Episode 2328 CWSA 12/20/23 How About That Colorado Decision Barring Trump? That 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, Talking To Whales, Texas Population Gain, Fleeing New York, VP Harris, John Fetterman, Thomas Massie, Colorado Supreme Court, President Trump, RFK Jr, Ungovernable, Mike Benz, 2020 Color Revolution, Insurrection Allegations, Election Integrity, Vivek Ramaswamy, Jonathan Turley, Lincoln 1860 Ballot, Mike Cernovich, California Judicial Supremacy, Nikki Haley, Hitler Trump Allegations, Columbia, Open Border Terrorists, 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
Oh, I can't because my new book is in the way that you should order now!
In time for Christmas.
Still time.
This book will change your life.
This book is the second edition.
Changed lots of people's lives already.
And it's only getting bigger.
Better.
So get those now.
You still have time.
If you'd like to take your experience up to levels that you can't even imagine, can't even imagine, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a sign, a canteen, jug or flask, a vestibule of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Now, go.
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
That's good.
Savor it.
So, who's feeling ungovernable today?
I am.
A little bit ungovernable.
I always feel that way.
Well, let's talk about all of the news.
Of course, we'll talk about Trump in Colorado.
Kamala's word salad and all kinds of bad stuff.
But we're going to have fun with it all because I don't feel too serious today.
And I don't feel like there's too much risk today, actually.
But first of all, we've got talking to the animals.
There's some scientists who figured out how to talk to a whale, sort of.
Dr. Brendan McEwan, UC Davis, lauded the breakthrough.
So they recorded some whales.
And then they played some whale talk and it attracted a whale.
And whenever they played the whale talk, the whale responded.
Now, they don't know exactly what the whale is saying.
But if you've seen any of those viral videos of the husky dogs using the little buttons you put on the ground so they can say words, like, food, take me out.
And then they get more and more buttons.
And then the buttons form like a language and then you see the videos of the dog saying things like, I don't like my life, give me some treats, let's go to the store.
And you think, can that dog always do that?
Or is that just like the weird got lucky and that's why it's a viral video?
Well, I see a world in which animals, not only can speak to us through AI, translating their thoughts.
But here's the fun part.
I feel like the part of the animal that's missing is the, you know, the language function.
I assume animals don't have a language function.
But what happens if AI becomes the language function?
Would they actually learn language?
You know, their own version, not English.
But would they learn their own version of more words and start putting thoughts to certain words?
At which point, at least internally, they would have a language.
Now, if they have a language, does that make them smarter?
Because I have a theory that the reason the large language model AI works is because the combination of words is basically what we think is intelligence.
Just word combinations.
So if you could get the equivalent of word combinations into an animal, a whale or a dog, would the animals start acting like they're smarter?
Just because the words give them a little extra intellectual framework or something?
I think maybe.
I don't know the answer to the question, but I think maybe.
If you see those husky dogs, they look like they actually got smarter, not that they just learned to use these buttons.
It looks like they're actually gaining language skills.
So, Planet of the Apes, I know.
Brian Rumeli is taking a victory lap.
For his prediction a while ago that soon all the music would be AI.
So Microsoft is integrating this music creation app that just makes up AI music, any kind you want, into its Copilot AI.
So now all the music, the lyrics, the instruments, it's all going to be done by AI, Brian tells us.
So you could have infinite songs just by telling it sort of what the topic is.
So you could say, songs about The Economy.
And then, doo-doo-doo-doo-doo, The Economy, and then you can listen to the song.
Now I listened to the first example of it.
No interest whatsoever.
So this will be a good test.
So Brian Ramelli, who's used predictions on technology, you should really pay attention to, because he's way ahead of the curve.
But, just for fun, I'm going to be the opposing prediction.
The opposing prediction is that AI-generated art of any kind, be it movie or music or visual art, will have a very limited and niche appeal, and it will never get out of it.
And it's because I believe that what we're responding to with art is the understanding that a human made it.
And that's the only activating part.
As soon as you know a computer made it, no interest at all.
Just noise.
So, that's my prediction.
It's the opposite of Brian's.
Let's see.
Just to make it fun.
All right.
I saw a crazy, crazy idea.
Jordan Peterson was tweeting this, or posting it.
There's some researchers who took the concept of Moore's Law.
You know that one.
It says your microchip power will double every whatever years.
And sure enough, for many years in a row, Moore's Law, his prediction that the doubling would happen at a very predictable rate, pretty much right on point.
So somebody said, hey, what if we took that concept about life on the planet?
Because life on the planet keeps getting more complicated, just like a microchip.
So somebody said, what if we took the complexity of life as we know it, and then we did a reverse Moore's Law to find out when life must have started?
Because if you can find a predictable law with human complexity that somehow mimics Moore's Law as sort of an analogy or a model.
You might be able to figure out when life started.
And so they worked that calculation and they decided that it started like way before we think it did.
How far before?
Well, maybe life, maybe before Earth.
So using this method, they find out that life began before Earth was a planet.
Which would suggest that life started in a simpler form somewhere else and had a few billion years to become complicated enough that by the time we got our first taste of it, it was already complex.
A little bit.
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe.
I wouldn't say that the Moore's Law analogy is any kind of science.
So I wouldn't call this science.
It's just sort of an interesting, interesting mental experience.
Let's call it.
New York Post says more people are leaving New York.
They're fleeing New York.
And Texas is the one that's had the biggest population gain.
I don't know if that's biggest population gain by Numbers or by percentage?
Probably just numbers.
But that would be, actually in this case, numbers is better than a percentage.
So that's valid.
Now, why do you think people are fleeing New York and going to Texas?
Taxes.
Freedom.
Less craziness.
Better public relations.
One thing Texas is doing better than New York is doing way better on public relations.
You know, if you looked at Texas as a product, with marketing, Texas is marketing, my God!
Florida and Texas, they've done a really good job of just sort of marketing their product to a certain kind of buyer, and the buyers are responding, so no surprise.
Doing a good job.
But imagine being New York, And your biggest problem at the moment is immigration, and people think that Texas is handling it so much better that they're moving closer to the border.
That's right.
Their biggest problem in New York is probably immigration.
New York City, anyway.
And to get away from the immigration, they're going to move closer to the border.
That's a pretty good endorsement for Texas.
If moving closer to the border makes you feel safer.
