on social media.
So we've seen the SPLC weaponized against people, the ADL weaponized against, oh, And the ADL weaponized against Musk.
Now, when I mentioned these government entities, I didn't mention the ADL.
But should I?
So let's see, the ADL... Let's see if I have this right.
I don't know if I have this right.
Does the ADL take any funding from Soros?
Does anybody know that?
Does Soros fund the ADL at all?
Well, if he does, Or let me be more general.
Whatever Soros funds is effectively the Biden administration funding it.
Because he's also the biggest funder of the Biden administration, the Democrats.
So if you're saying that the ADL is a non-government organization, well that's technically true.
But it's also true that the main funder of the main You know, people running the country is funding both.
Or, I don't know if it's the ADL, but some people are saying so.
So, to say that Soros is not part of the Democrat administration is only technically true.
But he operates like he is.
So, I feel like making that distinction is not exactly fair.
He's basically the Democrats.
Alright, there's a report, that I'm not sure anybody believes, that Russia has lost almost 90% of its pre-war army, according to US intelligence.
315,000 Russians killed or injured.
The key word is pre-war army.
Pre-war.
So, if you read this quickly, you'd say 90% of their army is gone.
But that's not what this says.
90% of the pre-war number.
So they had a smallish, relative to now, smallish army that they turned quickly into a largish army.
The 90% is of what they used to have.
It's not 90% of what they have now.
To me this looks like propaganda to help the funding of Ukraine.
Because it makes Ukraine look like they're winning.
So here's some of the arguments that Ukraine has made for why they're winning.
They say they're controlling the sea in the area, the Black Sea, so that they kind of won that.
And I'm thinking, kind of, yeah.
They did make it too dangerous for Russia to be in that area, and I think they're getting some of their weed out.
But that's not like the biggest win in the world.
And then he also said, I may have gotten this one wrong, but I think what he said, Zelensky, is that one of the big wins is that the Wagner Group kind of got disintegrated, and the Wagner Group was Russia's wedge in other countries.
So that Russia will, going forward, have less of a way to control other third world countries with their Wagner Group.
I kind of suspect the Wagner Group will be reconstituted maybe after the war, so I don't know if that's a big deal.
But Zelensky had to reach pretty far to get a victory there, didn't he?
That's quite a stretch to say you're winning.
That you control the ocean, which is not Ukraine, and you've done a good job of protecting Africa from the Wagner Group.
That's really... My favorite story of the day is that Trump says he got a physical and he took a cognitive exam and he said, quote, but I took a cognitive exam and I aced it.
All right, he aced it.
He aced it.
Now, didn't you laugh when you heard that?
Why is it only funny when Trump says it?
Because you know he's bullshitting.
But he bullshits in such an obvious way that it just makes it part of the joke.
Yeah, it's on brand.
If you had heard, if Trump had said anything except he had aced the cognitive test, it wouldn't be Trump.
Like, this is why I like him.
It's because he says stuff like this that just makes him irresistible to people like me.
Like, I just love the fact that he said it.
It doesn't matter if it's true.
I don't care.
I really don't care if it's true.
The fact that he said it and the way he said it is just so Trumpy.
You just can't match whatever it is he has, that X factor.
You just can't touch it.
He just is so singular.
You know, I remind you that I'm still endorsing Vivek.
But Trump has game, let's say.
And he says that everybody who's running for president should be forced to take a cognitive exam.
I don't know about that, but I do think it's good politics to say it.
All right.
An interesting legal thing happening that I don't fully understand, but I'll do my best.
So one of the J6ers got his case all the way to the Supreme Court.
And the question the Supreme Court will handle is if there's really a thing like obstructing an official proceeding.
Because apparently the laws about obstructing an official proceeding were created specifically about destruction of documents.
So if the government had asked for some documents but you destroy them, you're obstructing their proceeding by destroying the documents.
Destroying documents has nothing to do with January 6.
However, some of the language of January 6 suggests that it could include proceedings, you know, obstructing an ongoing proceeding.
Now the original context was destroying documents, but there is some general language that seems maybe non-document related.
