Episode 2336 CWSA 12/28/23 All The News Fits In A Theme And It Isn't A Good One
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, Project Lazarus, DEI, Well-Intentioned Bad Ideas, 25% Poll Answers, Vivek Ramaswamy, John McWhorter, Social Skills Decline, Zuby, Forbes Ownership, Debbie Dingell, President Trump, Russian Schoolbooks, Rural-Urban Polarization, Fake News Algorithm, Nikki Haley Civil War, AOC, Open Border Migrants, Bidenomics, President Biden, Brandon Straka KKK Act, NYT vs ChatGPT, Jack Smith, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization.
Yeah, I'm a little discombobulated.
I started an hour early because I read the clock wrong and then I started late because I stopped looking at the clock.
It's that kind of a day, but otherwise it's going to be great.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand when they're tied to human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Mmm.
Savor it.
Savor it.
Well, have you heard of Project Lazarus?
It's a project to use AI to take over your social media accounts after you die.
And just keep tweeting.
And it will even age your profile picture.
That's right.
So now if you die, you can still do social media.
No problem.
But some anonymous person on the project It's a little worried that it's taking a dark turn, because apparently it's a little bit too good.
So now the AI can make a perfect reproduction of you, and it can post things just like you would.
Is that a dark turn?
Do you think that people will have ongoing relationships with the deceased?
I do.
I think people are just going to keep with their partner.
I think that people's like spouse will pass away and they're just going to keep living with them.
They'll just keep going on.
Imagine you're 85 and your life is basically you walk out of the living room, your spouse is sitting in the chair drinking some coffee.
Maybe you talk a little bit.
But basically, you're not going on big trips, and you're not, you know, you're not going to the gym.
What would be the difference between that and walking into your living room, your TV comes on, it's a perfect reproduction of your spouse who died last year, and it has a conversation with you, just like your spouse would have.
You might actually be more interested in your problems than your spouse was.
What's going to keep people from Just continuing their existing relationship.
Now, if you're, you know, 25 and your spouse dies, you're going to need, you know, some human touch and stuff.
So you replace them.
I think a lot of people are just going to continue living with the dead.
And then eventually they'll port the dead into a robot body and just reproduce their dead ones, their loved ones.
I don't know.
There might be something important about our ability to let go.
What if we lose our need to let go?
I don't know.
Could be an interesting change.
Might not be good.
All right.
I'm having a comment problem on locals, so I'm going to open up my phone here just to look at their comments on a separate device.
Which will totally work.
Sure.
Sure, it'll totally work.
No problem.
And it's totally working.
All right.
We're all good.
I can see all your comments now.
All right.
The theme for today's show is all of our systems are designed in America.
All of our systems are designed to promote the least qualified people.
Do you think that's a general thing or just sort of a little problem?
Well, I'm going to develop the idea that it's everything we're doing.
We went from a system that was designed very specifically to promote the most capable people to one which in every way is designed to do the opposite now.
What is the obvious outcome of that?
There's only one way that ends up and let me let me develop that a little bit.
Let's take schools.
So we have these things called teachers unions.
Now the teachers Have a little bit different interests than the children and the parents.
That's why you have a teacher's union.
Because the teachers have their own interests that are not identical to their bosses or the people who pay them.
So they have to have their own protection.
Now, I'm in favor of unions.
I like unions.
But if you have a union in the context of teaching your children, that is a system designed to maximize the teacher's benefit And that will be at the cost of the children's capabilities.
Now, why don't we have unions in the military?
Does anybody know?
Why can't soldiers join a union?
It's such a stupid question that you don't even need to answer, right?
Like, you don't even have to think about it too much.
You're like, a union?
If soldiers were in a union, they could just refuse orders and go on strike.
Yeah, obviously.
So you would never have a union in a context where your very life depends on it.
Everybody understands that, right?
If your life depends on it, you don't want to have a union getting in there with their union rules.