But of course immigration will be one of many variables.
I think taxes are probably closer to the top of the list.
When I think about moving, I primarily think about taxes.
Let me test that on you.
If anybody's not in one of those state tax, low state tax states, when you consider moving, because probably everybody noodles about it, do you think taxes mostly, or is it some kind of freedom thing?
Mostly taxes.
Yeah.
Yeah, so the New York City taxes are just crazy, because you got the city taxes on top of the state taxes.
Yeah.
Right now, if I If I moved to Texas, let me just give you an idea about this.
So I live in California.
If I were to move to Texas and just kept doing my same job, because I'm independent of location, I would save enough on state taxes in Texas to buy a substantial mansion for free.
For free.
The amount I would save on taxes would more than pay for a mansion.
A multi-million dollar mansion.
It'd be free.
How do you not move for a free mansion?
Right?
I'm doing okay and, you know, I don't want to move out of my house and I like the weather and everything.
So, honestly, it's mostly the weather.
I live in one of the few places that you can live year-round and be okay with it.
By late February, I'm going to be a little complainy, because it's been too cold and rainy for too long.
But I'm in the middle of the December rainy season, and when I heard it was going to be raining all day today, my first impression was, yay!
Rainy day.
Because we don't get that many.
It's like a whole rainy day where you can just hunker down and get some stuff done, and make sure you do your indoor exercise and stuff.
I'm still binge watching The Crown on Netflix.
Good rainy day.
Yeah.
So you can't really beat California for the weather.
If I move to Florida, I have to either move in the summer or never go outdoors.
Same with Texas.
I think Mike Cernovich said it best.
I would pay a lot of taxes to be able to live in one state all year without dying because I went outdoors.
So yeah, there's still an advantage in California, but it's decreasing.
All right, the National Archives is going to release all those Biden emails that are under the alias.
So all of Joe Biden's pseudonymous, I like saying pseudonymous.
Yeah, so he used fake names on his emails to talk with Hunter and I guess anybody else he didn't want to be identified with.
So now 1,800 emails will be released.
To James Comer and the House Oversight Committee.
Is there any chance at all that we're not going to learn something really, really embarrassing about Joe Biden from 1800 emails that he thought were sensitive enough that he didn't want his real name on them?
How in the world does that not End up with some juicy stuff.
I mean, it might not be change-of-the-world stuff, but it's gonna be juicy.
It's definitely gonna be tantalizing, so look for that.
You would be surprised to know that Kamala Harris said in public something that didn't make sense.
She actually said this, quote, you know, every election cycle, we talk about this is the most election of our lifetime.
And then Laurence O'Donnell said, this one is, this one is.
Oh no, then she said, Laurence, this one is.
Yes, this one is the most election of her.
In fact, of all the other elections, this is the most.
Yeah, very, very much the most.
And with any luck, our next election will be even more of the most.
Of this, whatever there is that's now more of it.
But there's a lot more of it, whatever it is.
The election or something.
All right, so get that straight.
And she says, quote, we are literally talking about people who are attempting to divide our country in the most crude, frankly, and profound way.
Never say this.
In the most crude, frankly, and profound way.
She really needs to be sent back to talking school.
We're going to send you back to the school to learn how to put words together and a thing we call sentences.
Because you're not too good at it.
We are talking about those who are intent and purposeful.
What?
We are talking about those who are intent and purposeful to To attack fundamental freedoms.
What the hell is she babbling about, Lawrence O'Donnell?
And then she continues, the freedom to be free.
The freedom to be free.
Could we ever have the freedom to be free?
The freedom to be free from fear, actually, that's the rest of the sentence.
The freedom to be free from fear of violence and hate.
The freedom to just Be the freedom to just be.
I like adding the Kamala Harris accents, like, you know, where she punches some words.
And she'll pick the most ridiculous words to emphasize.
So I'd like to do that again.
The freedom to be free from fear of violence and hate.
The freedom just be.
The freedom to just be.
The freedom to just be?
Now, was somebody threatening your freedom to just be?
I don't recall your freedom to just be, to be threatened at all.
Now, does that mean you can be any way you want to be?
Can you murder people and commit crimes?
Because that's how I want to be.
I just want to be me.
Sometimes I want to murder people.
Sometimes I want to cross the border illegally.
I just want to be me.
And Kamala backs me up 100%.
If I want to murder somebody, she's in favor of freedom.
No, we're not going to talk about the fact that obviously we're always a mix of freedom and non-freedom in this country.
Well, John Fetterman continues to be semi-awesome, semi-not awesome, but semi-awesome, in which he says TikTok is creating warped perceptions of Israel and Hamas war.
Yes, it is.
So Fetterman continues to say things that make sense.
Not all of it.
I mean, Let's say there are policy things that I'm not going to agree with.
But he correctly identifies TikTok as a risk, which should not be a political statement.
And so he doesn't make it one, just fact.
And immigration is a big problem, no matter what your policies are, and he's willing to say that.
So I do like that Federman is not a slave to the party.
He's not a puppet.
He's definitely not a puppet to the party.
Now, I'm not endorsing him for president or anything crazy, but I just love it when somebody can be honest.
It's kind of unexpected, so credit him.
Also credit to Thomas Massey, and one of the things he did was vote for this idea.
He voted for a debt limit deal the last time we went through this.
He voted for a debt limit deal in exchange for caps and a 1% cut in the event that they have to do a long continuing resolution.
Now, this is all technical Congress bullshit, but what he's basically saying is that because they couldn't agree on a budget that would cut certain things and increase certain things, and you can never agree on that if it's Republicans and Democrats, but because it was an emergency, you had to do something.
They managed to get through some kind of a cap with an automatic 1% cut, which is exactly right.
So if you think this is the bad default, oh no, we couldn't make good decisions and now we have to default to 1% cut across the board.
That is the right decision.
If it were up to me, I would have said, you know, nobody knows what works.
Why don't you just cut everything 1% and then do it again next year until you have a balanced budget?
If you just cut 1% a year for, what, 10 years, wouldn't you be way back into the we can make this work category?
I think you would.
So that's a Massey win, I would say, as well as anybody who voted on the same side with Edith.
But having worked in the corporate world as a budget guy, it was my job to pull together all the budgets from the different groups.