So here's the importance.
If the Supreme Court rules about this one January 6th person who got convicted and says, oh yeah, that rule didn't really apply to this situation, or could say they didn't really delay it because nothing could have really stopped it, or they could say, well, the only thing they delayed was the ceremonial part.
I don't know.
Maybe that's something.
I don't know if there's enough there.
My non-lawyer take on it is, it's not obvious that the J6-ers are going to win this.
It's not obvious to me.
But they could.
I think it's in the realm of possibility that they could.
Now, if one J6-er wins it in the Supreme Court, I assume that has huge implications for all the other J6-ers, except for the violent ones.
The violent ones are in for the violence as well.
But it would have, of course, tremendous implications for Trump himself.
Because how could Trump obstruct something if there's no valid law that says that's a problem?
So if you want to hear a better explanation of that, go listen to a lawyer.
Speaking of... So here's the exact sentence.
See if you think this applies.
So it'd be illegal to quote, this is from the law, to otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceedings or attempts to do that.
And you'll be fined in a prison if you do that.
Now, I guess the Supreme Court would have to look into what is any official proceeding.
Because here's the problem.
That would apply to everybody all the time.
Aren't people always trying to impede official proceedings?
Isn't every protest trying to impede it?
How do you define impede?
What is enough action that you've impeded it?
And let's say if you knew that the most you're doing, the worst they could do is delay it a day.
If you have a protest that says, we definitely do want to do this government official proceeding.
No, we're not trying to stop it.
We're trying to make sure it was done right.
All right, you're the Supreme Court and somebody comes to you with this argument.
The protesters didn't ask to stop it forever.
They asked to make sure it was being done right.
Is asking or demanding that something be done right, in other words, to check anything that can be checked, is demanding that something to be done right, and then done, the same as stopping it?
If I'm the Supreme Court, I say, no, that's different.
If they're trying to stop it forever, maybe you'd have something there.
But if the explicit demands were to delay it just long enough to check, The government would have been fine under that circumstance.
The government would have just ticked along until they found out, then they would have certified it.
So if I were the lawyer, I would argue that there was no real chance of it being delayed indefinitely, and that whatever delay they were asking for was trivial, and therefore this doesn't apply.
If I'm the Supreme Court, I kick it out and free Trump.
All right.
So Trump is leading in all seven swing states according to polls.
And Rasmussen has a real jaw dropper.
Are you ready for this?
Brand new Rasmussen poll.
Trump just opened a 10 point lead.
10 point lead.
This is brand new.
10 point lead.
So he leads in all seven swing states.
And I believe he wins even in a national vote, which normally the Republicans lose, even if they win in the Electoral College.
He has the most commanding lead that I think I've ever seen?
Maybe?
I don't have a memory of anybody having this much of a lead at this point.
Maybe there's precedent for it.
I don't know.
Probably is.
So, He's at his strongest point, and Jack Smith, his prosecutor, appears dead set in trying to make sure that he has to sit in trial, because apparently the nature of the trial requires his presence for the entire trial while it's in court.
So Trump would have to take massive time out from campaigning to literally just sit in court while they tell him he's guilty.
To me, it's very obvious that the government is weaponized against Trump.
This is purely political.
These charges wouldn't have happened except for Trump.
And that it's exactly what it looks like.
They're trying to put him in jail because beating him at the ballot box appears to be impossible.
Appears impossible.
So, as Trump's lead grows, it is now beyond the margin of cheating.
That's a big fucking deal.
Because if Trump were so close to Biden that if they could cheat, and I'm not saying they will, I'm not saying they ever have, but if you got it close, it would be at least tempting to cheat to put Biden over the top.
If it's close, because you could get away with it.
It's not close.
So if it's not close, the option of tweaking a little bit to put Biden ahead isn't going to work.
So what are they going to do, the Democrats, if they can't beat him in the ballot box and they can't even beat him by rigging the ballot box?
Because it would be too obvious.
What are you going to do?
Remember, they've already told themselves and all of their base that he's literally Hiller.