But what's the difference between our education system and our homeland defense?
What's the difference?
Well, one of them shoots bullets and blows things up, and the other trains children.
Well, aren't they really the same?
Because if you don't train the children, the country will be, you know, helpless and will be invaded and will be destroyed.
If you do train the children, and they become very, you know, competent and capable, then they help your economy improve, And what's the number one thing you need to defend yourself from other countries?
Number one thing is money.
Because if you have money, you can buy weapons.
Look at Ukraine, right?
So the fact that we separate our education system from our military is a logical mistake.
We do it because our brains naturally put things in buckets.
So we think, oh, we're training children.
That's a different bucket from the military.
But it's not.
It's a continuum.
Training the children to build a good economy, to make them capable to be in the military if they ever need to, make good decisions so you don't have to send your military out.
It's all connected.
So we have a system called teachers' unions, which guarantee we do not do the best job of teaching our children.
Now we've got DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which has infected our colleges, our schools, and our corporations.
Now, DEI, of course, is well-intentioned.
In my opinion, well-intentioned.
Meaning that the whole point of it is to make the world better.
More inclusion, better diversity.
As long as things work the same, you get more diversity, you win.
It should be a better world.
But intentions do not necessarily translate to design.
If your design is the opposite of your intention, that's a mistake.
And in this case, I think we would all agree that if you focus on diversity and inclusion, and you even have staff members whose job it is to make sure you do it, you are going to give up capability for diversity.
Now, you won't plan to do it, It would not be your intention to do it, but it would be a necessity because of math.
If everybody's going after the same pool of diversity, there just won't be enough diverse people who are also qualified for your specific job.
So you're pretty much guaranteed that you're going to get lower quality because of the EI.
So the teachers' unions guarantee it, the EI guarantees it, How about our current mass illegal immigration?
Is mass illegal immigration going to get you high quality people compared to vetting people and making sure they add things?
No, obviously.
You don't even need to answer the question.
Obviously, the point of mass immigration is not to increase the capability of the citizens of the United States.
It does add labor.
And I would say that the second generation of these immigrants could be quite high quality.
I love our second generation.
The second generation are pretty awesome.
But you know, it's going to take a while to get there.
So if you had enough first generation, can't speak English, were not vetted, you're pretty much guaranteed that at least for the next 10 or 20 years, you're going to have lower capability.
Would you agree?
Which has nothing to do with the natural nature of the immigrants.
It's just the system.
If the system stops checking people and lets everybody in, you don't get the same qualified job seekers that you would otherwise.
How about our presidential system?
Do we have a political system which guarantees the best and the brightest become your leaders?
Well, let me say it this way.
No matter how much you love Trump, you've got to agree that if you could get something like his policies without the provocation, you'd probably be in better shape.
But here we are.
It's going to be Biden versus Trump.
Trump, which will make 50% of the country literally insane.
It is your best choice.
I do think he's your best choice of the two.
Now, I'd still rather a Vivek Ramaswamy, because he gives you all the goodness without the provocation.
So, and he's younger, which matters to me.
So, do we have a system that guarantees your best political candidates?
Or can you just look at it and say to yourself, it's kind of obvious that's not what the system is doing.
Whatever it is that the system is doing, It's definitely not choosing the best candidates.
It's choosing candidates they think they can win, in the case of Trump.
Candidates that, you know, touch them emotionally, also in the case of Trump.
Candidates who just seem safe, or maybe they can control them through blackmail.
Maybe Biden.
I don't know.
Maybe there's some blackmail that's part of the process.
Hard to say.
But you also can't rule it out.
So, that's not good.
How about TikTok and smartphones, are they making us more capable or less capable?
Obviously less.
They're making us stupid and it's dividing the country.
So it's making us less capable of being good citizens who can work with each other to good outcomes.
And are we changing it?
No, no.
TikTok's going to continue.
Smartphones will continue.
And how about our health?
Do we have systems that are safeguarding our health?