And one thing I learned that I'll never forget is you can look at all their details of, you should increase my budget, and everybody wants an increased budget because they like more power.
And then the big boss just says, yeah, that's a bunch of bullshit.
Just cut everybody by 10%.
And then it was my job to tell everybody who had done all this work to know exactly how much they need next year.
Say, yeah, that's not gonna happen.
Just cut it 10%.
But I can't.
It's impossible.
I could never cut it 10%.
Yeah, but you're gonna, because you get fired if you don't.
It's impossible.
I could never do it.
There is no way I could possibly do it.
And then you check again at the end of the year.
Under budget.
Yeah, at the end of the year.
Under budget.
Now, you say to yourself, but Scott, what about all the things that came up during the year where they did legitimately need extra money?
What happens then?
You know what happens then?
The big boss says, yeah, I guess in this case you do need legitimately more money.
So I'm going to take it out of this group and give it to you.
And that other group will just have to figure it out.
And then they did.
Then they did.
Yeah.
There's nothing that a manager can do more easily than cut the budget.
Because people will figure it out.
They'll make do with less.
They'll just figure it out.
All right, as you know, Colorado, their higher court, said that Trump's a big old insurrectionist and therefore cannot even be on the ballot for the primaries.
It's for the primary, right?
Give me a fact check of this.
Are we only talking about the primary?
He can't be on the ballot, right?
Now, you know that that's not going to make any difference.
No difference.
Here's why.
First of all, nobody in the world thinks that the Supreme Court will withhold it.
Am I right?
Nobody thinks the Supreme Court's going to approve this.
So it'll be reversed.
But, apparently the Republican Party cleverly said We don't need you for a primary.
We will just change our process to, what do they call it, what's the other thing, not a primary, a caucus, a caucus system.
So the caucus system, I guess the Republicans can just say, well screw you.
We're still gonna pick a candidate, just the way we always did, but we're gonna call it a caucus, it'll look different, and we'll just do it that way.
So there's no chance that Trump is going to be frozen out of the system by this.
But I'm very much liking Jonathan Turley's post on this on the X platform in which he says that this is so bad that in the unlikely event that this stayed and Trump was denied the ability to run, that the country would become, quote, ungovernable.
Don't you love that word?
Because you and I might have been tempted to use, like, more provocative words.
You know, like, oh, it's going to be Boston Tea Party time or, you know, it's a Second Amendment time.
Or we'd say something scary sounding like that.
And then somebody would say, are you talking about an insurrection?
Why are you threatening to violence?
And then we'd say, well, well, I like him.
I like truly saying The country would become ungovernable.
Because I love what that includes.
That includes everything.
Nothing is ruled out by ungovernable.
But importantly, it includes totally legal processes.
So I much prefer saying that we will become, or even are, ungovernable.
In fact, it feels like a compliment, doesn't it?
Don't you feel that if somebody calls you ungovernable, isn't your first sense of that?
I kind of am.
Oh, was it RFK Jr.
said it?
Oh, I'm being corrected.
RFK Jr.
said we would become ungovernable.
Oh, you're right.
You're right.
Yeah, that was RFK Jr.
Yeah, I reposted that.
You're right.
Thank you for that correction.
But it's a great word, ungovernable.
It stays away from the violence, but it does capture all that.
All right, everybody, I think everybody who observes this thinks Trump's poll numbers will go up.
Would you agree?
Trump's poll numbers will go up, probably, because of this.
But here's what I like about it the best.
I really love my overreaches.
When the Democrats have a good argument, then I think to myself, oh, they've got a good argument there.
But when they overreach and they do things just so crazy, I kind of like that, because it's a signal that something good is going to happen.
So what I like about this overreach is it gives all of us permission to assume that the 2020 election was rigged, even if there's no proof whatsoever.
Because this overreach is so egregious, so obvious, so in your face, and it's really obviously driven by the stop Trump at any cost mentality.
Right?
Because I don't think there's any legal observer who thinks it's gonna hold.
It looks like TDS, and it looks like stop Trump at any, you know, there's nothing you would stop at to do it.
If that's the case today, What would make you think it wasn't the case in 2020?
Because I think they were more afraid of them in 2020 than they are even now.
I mean, or at least it's a tie.
So I think that they've now showed their hand.
So people who are, you know, legitimately known to be part of the Democrat Party have now quite publicly shown us that they will stop at nothing.
So you think 2020 was a fair election?
When you know that the party, as a mentality, has enough of a common mentality that will stop at nothing because they think he's hiller.
We also know, thanks to Mike Ben's reporting, that there was this thing called the Election Integrity Partnership that was censoring millions of pro-Trump tweets ahead of 2020.
And that a team of high-level DC operatives were plotting a color revolution if Trump won, fair and square.
That the Democrats, some notable ones, and it's in writing, the actual documents, in which they were planning some kind of a coup if he won the election.
Now, based on what I can see from the outside, It kind of looks like the Democrats believe their own propaganda.
Because the documents that exist don't give a hint that it's purely political.
I mean, the outcome is purely political.
But their thinking, as it seems to be maybe suggested by their writings, is that they actually thought it was a risk to the world.
I think many of them had actually convinced themselves that their own propaganda was real, and that Trump was literally a potential healer.
I think they actually believed it.
I don't know what's worse, that they didn't believe it and tried to get away with it, or that they actually believed what they were saying.
But apparently the mental illness part of this is way bigger than I thought.
Because I always assumed it was pretending to be mad, you know, so that their team could win.
But I think they actually believed what they were saying.
I mean, that's kind of a mind bender to me.
All right.
So it's the first time that that amendment has been used.
I think Glenn Greenwald pointed out that even Jack Smith Who is the federal prosecutor going after Trump, even he's not charging Trump with insurrection.
But this little state has decided that it was insurrection, even though the guy who has the most information and the most mission to charge him for insurrection is not charging Trump with insurrection.
So the people who know the most about it and have the most incentive to charge him with it, the federal, There's not even enough to take a run at it.
Now keep in mind that Jack Smith's not doing insurrection in the context of all the legal system making the most absurd claims about Trump.
Like all of the legal claims are just such a stretch.
But they couldn't even stretch in the context of everything stretched.
Like all of their legal arguments being a little bit ridiculous.
They couldn't stretch that one enough, and still Colorado said, oh yeah, insurrection.
Pretty obvious.
So this is exactly what it looks like.