He's a dictator who's going to take away all your freedoms.
What are you going to do?
Well, if you can't put him in jail, which would look at least like a legal process, what are you going to do?
Do you know how the Biden administration has refused RFK Jr.' 's security detail?
Even though it's super obvious that RFK Jr.
needs security.
Super, super obvious.
And there's a precedent.
Obama got early security.
Do you think they'll take Trump's security away?
As ridiculous as that sounds, what else do they have left?
Because they have to stop him.
And they're not going to want to kill him themselves.
That'd be a little too on the nose.
But they might want somebody else to do it.
They've certainly weaponized the public by saying he's Hitler.
I'm not going to predict that they take away his security detail, but what are they going to do?
So we're creating a situation where they either have to do something massively illegal, or they have to replace Biden right away.
And it looks like they're working on all counts.
It looks like the Democrats are trying to be prepared for all situations.
Ideally, it's pretty clear that the Democrats in general would like to push Biden out of the job.
So it's obvious that they're pushing and pushing and pushing.
It might even be the reason that people are answering the polls the way they are.
It might be the Democrats are just answering that they won't vote for Biden to give him the extra push, but they would vote for any other Democrat.
So that doesn't guarantee that Trump's going to win just because he's ahead of Biden.
You stick any other Democrat in there and it's going to flip immediately, I think.
So the most likely possibility is they're going to keep pushing Biden to resign.
But whatever it is that's keeping Biden in the race, I don't know what it is.
I think it's to protect himself and his family.
That's what I think.
But that won't change.
So imagine if you will, Trump offered to pardon Biden if he drops all the charges.
Can you imagine Trump offering to pardon the Bidens?
Or just Hunter?
Or just Hunter?
It would put Joe Biden in an awkward position, wouldn't it?
Now, I think the Republicans wouldn't like to hear it.
They wouldn't like to hear Trump say he might pardon Biden or Hunter, because you know it wouldn't work the other way, right?
So you say, oh no, take every advantage, fight every way you can, destroy them completely.
A lot of Republicans would say that.
But just think about how clever it would be for Trump simply to make that offer.
Because it would just throw them into chaos.
Because they'd think about it.
But I don't think Trump wants Biden to leave the race, do you?
I mean, Biden's his most beautiful person at this point.
So I think that Trump wants to keep him in the race, and he'll act that way.
All right, and the change in the Rasmussen poll is tremendous.
So the Trump up by 10 is a reversal from just one month ago, when Biden led by four points.
One month ago, Biden won by four points and now Trump's up by ten.
Same methodology, I think.
Same methodology.
It should be.
All right.
So Hunter.
Was asked to show up for a closed door hearing or deposition or something, whatever they're going to call it for Congress.
But instead of attending it, he went to the location and gave a gave a little speech to the reporters saying that he'd be happy to do it, but only if it's open door.
Now, I said that he won.
And I'm going to disagree.
At my peril with Jonathan Turley.
I invented what I call the Turley Test.
It's like a play on the Turing Test.
So the Turley Test is... Turley is usually right on the legal stuff.
So if you disagree with him, you're probably at your peril.
So if you disagree with him or Dershowitz or somebody, just know you're being stupid.
Because he's going to be right about the law.
Having said that, I'm now going to be stupid, because Turley says that Abbey Lowell, who is the attorney for Hunter, he said he, this is according to Turley, that Abbey Lowell just staged the worst possible optics.
He yelled oppressor, just steps away from a committee waiting to hear from him, Hunter that is.
I cannot imagine the legal rationale for such a stunt.
It is virtual legal self-immolation.
And then totally said he should have just said, invoked his right to remain silent.
I'm going to disagree.
I'm going to disagree.
So first of all, I think you'd agree that Hunter's lawyer is, he's playing the court system, but also the public opinion.
Right?
The lawyer is juggling two things.
Public opinion is really, really going to matter in this case, but also the legal part.
Here's how I felt about it.
I'll just tell you how I felt.
Hunter made me agree with him totally.
Totally persuaded me.