Well, not so much.
I would say that our food sources are compromised, meaning that too much sugar, too much God knows what kind of chemicals in our food.
And I don't think that that's... If your food is compromised, your physical health is compromised, and it's a straight line to your mental health and your physical capabilities are compromised.
So do we have a food system which is Going to promote capability or a food system, which is going to promote sickness and poor mental health.
Clearly the food system is making us less capable.
How about our... Yeah, all right.
So those are just some few examples.
I'll give you some more as we go.
But I'm not wrong.
I'm not wrong.
We sort of drifted accidentally Into every one of our major systems that we rely on to be healthy and to have leadership and economics.
Every one of them we've polluted with bad ideas that were often well-intentioned.
Yeah, so let me say it again.
If you could get diversity for free, I'd be all over it.
Of course, of course.
I do want our businesses and our organizations to roughly Look like the country.
I think that's a good thing.
But you don't want to give up too much to buy that, right?
And that's the problem.
You might give up too much to get it too quickly.
All right, how about, how do people feel about leadership?
I would like to see if my See if my audience is so smart that you can get the answer to the question I haven't even asked yet before I ask it.
Go.
The answer to the question before I ask the question.
You don't even know what category this is.
That is correct.
The answer is 25%.
Do you want to hear the question or does it matter?
Because you had the answer.
Yeah.
Rasmussen did a poll and they asked US voters if they believe in their lifetime that overall quality of America's political leaders have gotten worse.
75% said, yes, in my lifetime, the political leadership has gotten worse.
That means 25% of the country has either not noticed it's gotten worse or believes that it's gotten better or declined to answer.
Now, How many of you, when you first heard me say that most of our polls have 25% of the respondents have the dumbest fucking answer in the world?
Just the dumbest answer.
It doesn't matter what the poll is.
25%, a good solid 25% are going to give you the dumbest fucking answer you've ever heard in your life.
Yeah, I think our leadership's fine.
It's doing great.
Best I've ever seen.
Who sees that?
Come on.
All right.
Oh, I see a question here in the comments on Locals.
What came first, Trump or the controversy?
I would agree that it's not so much Trump who causes his own problems.
You know, the Democrats painted Trump in a way that causes the problems.
But he is unique In that the way he speaks and acts makes it a little bit easier.
If you compare that to the way Vivek speaks and acts, Vivek can say things, and actually he is, we'll talk about that, say things that are even more provocative than Trump.
By far, actually.
If you look at what Vivek said just this week, he's way more provocative than Trump.
Do you know why it's not a number one news story about all the crazy stuff that Vivek said?
You know why it's not a news story?
Because the left is scared as shit.
Because he can explain his provocative opinions so well.
Trump?
Trump speaks like his base.
And that's great for, you know, getting them to love you.
Because he speaks the way they do.
Very simple terms.
Keep it easy.
The wind stops blowing.
My TV goes off.
Okay, that's not technically accurate, but you get the idea.
Right?
So Trump's more of a, you get the idea.
You know what I'm saying.
And you feel it.
So that's how he communicates.
It's very effective.
Very effective.
But it leaves him open to attack.
Because if he's taking the sort of simple emotional truth, And I believe he's close to the truth, even when he's using emotion to persuade.
It's very easy to attack from an intellectual perspective, because you say, well, he's not defending that that well.
But then you introduce a Vivek, similar or even more provocative statements, and you do not want to put him on television, on MSNBC, and let the Democrats hear him speak.
I'm surprised he's gotten as much play as he has on the left.
CNN's had him on a few times to their credit.
So let me give CNN some complete credit.
They've had Vivek on, and they let him talk.
So I'm going to give them credit for that.
Anyway, so I just wanted to say that.
The Pentagon's effort to crack down on extremism, you know, the extremism, all that white supremacy that was in the military.
Well, they looked for it.
Man, they studied it.
They searched and they searched for the white supremacy that's ruining the military.
And you know what they found after all that searching?