One team trying to game the system, break the system, abuse the system until they get their way.
So yeah, you can absolutely hold your head up high if with no proof whatsoever you claim 2020 was probably, obviously rigged.
With no evidence.
That's now allowed.
Because so many things are so obviously corrupt, and their thinking was so obviously along those lines, it would be ridiculous to assume that they didn't act.
And by the way, there does seem to be a lot of stuff missing in Georgia.
Now, I'm a little lost in the details of this story, but follow the Rasmussen account, because they're on all of the details.
But apparently, things have been asked for in Georgia that are just missing, that would be the only way you could know if the election was fair.
So, there's no way that the Georgia election was fair.
If they can't produce the basic audit materials, you should assume it's unfair.
I don't have any evidence of that, or proof, let's say.
I don't have any proof of it.
But your working assumption, when the audit materials disappear, they disappeared!
I don't know where they are!
Can't find those machines, can't find those ballots, can't open the door and let you look.
Yeah, just assume it's rigged.
You have every right as a citizen to say, oh, that's good enough.
That is enough.
That is enough evidence to operate on a working assumption that 2020 was rigged with no proof, no proof at all.
I don't have any.
But they're trying pretty hard to make sure you don't get any.
That's good enough for me.
Vivek Ramaswamy?
said of the Colorado decision that he would withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is allowed back in.
I think Chris Christie railed against it.
I think Nikki Haley railed against it.
I haven't heard from DeSantis yet, but I assume he's not going to be happy about it.
I'm actually quite, quite pleased, quite pleased that the Republicans seem to have joined forces in saying, I'm running against Trump.
But you can't do this.
You just can't do this.
So good work.
Good work, Republicans.
All the way to Chris Christie.
Chris Christie is running primarily to take Trump out of the race.
And even Chris Christie says, nope, nope, no, that's too far.
Hashtag too far.
All right.
Turley, this is what Turley said, I confused RFK Jr., who said ungovernable.
But Turley had a good post as well, as he always does.
He said, it's hands down the most anti-democratic opinion I've seen in my lifetime.
And it's a slippery slope, because it sort of does allow the Republicans to do the same thing.
And by the same thing, I mean a Republican state could say, hey, you guys are insurrectionists.
And then they would say, what are you talking about?
What did we do that was insurrectionist?
And then the Republicans in some other state can say, well, just look at the Colorado decision.
That was just a coup.
Because their decision was so unmoored from any kind of legal precedent or argument that that's an insurrection.
And then they say, what?
That was our core system.
We're just using the core system.
And then the red state says, yeah, you know, it's not up to you.
It's not up to you.
Yeah, we hear you when you say that wasn't an insurrection.
Not up to you.
We say it was.
So we're not going to let your candidate on.
And then they say, but, but, you're calling something an insurrection that wasn't really an insurrection.
And then the Republican state say, fuck you.
And that's it.
Yeah.
So there's no way this can stand.
The Supreme Court's not going to let it stand.
Would you agree?
If the Supreme Court let this stand, and let's say the Republicans didn't immediately turn it into a caucus, if it actually ended up making a difference, I'm going to be pretty fucking ungovernable.
You don't know what ungovernable looks like.
And I think that it's very important for both sides to read the mood of the other side.
If Republicans were doing something to Democrats that was driving them to violence, I'd sure want to know about it.
And I'm pretty sure I would try to modify a little bit.
Hey, hey, hey, you've gone too far.
They're actually loading their guns.
Too far.
Let's see if we can take this down a notch, right?
If they take Trump off the ballot with lawfare, Or ridiculous court decisions.
We're going to be pretty fucking ungovernable.
Now, I don't call for violence.
I never call for violence.
But you don't know what ungovernable looks like until Republicans do it.
You do not want to be in a country where Republicans have decided to be ungovernable.
You don't want to be there.
So let me just make sure that everybody knows where the line is.
Oh, there's a line.
There's a lie.
Keeping Trump off the ballot for bullshit, that's a lie.
That's a lie.
And I remind you that I'm backing Vivek Ramaswamy for president, but you don't do that in America.
You don't take the guy who's leading in the polls off the ballot.
You just don't do that.
Senator Tom Tillis, Republican, is going to introduce a bill barring federal funds for election people who misuse the 14th Amendment.
So Colorado, allegedly, was misusing that 14th Amendment, the insurrection part.
So the federal government may, if this got passed, get their funding cut.
But I don't think this will get passed and I don't think the ruling will stand.
It's more like something to talk about.
The Amuse account on X, great account to follow, just Amuse, look for that.
It says, "Flashback: 10 Democrat-controlled states," this is back in Lincoln's day, "refused to put Lincoln on their ballots.
Despite that, Lincoln won anyway.
So I guess these were states that were lesser populated.
But a lot of them, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
All of those states refused to put Lincoln on the ballot.
Yeah, this Trump equals Lincoln thing is very bothersome, isn't it?
For the obvious reason.
Let me just say that Trump needs this comparison like he needs a hole in the head.
Stop it.
Stop it.
All right.
Well, I think this is a good point because we forget.
It's very easy to think that the politics has reached its worst level.
Not even close.
Not even close.
The worst level was in our past.
Like way worse.
Yeah.
Maybe you could argue, oh, I thought it was better in the 80s or something.
I don't know.
Maybe it was.
But in the further past, it was way worse.
I think even the fake news was way worse in the past.
When a few rich people controlled all the newspapers, like Hearst, I got a feeling that was worse.
We just didn't know it because we didn't know what fake news was in those days.
All right.
So yeah, as Mike Benz was talking about, we have documents showing that part of our government wanted to do some kind of a color revolution or even potentially a military insurrection if Trump won fair and square.
That was actually being talked about.
So yes, everything they accuse you of is what they're doing.
Molly Hemingway asked this question.
Have any Democrats spoken against their party's authoritarianism?
They're employing of destroying democracy and trying to imprison their political opponents.
Have you seen any Democrats speak out against this?
I'm kind of waiting for Fetterman.
Has Fetterman said anything?
See, now this will be a good test.
Because if Federman is who I think he is, which is somebody I might disagree with on some topics, but with somebody who actually thinks it through and is not going to just take the team play, if he doesn't come out against this, then fuck him.
Like, his value is zero.
Because this one's easy.