I watched him say, I'll be happy to do this if you do it transparently.
And then he spoke my language.
He said, it's a government process.
I would be happy to do it if you can all watch.
Sold.
Sold.
Stop talking.
Sold.
Right?
Because I don't care if it's the Republicans.
I don't care if it's Comer.
I don't care who it is.
If you're going to do it behind a closed door with somebody who says, I don't want to do it behind a closed door, I want to do it in public because I don't trust you.
I am on Hunter's side so hard.
So hard.
Totally on his side.
Now, here's what many of you said when I said this on X. You said, Scott, you don't get it.
If it's public, it's going to be one of those show trial things where everybody gets five minutes and then he just runs out the clock.
What?
No, that's not what I heard.
What I heard was he wants to do the process that they said they want to do, but publicly.
I didn't hear him say he wants to have all the people ask him five minutes apiece.
I heard him say, do what you want to do, exactly the way you want to do it, and let everybody watch.
That's what I heard.
Did you hear him say, I don't want to answer questions from a well-qualified one person?
Did you say, it needs to be public, but also, in addition to being public, did he say it should be everybody only has five minutes to talk to me?
He didn't say that.
Now, if there's some kind of weird rule I don't know about that says if it's public, everybody has to give five minutes, I've never heard of that.
So am I wrong that all he asked for was public?
He didn't ask for it to change the format to everybody gets five minutes.
He didn't ask for that.
What am I wrong about?
Don't say I'm wrong.
Say what I'm wrong about.
So you're telling me that if it's public, everybody gets five minutes and there's nothing they can fucking do about it?
That's stupid!
That's stupid!
No, Comer, they could do anything they want.
They could have one person ask all the questions, which I assume is what they were going to do.
So whether it's a committee meeting or one person, all Hunter said is let people watch.
He did not say change the standard of how the questions would be asked.
I feel like you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance here, because you want Hunter to be wrong and guilty and bad in every way.
How about Hunter has some real issues he needs to explain, but that he's not completely always wrong and bad about every single thing?
We can't allow that?
Can't he be totally right about this?
Now here's partly why I'm backing him on this, because it's what I would have done.
That's exactly what I would have done.
So here's why I think Abby Lowell may have played it correctly.
Hunter went physically to roughly where they wanted him to be.
That showed the committee that it was not a physical limitation, that physically he was willing to do it, and then he told the public of the entire world, I'm willing to do this.
I'm willing to do this, and I'm even here.
Just turn the cameras on.
I think he won 100%.
I think that was absolutely a great play.
So I agree with his lawyer.
And now, Turley is being specific when he says it's a legal self-immolation.
So Turley's not saying directly that the public relations part is good or bad.
He's saying from a legal perspective, you know, it puts him in a little extra jeopardy.
And people said, hey, if other people could be arrested, like Bannon, for refusing to talk, why can't Why isn't Hunter immediately arrested?
Why is he not handcuffed?
To which I say, damn it, don't make me defend Hunter again.
Bannon said he wouldn't do it.
Hunter said, I would totally do this, and I want everybody to see it.
Those are not the same.
Those are not the same.
I'm not going to talk to you.
Yes, I will talk to you, and I want everybody to watch.
Those are opposites.
Those are direct opposites.
So I don't want to hear the Bannon example.
And Bannon was arguing some privilege or something, right?
Yes, that was a different situation.
Yeah, don't compare it to Bannon.
That's completely different.
So, you know, I hate to be in a position where, you know, I'm the one defending Hunter.
How did I get here?
And see, this is what I really fucking hate.
I really hate that I tell you something that you don't disagree with one bit, and I see some asshole here saying that I've lost the step.
Why?
Why?
Because I don't want to throw a citizen of the United States under the fucking bus?
Hunter is first a citizen of the United States.
First.
Don't lose that.
Why are you losing that?
Don't lose your humanity just because you want to win.
All right.
Apparently, OpenAI has announced they're going to have a new partner for their news.
So they've got a new strong partner.
So if you use ChatGPT going forward, it'll be pulling from some specific news sources.
So that's good news, right?