It's really no different than the public at large.
In other words, it was an illusion.
There was never any excess white supremacy in the military.
But did they decide that they didn't find it so they're done?
No, no, they're doubling down.
They're going to look harder.
They're going to look twice as hard now.
Now, what do you think happens to the readiness of the military when you start dividing them by, I don't know, I think you might be an extremist or a white supremacist.
Well, The DoD, Department of Defense, is starting to feel it might be causing greater feelings of alienation and hostility.
So in other words, the military system, which they implemented, to get rid of white supremacy, which would be what?
Well-intentioned.
Well-intentioned.
I don't want to see any white supremacy in my military.
None.
I want to see zero white supremacy in my military.
None.
Good intention.
But bad system, because it turns out there wasn't much there to look for.
So if you've got a system that's causing alienation and division, and it's not finding any problems that it was trying to solve, it makes things worse.
So once again, we have a system that, by its design, will reduce the quality of our military.
By its design.
So as long as they're chasing diversity in the military, Trying to root out things that don't exist.
You don't get a good outcome.
Now you got your schools are ruined by the teachers unions.
You got your DEI ruining corporations and the government.
You've got mass illegal immigration ruining the capability of people coming in or lowering the average.
You've got your presidential system that gives you a vegetable as the major candidate.
I mean, let's face it, Biden's basically a vegetable at this point.
You've got food supply that's making us unhealthy, smartphones and TikTok that are making us stupid and biased, and a military that's biased design is reducing the quality of the forces.
How bad is wokeness?
Well, do you know a publication called Atlantic, which is famous for being super lefty, anti-Republican?
Apparently they allowed writer John McWhorter, who I'm pretty sure is black, to write a negative article about Robin DiAngelo's book.
What is it?
Anti-Fragile, right?
So Anti-Fragile is one of these, you know, woke books.
And Atlantic actually had a, ran a piece in which John McWhorter, responding to some criticism of his criticisms, posted this today.
Apparently the author Robin DiAngelo said that she was being criticized by somebody who is as right-wing or as conservative as Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson.
And McWhorter says about that, I'm, quote, very conservative, like Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson, She has clearly read barely a word of my work.
At least when I slammed her book, I had read every word.
And I maintained that... Oh, I'm sorry.
It was White Fragility.
I had the books wrong.
What is Anti-Fragile?
Is that somebody else's book?
Is that Candy's book?
I'm confusing it with some other book.
Oh, Anti-Fragile is Talib's book.
Yeah, Nassim Talib.
All right.
So go back.
The book is White Fragility.
White Fragility.
And that's sort of a woke book, obviously, an anti-white book.
So McWhorter says, at least when I slammed your book, you'd read every word of it.
And then he goes on and he says that White Fragility is literally the worst book ever written.
It's so bad, it's an achievement.
Just hold this in your head.
That wokeness has jumped the shark So much that even Atlantic will run a major piece against a book, which is, you know, one of the foundations of openness from a black writer who isn't as conservative as Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson, apparently.
But I feel like that's, I feel like the fact that this even happened is telling us something.
It's telling us that at least you can say, What you're thinking about the topic of wokeness and DEI and all that.
And that's an improvement.
Because I don't think it was even a year ago you could even speak honestly.
You should see the things that Vivek is saying this week.
There's not a thing he said this week that you could have even said out loud a couple of years ago.
You would have been cancelled immediately.
But now we say, OK, that's actually a pretty good point that you can say that out loud now.
Big difference.
Well, I don't know what to call him.
What do you call a Zuby?
Musician?
Philosopher?
He's impossible to characterize.
He has so many skills.
You know Zuby?
So you might know him from social media.
Well, Zuby says that social media is reducing people's social skills and attention spans.
And he says that he's been talking to people for, basically his job is, you know, if you call it a job, it's the best career ever.
He goes around, he travels a lot, and he talks to people.
He really has the best job.
He goes around, he talks to people, and then he creates content out of it.