So far, Fetterman's been pretty good on the topics that we never should have politicized in the first place.
TikTok is not a political question.
It shouldn't be.
So he gets the right decision.
The border security shouldn't be a political decision.
It became that way, but it shouldn't be.
So he gets to decide that one based on just what makes sense.
But likewise, this Colorado thing, even though the context is politics, Your opinion on it should not be based on politics.
It should be based on, do you want to live in a stable country?
Or do you want to do shit like this?
So, Fetterman, we call upon you to see if you can at least be consistent in saying that if there's a topic that should be above or outside of politics, that you will judge that individually.
If you can do that, I'm going to keep my respect For Fetterman, even when I might violently disagree on some policies.
But what I think is that people can't tell the difference between demons and angels.
And I think that the Democrats believe they are the angels, and they're fighting against the demons.
And they think the demons are Trump and the MAGA people, because they've been told that.
But I think the big problem here is that people don't know the difference between a demon and an angel.
We can't even tell the difference between UFOs and angels.
Because some people think they're angels.
Right?
So, I think that's what it is.
They think they're angels fighting demons, but they're actually demons fighting angels.
Or, everyone thinks they're the angel and everybody else is the demon.
I think would be a more fair way to describe it.
Mike Servage points out that California voted to end illegal immigration handouts with Prop 187, but judges overruled it.
So the people wanted to stop giving the immigrants so many handouts, but the judge said nope.
And same with gay marriage.
Mike points out Proposition 8, public voted for it, judges said no.
I don't remember that, but I'll take his word for it.
And so Mike says, we haven't been anything close to a democracy or a republic for decades.
We live under judicial supremacy.
I hadn't really heard that phrase before.
Judicial supremacy.
But of course, the judges get picked by the political system.
So it's all corruption as it is expressed throughout the system.
But let me ask you this.
Pick any time in American history.
Just see the timeline in your mind.
Put on the blindfold and throw a dart.
And it hits any time in the past.
You really think the courts were better in the past?
Really?
You don't think the courts were just like wildly putting black people in jail for being black?
You don't think the courts were just as corrupt and bribed and crony capitalism and all that?
Of course they were.
I don't know that it's worse, but Mike's point is fair.
The courts have had this unnatural control, and maybe even more than ever.
But I do think the Colorado thing will not stand.
Well, Nikki Haley is in the news, of course.
Some say she's drawing even with DeSantis for one of the primaries.
Doesn't matter because it's boring.
She's not going to win, so it doesn't matter.
But according to The Hill, Nikki Haley is facing a barrage of sexist attacks.
Nikki Haley is getting a barrage of sexist attacks.
Have you seen any?
I haven't seen any sexist attacks.
Where are they coming from?
I'll tell you what I've seen.
I've seen a whole bunch of people say, you know what?
I like the fact that she's female.
In fact, I would argue that her entire appeal is based on being female.
Because I don't mind that if you are a woman, And you think you're underrepresented, and you say, you know, maybe not my first choice, but she is a woman.
I'd like to get some representation that's closer to me.
I'm OK with that.
I mean, that's a reasonable take in a democracy.
But I feel like that's her big advantage.
You know, it's like her biggest advantage, and she thinks so too.
Because she said in public, during a debate, that if you want a job done right, call a woman.
If you want somebody to talk about it, call a man.
If you want a job done right, call a woman.
That's what she said.
Now, if you say something that's so overtly bigoted and sexist against one gender, you know what you should expect?
If you're an overt, public, misandrist, sexist, as she is, Hillary Clinton was as well, because Hillary Clinton also said that being a woman was an advantage.
You can't run for president and tell us your gender is an advantage.
Nope.
If Trump did it, he should be disqualified too.
If Trump ever said, you know what, you need a man as president, I would instantly say, nope, nope, sorry.
You cannot, you cannot be the president and say that there's a gender or a sexual preference or a ethnicity or a religion.
That's the bad one.
You can't.
There aren't that many things that are that disqualifying.
But that's number one.
That's number one.
That's the most disqualifying.
Oh, I'm going to be your president, but I think some of you are fucking assholes.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Disqualifying.
That was the moment that turned me against Hillary Clinton hard, when she said, women are just better as presidents, because they listen better, she said.
So Hillary says women listen better, and Nikki Haley says that women will do the job right, call a woman.
Now, if you say stuff like that, you should expect to be called a lot of things.
And many of those things will rhyme with bunt.
Many of them will.
All right, Trump.
Let's do an update on the Trump is Hitler persuasion game.
As you know, the Democrats are selling their Trump is Hitler.
But do you think that that's a good play?
There's one thing that the Democrats did not count on when deciding that their big play was going to be Trump is Hitler.
And you're going to laugh when I say it.
And you should have seen it coming because of the Hamas situation.
Have you noticed that young people don't seem to think that Hitler was much of a big deal?
Have you noticed that?
The young people kind of don't know who Hitler was and what he was up to.
If you ask young people how many people died in World War Two, they might guess something like, I don't know, 10, 20,000?
Yep.
So, just hold in mind that the primary campaign, the primary, the biggest thing the Democrats are claiming about Trump is that he's like Hitler.
Also, at the same time, The Democrats are trying to be the party of young people, you know, make sure they get those young people because Biden could not have won without the under 30 vote.
Am I right?
That's a guarantee.
If Biden had not just crushed the young people vote, he had no chance.
So now their approach is to tell the young people that Trump is like Hitler.
How's that working?
Well, here's an update.
Turns out that young people have moved to Trump.
So in 2020, Biden got, he beat Trump by 24 points among people under 30.
Do you know how hard it is to win by 24, you know, 24 percentage basis points?
It's really hard.
So Biden didn't just beat Trump in the under 30s.
He just annihilated him.
What's it look like today?
NBC News says a similar pattern of 46% to 42%.
So there's been a big shift.
Anyway, so the numbers are messed up here on what I wrote down.
But there's been a big shift toward Trump.
Now just hold that in your mind.
So the entire approach of the Democrats is completely useless for the under 30s, because it just doesn't mean that much.
You know, imagine here's a mental experiment.
Imagine you're not the age you are with the education you have, and you just didn't know who Hitler was.
It was like somebody says, you know, on the planet Glark, there was a terrible leader.
His name was Hitler.
So, what you don't want is you don't want Trump to be like the evil leader, Hmpf-Gah, from the planet Gwalk.