ChatGPT will have some fresh news sources.
I don't see any problem with that.
Do you?
What could the possible problem with that be?
Oh, you're asking what the sources are.
How does that matter?
How does that matter?
Okay, let's check the sources.
Let's see, it's some news entities owned by somebody named Axel Springer.
So apparently he owns, let's see, what's he own?
Business Insider, BILD, and Welt.
I think those are some German publications.
Does he own Politico?
Does he own Politico?
I see this in the note, but I didn't know that.
Anyway, so what do other people say about that?
Mike Benz points out that Axel Springer is a longtime recipient of CIA support for his media empire overseas.
So, Chad GPT will be using a news source owned by someone who is known to be kind of friendly with the CIA in the past.
Now, the CIA connection is pretty past.
So, it would not be unusual for the CIA to help some news entity get created and get successful if they feel they have some influence on it.
So, is it starting to look... Let me back up and state something obvious.
Let me say something that I want you all to say that's obvious.
That's obvious.
There's no way the CIA can let AI just operate without their influence.
You agree?
There is no way, no way, the CIA can let AI develop just on its own, organically.
Well, wherever it ends up.
Hey, you know, it could be a threat, but wherever it ends up, that's fine.
No.
If the CIA is doing their job, they have already corrupted Chad GPT.
Does the CIA do their job well?
Apparently yes.
Apparently they do.
Yeah.
Would this be hard for them?
Would it be beyond their capabilities to get functional control of a tech company?
Would that be hard for the CIA?
Nope.
Probably be the easiest thing you could ever do.
Well, do you know what you can do if you can find out what anybody has done digitally?
Imagine that you could find out what the CEO or even the top engineers of any company, you can find out everything they've done digitally.
You don't think you can control them if you know everything that they've done digitally?
Of course you can.
You can literally control any citizen by knowing all the things they've done digitally.
And if they're political people, or high-tech billionaires and stuff, well, you even have more stuff to work with.
There's going to be more juicy stuff in there.
So, can you imagine any situation in which the CIA had ever said, you know, we're going to sit this one out.
Let's just see how it develops.
I hope not.
That would be very much not their job.
Their job would be to protect the country.
If they think AI would drive the country apart in some way, they should absolutely be looking to figure out how to get a lever on it, in case something goes wrong, or in case they need to use it, or in case they need to tweak it so that somebody in another country is getting the America-approved version of the truth.
Of course they have to co-opt it.
Of course.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think Google search results are entirely the way they are because only Google has decided internally what is right and what is wrong, what priorities?
You don't think the CIA had an absolute mission to at least have the ability to change search results?
I can't imagine much that would be more important than that.
Because you'd want the search results, at least in other countries, to be pro-American.
Maybe subtly, but pro-American.
They're not going to let a search engine say a bunch of non-American embarrassing stuff in other countries, if they can prevent it.
So I would assume that any kind of major search engine would be subject to intelligence operative control.
Any.
Doesn't matter what company it is.
So does this look like more of that?
It looks exactly like more of that.
It looks exactly like what you would do if you're working with the CIA.
That doesn't mean they are.
I'm just saying it looks exactly like it, and you should expect it.
So when something looks exactly like what you should have expected it to look like, in any logical world in which things work the way they always work, it's probably exactly what it looks like.
Probably.
No, no.
Can't read minds.
All right, there's a survey of Palestinians to find out how many of them supported the massacre by Hamas.
Now this is not a survey of just Hamas.
This is a survey of the Palestinians in the area.
How many do you think supported the massacre?
Now, we're not talking about supporting Hamas in a general way.
We're talking about specifically supporting the massacre.
her.
72%.
72%.
72% of Palestinians, just the civilians, are okay with Hamas massacring and murdering Israelis on 10th Does that sound about right?
Now that's a number we've heard before.
I had heard that the Palestinians were about 70% in favor of Hamas.
I had not heard that it was still the case after 10-7 and after the destruction of Gaza.
But it is.
And as David Boxenhorn said, Don't feel sorry for Gaza.
They think it was worth it.