Probably it influences his music, influences his political opinions, and everything else.
But he says the average person's Less social and less competent post-pandemic, he calls it.
Have you noticed that people are less socially capable since the pandemic?
How many of you have noticed that change?
Because I definitely am.
I've said this before, but I completely lost what I would call a social instinct.
Do you know what I mean by that?
A social instinct?
Now that doesn't mean I'm going to treat people poorly.
I hope.
I mean, I hope I have not accidentally done that, but I don't have like a drive and I can't, I thought it was just me.
So, you know, I've told you before, I can spend two to three days a week without seeing another person in person at all.
Not a word of in-person contact two or three days a week.
And for a while it was bothering me because you can feel it's unhealthy.
You know, you can just feel it.
Like on your body and your brain.
Like even at 24 hours without talking to another person, you feel a little unhealthy.
And then the moment somebody comes into your life, you have like any kind of good interaction, you feel healthy.
Like it's just noticeable.
But, uh, I wonder if the loneliness is what's killing people as much as any other cause of which we could mention many.
Because I feel like the loneliness is, like, lethal.
Like, not at the level I experience it, but I feel like a little bit more of it could kill me.
That's what it feels like.
It feels like it could just fucking kill me.
But I also got used to it.
So, I agree with Zuby on that.
But at least, if you've got all these problems, at least you can go get therapy, am I right?
Thank goodness the system of mental health care in this country is vibrant and it works every time.
Right?
Right?
No?
Well, yes, we don't really have a mental health system for the people who are in the worst shape.
But, you know, we know we can't involuntarily put them in institutions.
But at least the average people who can afford to go to a therapist, at least they're getting super good service from the therapists who are trained to... What?
That's not right?
Well, okay.
Well, Jonathan Haidt posted this today.
He said, I wish I had Not resigned from the APA.
I guess that's supposed to be the Association American Psychologists Association.
So it's a group of psychologists.
So he wishes he hadn't resigned from it in 2021.
You know why he wishes he hadn't resigned?
So he could do it now.
That's right, in your face.
He wishes he could resign from them twice.
Because they've been infected by wokeness, and apparently they're introducing the concept of colonizers into the therapy model, so that you can know if the real problem is you've got some bipolar, or maybe a little some-some, or are you a victim of colonizers?
Is it really a victim-oppressor and victim kind of model?
So apparently even therapy is going to be ruined by wokeness.
So we have a system that if you have mental problems, we can make them worse.
Is your employee and or your spouse, if they go to therapy, do they come back better or they come back worse?
Your co-worker or your spouse goes to therapy.
They come back better or they come back worse.
Now, I've only been in one form of it.
It was marriage counseling for my first marriage.
Definitely made it worse.
I never could have guessed that marriage counseling could make things worse.
But it definitely did.
Definitely did.
Now, I don't know if that's common for the other therapies.
I am sure the therapy is, number one, well-intentioned.
Everybody agree?
I don't think anybody goes into the therapy job with bad intentions.
Good intentions.
But if the system is to allow in the victim-oppressor model, you're not going to get a good result.
You're not.
And I have a feeling that might have snuck into my situation.
Because I think I might have been an oppressor in that context.
That's what it felt like.
I told you that Forbes magazine, it's kind of a magazine still, did a hit piece on me.
They used to be a credible magazine, but now they're just ridiculous garbage.
And I had to look into the ownership of it.
For a while it was owned by a Hong Kong based company.
So I said to myself, aha!
It's China.
China doesn't like me, so they're making Forbes write bad things about me.
But that's not the case.
So the Hong Kong-based thing sold its holdings to a 28-year-old rich guy, CEO of Luminar Technologies.
So Forbes, like the Washington Post, like Atlantic, owned by a rich guy, or a rich woman in the case of Atlantic.
So, why do rich people buy major publications that do not look like they could ever make a profit?
Nobody would buy any of these assets to make money.