And the people under 30 say, OK, Grandpa.
OK.
It just doesn't hit.
It doesn't hit.
If you don't, if you can't feel Hiller in your bones, as everybody my age can, right?
Hiller is something you feel.
Hiller isn't just like a historical reference.
You feel Hiller, but not if you're under 30.
If you're under 30, it's just a name.
It's just something people keep mentioning.
They don't feel it.
And you can't really feel it unless you've done what people like me have done.
How many of you sat in your living room when you were young and usually your father had the History Channel on and it was nonstop Hitler footage?
How many of you have that experience?
Yeah, a lot of yeses.
Yeah, I'd be sitting in the living room at home, and it'd be like, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, and here's a video of Hitler, and here's some World War II, and look at all these dead people.
Hitler, Hitler, here's a picture of the death camp.
Here's all the starving people in the death camp.
I'd be like, ah!
I mean, I had such childhood PTSD from all things World War II.
I mean, seriously, I had PTSD.
I was damaged, and I didn't live through the war at all.
I was born after the war, of course.
But I totally got PTSD because it was just rammed down my throat from birth.
But you're under 30?
It's just a story in a book.
Just a story in a book.
All right, so there's an update on Epstein.
Apparently there's a A bunch of people will be named from some recent, or not recent, but a court case about Epstein.
They're going to unseal the names of the people involved.
But I agree with Sticks and Hammer who posted, it's going to be a nothing burger.
All right.
This is not Epstein's list of clients.
It's not that.
There was a court case.
It's over.
The names of the people involved were sealed.
They're going to be unsealed.
People were involved with the one case.
You might get some surprises, you might get some news stories, but probably it's going to be a big nothing.
That's what I think too.
All right.
Colombia, the country we learned from also the Muse account, is allowing visa-free travel from Iran, Yemen, And 41 countries including African nations.
So all you have to do is get to Colombia.
Colombia won't even check your documents apparently.
You just walk into Colombia and from there you go through the travel up through the southern border of the United States.
So we're now have an unlimited open door to all of Iran.
All of their terrorists.
Now Is there any chance that Iran has not sent their terrorists to set up camp in America?
There's no real chance of that.
Because it's the most obvious thing you do.
I wrote a book called The Religion War.
It was the sequel to God's Debris, a number of years ago.
And although it was like 20 years ago or whatever, I speculated that the Middle East terrorists Would put agents in all the major cities in America and activate them at the same time.
Because one terrorist in one city can do a hell of a lot of damage.
Just one.
You know, fires and drones and fentanyl and, you know, you could do the math.
It doesn't take much to shut down a city.
So I feel like that's the big risk in the future is the people who snuck in and are just sort of waiting for the order.
That's the thing, I fear that a lot more than nuclear war.
Anyway.
So we'll see how that works out.
It's really unbelievable that our border is open.
It went from, well this is weird and unproductive and suboptimal to, are you fucking kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
The border's still wide open?
In the sense that all you have to do is say you have one asylum and you can come right in.
My God.
Well, I think there's a guarantee of a Republican president primarily because of that.
We learned that President Xi told Biden when he was here that Xi's stance is he wants a peaceful reunification of Taiwan and he rejected the idea that he's going to do something militarily In the next few years.
Does that sound true?
Do you believe it?
That he's not going to do something militarily and that he wants a peaceful reunification and doesn't have a specific timeline that's at least within two years.
I actually believe it.
I 100% believe it and always have.
Do you know why?
China is the most predictable country in the world.
There's no more predictable country than China.
I think they told you exactly what makes sense for China, and then they're going to do it.
Do you know why?
Because that makes the most sense for China.
Do you think China thinks that a war with Taiwan could go well?
They're not going to end up with any microchips.
They're going to end up with a smoldering island and a degraded economy that won't be able to do trade with the rest of the world.
There isn't the slightest chance.
That the current government of China, which looks like it's pretty stable, wants a war about Taiwan.
Not any.
They don't have any.
There's no urgent need.
As Kyle Bass points out, the real estate segment is in freefall and their banking system might be in freefall.
China is in a lot of trouble.
Literally the last thing they need is a war.
Especially an optional war.
There's no way China starts an optional war for a bunch of assets that will clearly be destroyed during the war, right?
If it looked like China was going to take control of Taiwan, I hate to tell you Taiwan, but all your microchip businesses are going to get bombed by us.
Am I wrong?
We would never let China take control of the actual factories because apparently it's really hard to make a factory that makes microchips.
We're not going to let them get that.
There's not the slightest chance.
So microchips will become unusable.
So given that 100% of the arguments suggest that they should wait as long as they want.
So here's the thing that China has going for them.
They already say it's part of China, and they got the United States to say the same thing, even though we act like it's not.
We say it.
So it's sort of not a problem they need to solve.
And I agree with Xi that a peaceful reunification with Taiwan is basically inevitable.
I don't know about the peaceful part, but the reunification is inevitable, because geography.
I just don't see any...in 200 years you think Taiwan and China are going to be separate countries?
In 200 years?
I doubt it.
Maybe add another 100 years, but basically I think they end up unified one way or another.
Yemen is being such a pain in the ass around the Red Sea.
Sending rockets and things that a bunch of ships are now rerouting.
They have to go the long way.
And the energy prices are going up.
But not that much.
So it turns out that a current threat in the Red Sea did not spike energy prices nearly as much as you think.
You know, under 2%.
That's strange.
Now what are we going to do about that?
Given that Iran is backing the people who are sending the missiles from Yemen, we don't want a third war, but don't you think Saudi Arabia should just take over Yemen?
What do you think?
I don't think we should go in, and I don't think they need any military help, but I feel like Saudi Arabia has the power, and And Yemen is looking to ruin commerce in the entire Middle East.
If you're going to ruin commerce in the entire Middle East, you get conquered.
I mean, I think Saudi Arabia has an argument.
Let's talk about France.
Parliament approved an immigration bill that boosts the ability to deport foreigners, and it limits access to some of their benefits.
So is that a turning point?
Is France starting to right the ship?
I feel like France is lost.
I don't think France can recover from their immigration.
What do you think?
I'm not there, so it's hard to tell.
But just based on what we see, it doesn't look like they can recover.
I think France will just turn Islamic.
We'll see.