Damn it.
Damn it.
That's exactly my opinion.
That is exactly my opinion.
That by an overwhelming majority, they're glad it happened.
And if they're glad it happened, presumably they're looking at the whole picture.
They're not looking at it just in isolation.
Presumably, when they answer the question, they're talking about all the trouble it caused, as well as what it did, and the attention it got, and the response as well.
So, honestly?
As a human being, I don't want to see any innocent people get killed.
Nobody's in favor of war for the sake of war.
But how am I supposed to show empathy?
For a group of people who are getting what they want.
I have empathy for people not getting what they want.
They're very much getting what they want, as a whole.
Now, this still leaves a substantial number of people who didn't want any of it, and those people I especially want to be safe.
But, wow!
It is really hard to show some empathy in this situation.
If they got what they wanted.
See, and I've said this before, if you're fighting an enemy who wants to kill you, that's a normal situation.
So we can all deal with that.
Oh, we want to kill you, you want to kill us.
That's war.
But when you're fighting an enemy who wants to kill you, but also wants to die, and wants their own civilians to die, and worse, Their own civilians are willing to die to get whatever the goals are.
How do you fight that?
You don't fight that.
You treat it like a virus.
Right?
Now, I'll say this a million times until everybody agrees.
Sooner or later, you're all going to agree with me.
They're not fighting a war of people.
It's not a people war.
It's a virus.
There's a mental virus that has apparently affected not just the fighters, the terrorists, but also the public that supports them.
So you don't fight a virus by killing everybody, because you can't.
You do it by quarantine.
So I keep hearing people talk about what's going to happen to Gaza afterwards.
How about depopulated?
I think obviously it's going to be depopulated.
You're never going to see the Palestinians running it.
So do you think the Palestinians are going to be flowing back in to be under more Israeli occupation and more Hamas?
No.
There's no way Israel is going to let Gaza rebuild.
That would be stupid.
So what did they do with all the displaced people?
Well, 72% of them are happy with it.
If they act like they don't care, understandable.
All right.
So there's this new Civil War movie, what's called Civil War movie, and have you ever heard of predictive programming?
So this is a dirty trick, persuasion technique.
It's to prime you to put your brain in a certain state so that the later messages will go right in.
So if you create a narrative, People are very narrative story bound.
So as soon as, if they have any narrative in their head, all information sticks to one of the narratives.
It doesn't just float around and then you make sense of it.
It just sticks to a frame.
So if somebody creates a new frame and really gets it into the public, that really, really is their later persuasion.
It'll stick to the frame.
So this Civil War movie, the plot is that California and Texas Join teams, and there's a civil war against the rest of the country.
Now, I know what you're saying.
Scott, Scott, Scott, this is a stupid narrative.
Because one thing we know for sure is that California and Texas are never going to join teams.
One's blue, one's red.
That's crazy.
It's crazy, Scott.
Doesn't matter.
That detail of who's on what side, not relevant.
What's relevant is they put in your mind a movie, physical, visual version that you'll think about like the Matrix.
Like the Matrix.
Like Soylent Green, right?
If you see a story about a new food source that's not a normal food source, how long does it take you to say, Soylent Green!
Soylent Green!
That's predictive programming.
So because the movie had so much control of your head, you see any story about a new food source, and people will just start writing in the comments, Soylent Green!
I hope I'm the first one to say Soylent Green!
Did anybody else say Soylent Green yet?
And then, you know, then I want to go shoot myself.
Stop saying Soylent Green!
If Andrew Tate is selling his message, he will mention the Matrix 50 times.
Why?
The only reason Tate can mention the Matrix, and it all makes sense, is because you've got the Matrix in your head.
And the Matrix, not literally, sorry, when Andrew Tate says we're in the Matrix, he does not mean that we're really bodies and vats like the movie.
He means that the thing we're being presented with as reality is actually artificial, and there's a real reality behind it.
Now, he can say that in a shorthand because The Matrix kind of explained that kind of a concept.
So this new movie, this Civil War movie, it's really, really hard for me to see this as a coincidence.