You just wouldn't do it.
Nobody's that dumb.
Why do you do it?
Well, you do it for influence, don't you?
I don't know of any other reason.
Let me ask you this.
What was the Forbes opinion on climate change Up until recently.
Traditionally, let's say for the last 20 years, what was the Forbes view on climate change?
What was Steve Forbes' view on climate change?
Skeptical.
Skeptical, yeah.
I don't want to be the one who characterizes Steve Forbes' opinion on climate change.
Um, but I would say that he, he might have been, uh, not alarmist.
Not alarmist.
How about the new guy?
Well, the new guy apparently has donated money to both parties.
So he's donated to both Republicans and Democrats, but not much.
So he's not a big donor, but he's spread around to both sides, which makes sense.
He's just a good business person.
Um, but he is, uh, so he doesn't advertise his political leanings.
Except that one of his main concerns we know from the 2018 article was climate change.
So somebody who is not political but says his biggest concern is climate change now owns Forbes.
What's my opinion on climate change?
Probably really close to Steve Forbes.
Skeptical.
Skeptical of models.
Skeptical that, you know, it's not for the benefit of China.
Skeptical that, you know, going completely green too fast is a good idea.
You know, maybe you should phase into it.
So I probably, this is just a guess because I don't know this to be true, but probably if Steve Forbes and I sat down and talked about climate change, there'd probably be not much difference.
How about if I sat down with the new owner of Forbes?
And we talked about climate change.
If it's his biggest issue, I doubt he's skeptical about it.
So now, remember I told you if you don't know the players, nothing makes sense?
Do you think that Steve Forbes would have allowed an article that's basically a hit piece about me?
You want to know something I shouldn't tell you?
For several years, Steve Forbes asked me personally to sign my books as Christmas gifts for members of his family.
Which I did.
Which I don't do, by the way.
But in case you thought, oh, I'll send you a book and you'll sign it, I'm not going to do it.
I will throw the book in the trash.
But it was Steve Forbes.
And I always liked Steve Forbes.
So I thought, oh, Steve Forbes.
I don't know him personally, but I thought, you know, if he wants my books for his family, I want his family to have my books.
So I signed them a few times.
Now, you see how important the players are?
It's the players.
If you read the news and you believe you're reading news that somebody objectively thought, oh, I think this is the important thing that my audience needs to see, sometimes But lots of times it depends who owns the product.
So I think Steve Forbes is still involved in some ways, but obviously the CEO would be the boss.
All right.
There's some controversy about Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Is that what it is?
So in Hollywood, you know, they put your star in a sidewalk and some people want to have it removed.
But I don't think you should ever move.
That would, I think, has a more use, a bigger use.
I think your therapist could take you down to that sidewalk and point you to the star and say, I have two questions.
How do you feel about your mother?
And what do you think about this star?
And then you would know all of their mental illnesses.
So you can use the Trump star as a way of diagnosing mental illness.
Uh-huh.
So when you look at the star, you see Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Thanos.
Okay?
Okay.
Yeah, that's all you need to diagnose somebody's mental illness.
So I think they should use it for that.
Kind of an important asset.
Well, speaking of Trump, CNN is still talking about his Christmas message that all the losers should rot in hell.
Which was one of the funniest things he's ever said.
Because if you take it in a context, it sounds like Hitler or Mussolini.
But if you see it in context, it's just funny.
And it's, you know, it's on message and, you know, it's something he's been doing for, I don't know, 15 years or something?
How long has he been doing messaging?
Well, before he ran for president the first time, he was doing things like, you know, Merry Christmas, except to the losers or something.
So he always does this.
But CNN had Debbie Dingell on to look offended.
Now, Debbie Dingell, if you don't know what she looks like, just imagine a poor man's E. Jean Carroll.
Or what E. Jean Carroll Look like if she'd been like sick for a couple weeks.
So that's what just so you have the visual.
But if I were in charge of nicknames, what would you call Debbie Dingle?