Over in Poland, they've got a new Prime Minister.
And the Prime Minister's last name is, wait a minute, is this true?
He's named Donald Tusk.
Can you give me a fact check on that?
The new Prime Minister of Poland, his first name is Donald, his last name is Tusk.
What do you get if you combine Musk with Trump?
Or Trump with Musk?
It's Tusk, isn't it?
It looks like it's just a combination of Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
Donald Tusk.
What the hell?
What?
How is that possible?
How do we live in a world where this can happen?
Honestly, it feels like We are part of a simulation, and we're part of a game, and whatever life force caused this simulation wants us to know, but wants to do it in a funny way.
Like it's dropping every hint in the world that we're a simulation, and none of it's real.
It's like, how many hints do I have to give you?
Do you need another hint?
How about we'll name the Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk?
Anything?
Anything?
You're still not getting this?
That's what it feels like.
Well, anyway, this new prime minister in Poland immediately went and shut down a news station because they didn't like the propaganda coming out of it.
To which I say the following.
Uh-oh.
Yeah.
We thought Poland was one of the good guys, right?
But they turned off a source of free speech because they didn't like the speech, said it wasn't true.
Now, here's my problem.
I feel like our brains are stuck in the past.
Here's what I mean by that.
If I asked you, do you believe in free speech?
I believe every one of you would say, yes!
Free speech, yes!
Now, free speech became a concept You know, with the Constitution, right?
Hundreds of years ago.
And hundreds of years ago, what did free speech look like?
Well, it was individuals who didn't have much reach.
You know, they couldn't be influencers like on social media.
So people like me would just be complaining to my neighbors.
All the free speech I want.
And if I wanted to, I could get a little box and go to the town square, and I could get maybe a dozen people to listen to me.
Free speech, yes!
Free speech is only legal because at one time it wasn't dangerous.
At least dangerous the way it is now.
But now it's really dangerous.
Now you can say stuff that people will believe, not only because the bad people have reach, they can get to everybody, but also the bad people have technique.
That they never had before.
They have actual hypnosis, brainwashing, propaganda skill that didn't exist 200 years ago.
So here's a thought experiment for you.
If the founders of this country were designing the Constitution under our current situation, where free speech can destroy a country pretty easily, would it be free?
I think not.
I think not.
Yeah.
Believe it or not, I think not, because it would be an existential risk.
When speech was made free initially, it wasn't an existential risk, or much of one.
It would take a lot of work.
And I think back then they knew the newspapers were fake news, but they didn't believe them anyway, and it didn't matter.
So it wasn't a big deal.
But now, let's say for example that the biggest Polish TV station was running news that they knew was fake and they were just trying to control the country or something.
Do you think you should let that operate?
And just let free speech take care of it?
Or is it too big of a threat?
It could actually take down the country.
I think you have to rethink free speech.
I hate to say it.
I think you have to rethink it.
It doesn't mean that you get rid of it.
When I say rethink it, I mean start from scratch.
Start from, you know, just take away all your assumptions.
And then see if you would rebuild it the same way.
I don't know if you would.
Don't know if you would.
Because at the moment, an individual can use free speech to take down a country.
Do you think that's possible?
Do you think a bad actor, an individual, let's say somebody like me, do you think I could take down a country?
I could.
I hate to tell you, but I could take down a country.
Some say I'm already doing it.
Because I did tell you I was going to take down the Chinese economy back in 2018.
And here we are.
Now, you could say, but that's not because of you.
No.
But it didn't hurt.
Didn't hurt.
So could I save a country?
Yes.
Yes.
Influence is a formula.
And I've told you this before.
Influence is how much skill you have in communicating.
Influentially.
How much skill you have.
Multiplied by your reach.
So if you're very skillful but you live in a cave, it doesn't matter.
If you have millions of people who watch you like Taylor Swift, but you don't have much to say, it doesn't matter that much either.
But, if you have actual skill and persuasion, and you have a huge platform, that would be Trump for example, you're the leader of the, you know, easily become the President of the United States, and you have the nuclear arsenal.
So don't forget that formula.
The formula is persuasiveness times reach.
The reach never existed before.
Reach is new.
But also, persuasion is new.
We didn't know how to do it 200 years ago.
The technique that I can employ today is a whole level, maybe several levels above what it was 200 years ago.
200 years ago, they would just lie and compare you to somebody bad.
That was about it.
That's all they had.
So, if I were going to rethink free speech, it might be something like this.
I'm just going to brainstorm for a minute.
You can say anything you want, anywhere you want.
So that's a good start, right?
You can say anything you want, anywhere you want.
But, there would need to be some kind of counterforce to make sure that the other message got matched with it.
So you could imagine some kind of situation where you can say anything you want, But there's some kind of freedom for other people to put the opposing view with it.
So let's call it a matching rule.
So the rule is you can say anything you want, anywhere you want, free speech.
But the alternative fact check has to be at least technically allowed.
Maybe nobody wants to use it.
Maybe they don't disagree with you.
But it has to be technically matchable with the opposing view, if it's on social media, not in person.
In person, you still say anything you want.
But if you're going to be on a digital broadcast medium, then you should be required to be on a medium that has something like community notes.
So you can say to yourself, yeah, you've got all the free speech you want, But the X platform doesn't have the ability to not have a community notes.
They got to do something like that to match the opposing opinions.
And if you can't match the opposing opinion, it's too dangerous to have free speech.
What do you think?
Because the individual would still have 100% free speech.
The platforms that could boost that speech would have a little extra restriction.
But it would be more like add a feature that everybody wants.
Everybody wants that feature.
Everybody wants the feature that shows both sides.
Everybody wants it.
So make it available.
So I think that you could say we don't have free speech the way we used to.
It's too dangerous now.
So add a little guardrail.
But don't put the guardrail on the person.
Put the guardrail on the transmission mediums.
What do you think?
Because the X platform would stay exactly the same.
Because Musk already solved.
He solved for competing opinions, because that's kind of what X does.
It's basically a competing opinion forum.
So the government should say, all right, you're good.
Well, let's look at Facebook.
That's what I don't want to see.
All right, but still individuals should have free speech.
Alright, there's a big trend for single parents and not having families, you're all aware of that.
I'm just going to make the prediction.
Eventually we will, as humans, no longer be masters of the planet.