When the narrative that the Democrats want to sell, and I'm sure it was made by Democrats, the narrative they want to sell is that there's a risk of civil war in the country.
Because that makes Trump look dangerous, and it makes all the more reason you're going to have to put him in jail.
Because you want to avoid that civil war.
What civil war?
Well, like the movie.
Just like the movie.
And then somebody says, but in the real world, California and Texas, they say, no, no, no.
Right.
Not those states, but certainly the red states versus the blue states.
So it is predictive programming.
Whether intentional or not, I don't know.
But boy, it's a big coincidence.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything I wanted to tell you about today.
Probably the finest live stream you'll ever see.
Is there anything I missed?
Yes, I missed it.
How's the stock market doing today?
It's up!
Stock market is raging.
Rumbles up almost 9%.
Whoa!
Campy world up 8%.
Bitcoin pulled back a little bit, but it's way high.
Apple's looking good.
The S&P index 500 up a little bit.
And even Israel's up.
Israel's stock is sort of up to where it's been hovering for a number of years, but it's not low.
All right.
Does the stock spike give you dopamine?
It does.
It does.
That's why I look at it.
My technique for checking my stocks is only when the market's up.
That's my rule.
If the market, you know, just goes in the toilet, stop looking.
Because the stocks I have, I hold them because they're good for the long term.
They're not susceptible to a temporary downturn.
So the moment it goes negative, I don't look.
And I wait for the news to say stuff like, oh, it's regained its territory since whatever.
Oh, we'll see.
Because that allows me to hold my stocks.
Because I'm reinforcing that holding was a good idea.
If I start looking at it when it goes down, that works against my discipline of knowing that holding it for long term is going to be the better idea.
So I don't check.
Kramer says recession.
Good.
As people often say, he's a counter indicator.
Disney will lose copyright on black and white Mickey Mouse in two weeks.
No way.
Really?
Because that was, was that a 75 year thing?
75 years?
Did I guess it?
75 years?
95.
Did I guess it?
95.
They had a 95-year copyright?
Is it really 95 years?
Wow.
That is the standard, 95.
I thought it was 75, but just going from memory.
So 95, they say.
The life of the creator plus 28 years, somebody says.
It was extended at one point.
I remember that.
OK.
Google lost a lawsuit about Monopoly in the App Store.
Oh, that could be interesting.
Somebody says my commentary improved since I got divorced.
I don't think it's related.
You know what I think it is?
I think we're just entering an election season.
I think my commentary has more salience as a presidential election approaches.
So I think that's what it is.
During the pandemic, I was useless to most of you.
Wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, during the pandemic, I was largely useless to most of you because I wasn't agreeing with you as much as you wanted.
During the pandemic, everybody just wanted, just agree with me.
Okay, just fucking agree with me.
That's all I'm asking you to do.
And I tried to do the, you know, show the pro and the cons.
Nobody wanted to hear that.
Let me give you an example.
No, I'm not going to do it.
I don't want to talk about it.
Andy McCarthy's idea that Democrats were using the indictments to bait Republicans into nominating...
Well, I agree with the theory that Democrats are trying to get Republicans to overreact.
I think Republicans are being pushed to overreact like January 6 so that they can sell their narrative that there's a civil war and all the MAGA people are bad, and white supremacists and stuff like that.
But here's what I think.
I feel like Republicans are too smart.
Which is not something I say a lot.
But don't you feel like the activist Republicans have totally figured out That if they get physical, it's bad.
Right?
Haven't they figured that out?
However, if Trump ever actually spent a day in a physical jail, I don't know what would happen.
Like, you know, I'm not going to incite any violence, because that's, you know, that would be falling into the trap.
You put Trump in jail for one day, like actual prison.
One day.
I cannot predict what would happen.
So I don't think he's jailable.
I've said this before.
I believe he's physically unjailable at this point.
Because the system couldn't handle it.
The system would just break.
Yeah.
If you want to destroy the entire republic, put him in jail for one day.
That would be the biggest existential threat to the country we've ever had, in my opinion.