It's got to be Dingleberry.
It's got to be Dingleberry.
Yeah.
That's all I'm going to say about that.
Like, I'm not in charge of nicknames.
But if you could look at a Debbie Dingle and you come up with any nickname that isn't Dingleberry, well, you've done it incorrectly.
You need to go back and adjust your work.
And you people who are not Native American speakers, I'll give you a few minutes to look that up in the Urban Slang Dictionary.
I found out today from a post by DC Drano that Russian Textbooks teach history to their students, and in Russia they learn that the 2020 election was rigged for Joe Biden, and that Biden's family has corrupt commercial interests in Ukraine.
That's right.
In Russia, they teach in school that it's a fact That the 2020 election was rigged, and it's a fact that Biden is corrupt.
That's what they learned in school.
Now, I happen to think that's true.
I happen to think that's true.
Let me be very clear.
I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever that the 2020 election was rigged.
I'm not aware of any evidence of it whatsoever.
I've not seen anything that I consider proof of that.
And I also believe that Biden was elected by our American system.
So I congratulated him on day one, and I've never changed that.
Because even if the system is corrupt, it worked the way the corrupt system works and got us a result, and so I accepted it.
Because I don't know, maybe it was always corrupt.
I've accepted all the other presidents, but I'm going to say the obvious.
If you believe that every American system and institution was corrupt, except for our elections, I just want to hear you say that out loud.
Here's a challenge for you for New Year's when you get together with your See if you can get a Democrat to say out loud that they do understand that all of our other systems are corrupt, because most people can see that, but that they believe that the elections are the one shining example of non-corruption in our country, in which everything else is corrupt.
I just want to see somebody say it out loud, in like a complete sentence.
You know what they'll say instead?
No court found any problems.
That's right.
So did you know that before the 1990s, that rural voters in America and the city voters, they voted about the same.
Wasn't that much difference between country people and city folk.
But around the mid or early 90s, actually, but Close to the mid-90s, there was a big change, and suddenly the lines diverged, and country folk became more Republican, and city folk became more Democrat.
Now, what do you think caused that?
Everything was going along stably, and then mid-90s, boom!
Big change.
What happened?
You're blaming it on Bill Clinton?
On racism?
Cable news?
Well, I'll give you two dates that I think are relevant to this.
Fox News started in 1996, the exact year that the gap widened.
Rush Limbaugh started his radio show in 1988.
Was it a gigantic impact the year he started?
Not exactly.
Probably not.
I mean, I don't remember, but I don't think it was.
Probably took him a few years to ramp up.
To become the Rush that you knew and loved?
So, mid-90s, you had Rush Limbaugh and Fox News entering the persuasion game.
Remember when I told you that our opinions are assigned to us?
Here it is.
You don't have to wonder.
It's really obvious.
As soon as there were new entities that were credible enough that a lot of people watched them, they Their opinions were assigned to them and they accepted.
So it's pretty much just that.
Yeah, it's pretty much just that.
There is a study to try to see if they can identify fake news just by the semantic information.
So is there some kind of algorithm you could run against a news story?
It would find out if it's fake just by the way it's constructed.
Now, you see any problem with that?
Do you think there'd be any risk if we developed an algorithm that could spot fake news?
Would anything go wrong with that?
Yeah.
The last thing we need is a secret algorithm for finding fake news.
I can't think of anything that's a worse idea.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, our technology spotted some fake news.
Well, how did that work?
Like, how did it spot it?
Well, semantics and stuff.
Well, can you be more specific?
Well, yes, it's the order of the semantics.
That's still not, well, it's the specific order of the semantics, which we run against a filter, That's based on patterns, which are taken from a large language model, which we run through some other filters and then a transformer, and then we get the answer.
I don't understand any of those words which you just said.
Don't worry about it.
We just told you it's fake news.
It's fake news.
Well, how do I know that's true?
You idiot.
Look at what the fact checkers say.