Eventually we will, apparently willingly, Become sort of a niche species, and robots, I think, will rule the Earth.
With the exception of Mars, which will be a musk colony, with its Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, possibly.
And... What's that?
Alright.
So yeah, I think that we will either merge with the robots, Or temporarily merge with them until we just decide, let's just be robots.
So, suppose you don't want to be a planet full of robots.
But suppose you also agree that the traditional family, while it's the best of all solutions, isn't really practical for maybe at least half of all people.
So what do you do?
I believe that you're going to see a new system evolve.
And it will be more of a tribal community system.
Very much like It Takes a Village, you know, sort of Hillary's thing.
And I'm starting to organize my life around that.
A tribal model.
And by that I mean, rather than saying, alright, I'm going to have a, you know, I'm going to marry a mate, And the two of us will be all there is.
We won't let other people in too much, unless we're both there in a party or something.
We're not going to go off and do our own thing with other people too much.
And our kids are going to be under our control and all that.
It's great if you can pull it off.
But suppose you had to take all the functions that you need to be a good person, and you just didn't have the option.
Of having that little cool family unit where everybody loves each other and everything's working well.
But you need those things.
I think what we're going to do is because there will be so many people who are unfamilied, that they will find ways to coordinate, but not in every way.
So for example, I think you're going to see people who say, you know what, if you would be my handyman sometimes, I would cook for you sometimes.
And then you'd say, hey, we could do this once a week.
And even if I haven't done any hand demanding, you'll cook for me once a week.
We're not married.
Maybe some friends come over.
If you need something fixed in your house, call me.
I'd love to do it.
I'll go over and spend the afternoon fixing your thing.
Now that's just one small example.
But imagine if you will, Somebody says, you know what?
I'll add you to my health care.
Because that's easy for me.
You know, I've got a good health care program.
So I'll add you.
You'll be my dependent.
And maybe I just like giving you some advice for college.
And that's it.
Just because I want to.
And I can.
So... No, I'm not high.
Why are you even asking?
You're the third person who's asked this morning if I'm high.
Do I look high?
I don't do the show high.
Have I ever?
Oh yeah.
During the pandemic I did.
But no, not in... I don't think I've done the show high in a year or so.
I have.
And by the way, you couldn't tell the difference.
The days that I did it stoned down in my mind.
You couldn't tell.
Because I'm a chronic user, it's just not that different.
But if you're guessing that I'm high now, nope, not even a little bit.
Insurance companies would love that, you say.
All right.
All right.
I'm just looking at your comments.
Dangers of weed. - Good.
I think that people keep telling me that there are dangers to weed.
But you're talking to the wrong person.
Did you think I didn't know that?
There's a danger to riding a bicycle.
There's a danger to going outdoors.
There's a danger to getting in my car.
Life is a danger.
Like the whole thing is a danger.
So if all you're saying is it's a danger, you haven't told me anything.
But if you say that some people get medicinal benefits and they weigh that against the risk, well, now you're talking.
So as long as we're showing both sides, it's fine to highlight the risks.
And I do think the risks for children are just through the roof.
I didn't do it under 18.
When I was under 18, I never touched it.
I was just focused on doing what I needed to do.
All right.
Always more than two sides.
Another dog not barking.
What's that about?
If it's your first day of being ungovernable, it's disorienting, isn't it?
All right.
You think I'm gonna get married again?
Here's where marriage doesn't make sense to me.
I might have five years left.
Have any of you come to grips with your own mortality?
So yesterday I was thinking, oh, you know, I want to do a thing or, you know, maybe plan for something, like getting a pet.
I'm not going to get a dog that's going to, you know, that I'm going to Not even going to live as long as my dog.
But all right, so I'm 66 and a half.
People my age, people I know personally, are dropping dead all over the place.
They're dropping dead like crazy.
And sometimes I tell myself, oh, I'll make it to, you know, 85 or 90.
But then I think to myself, well, you know, those years between 75 and 85, I mean, I might find some way to like them, but it's not going to be like being alive now.
I mean, how long am I going to work?
I don't know.
No idea.
So maybe aging won't affect me the same way as other people.
But in terms of my own planning, I plan my own mortality five to ten years from now.
Meaning that any decision I make is I'm only going to be alive for about five years.
Which is really weird.
Really weird.
Do you know how quickly time goes when you're my age?
Well, those of you who are my age, you know exactly.
Like, next year is just going to disappear.
So 20% of what I'm counting as my remaining life is going to be gone in a blink.
Because this next year will just disappear.
And five years will be gone before I know it.
So, I feel weird when I just go to work, because I tell myself, whoa, if I really knew I only had five years left, I'd quit work and, I don't know, travel the world or something.
But then I think, no, I like this.
I don't want to quit.
To me, the most useless thing you could do is retire and travel the world.
I can't think of anything more useless.
Maybe you like the traveling, but what good is it?
So you learn a lot about the world right before you die.
What good is it?
Now, if you told me that traveling extensively in your 20s was a good idea, I'd say, yeah!
Because everything you learn about these other places, you're incorporating into your whole life.
It becomes, you know, part of your foundation for your entire life.
But if I travel for the next five years and then die, It was just a waste of time.
I accomplished nothing.
I left nothing.
All I had was some dopamine in a different town.
I can get dopamine in my town.
So traveling doesn't make sense to me.
So what I'm expressing is that when the entire rest of your high quality of life gets so compressed, all your decisions get squirrely.
Because I'm a super long-term planner.
I had a 40-year plan and I stayed on plan for 40 years.
I actually had a 40-year plan, like literally, and I stayed on plan.
It included becoming a famous cartoonist and then using that fame to open up other opportunities and here we are.
So I'm right on plan for 40 years.
So when I realized I might only have like five left of like good years, it's really disconcerting because I don't know how to I don't know how to handle that.
I don't know how to live in the moment.
Because I've always lived in the future.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
done.
Download your brain to a robot.
Well, I plan to do that.
I do plan to be immortal in the digital domain.
What are the odds that I'm alive in exactly the era where moving our personality to a machine is completely practical?
What were the odds I'd be alive then, at exactly the age where that really matters?
See, this is why this can't possibly be real.
That this thing I'm experiencing that I think is my life, there's no way this is real.
That exactly the time I need the robots and the AI, they just pop up.
After 10 million years of human evolution, just when I need it, there it is.