Just check the fact checkers.
The fact checkers Who are Democrats just like we are, and only want our side of the thing to show.
They agree with me.
So there's proof.
Well, I'm not sure I could believe those fact-checkers.
And I'm not even sure I could believe your algorithm.
Well, if you're not going to believe that, would you at least believe the New York Times?
Because the New York Times agrees with the fact-checker, which agrees with us.
And just because they're all Democrats who want Trump to die, I think that's a coincidence.
You just have to look at the, you know, all of these things pointing in the same direction.
I mean, where there's smoke, there's fire.
Yeah, the last thing we need is a secret algorithm for finding fake news.
Because that's going to be corrupt in about 10 seconds.
Nikki Haley had a, let's say, suboptimal weekend.
Or yesterday, I guess.
She was asked about the cause of the Civil War.
Which made her laugh because it's not exactly a normal campaign question.
But you know what it is?
It's kind of a layup.
It was kind of a softball question, wasn't it?
What was the cause of the Civil War?
Allow me to take a crack at it.
Well, the cause of the Civil War, of course, slavery was a base concern.
But of course, historians will tell you there were other variables as well, such as Lincoln wanting to, you know, keep the country together and such as, you know, different economic interests, etc.
But yes, slavery was at the core of that, but was not the, you know, whole story.
How'd I do?
Okay?
Everybody happy with that answer?
Yeah.
Even if you disagreed, it's reasonable for a politician to say, yeah, slavery was a big part of it, but, you know, other interests as well.
What did Nikki Haley say?
She summarized it and said, well, it's really about what government can and cannot do.
What?
Yeah, it's sort of about, you know, big government versus small government.
Yeah, she didn't say that.
But she tried to give sort of generic Non-answer, you know, and then people took that as she either doesn't understand the legacy of slavery, which of course she does.
It was basically just one of these gotcha things, but speaking of gotchas, before she, you know, as part of her answer she said, quote, what do you want me to say about slavery?
In other words, She was trying to figure out what slavery had to do with her current run for president.
So that's a reasonable question, right?
Well, what do you want me to say about slavery?
Sort of like what's that got to do with our conversation?
But Vivek Ramaswamy quotes her in the post where she says, what do you want me to say about slavery?
He quotes her and then he says, I think she mistook the person in the audience for a Super PAC donor.
That's pretty good.
What do you want me to say?
Ask your donors what they want you to say.
Pretty good, Vivek.
All right.
I don't think that's an important story, but it's happening.
Glenn Greenwald pointed out that CNN went easy on her.
Because, you know, she's part of the military-industrial complex.
He's suggesting.
All right.
AOC was doing some crazy video livestreaming about the border.
And she said, it's not an immigration crisis.
It's an imperialism crisis.
It's a climate crisis, and it's a trade crisis.
That's right.
If you fix the climate, imperialism, and trade, and of course, you're also going to have to get rid of white supremacy, she mentioned.
If you get rid of those things, immigration just takes care of itself.
So we don't have an immigration problem.
We got a white people problem.
A lot of white people problem.
I may be interpreting it that way.
Yeah, she is crazy and worthless.
And getting back to my theme about the quality of our leaders, does AOC, she's very persuasive, I always say.
But does she seem like a qualified leader?
I don't think so.
Being persuasive isn't good enough.
She is, I don't think she's even, I'm not even sure she has good intentions.
Really?
I mean, she might.
I can't read her mind.
But it doesn't, it's not obvious that she has good intentions.
There are a lot of people who would agree with her that are more obvious that they're coming from a place of good intentions.
But this is crazy shit.
This just looks like she's mad at her father.
Or she's mad at white people, or something.
Like, why would you throw in imperialism, climate crisis, trade, and white supremacy into an unguarded border question?
You're either sick, or so politically you're useless, or you're incompetent, or you're just a racist, or all of the above.
I think she's incompetent and a racist, is my best guess.
But our current system elected her because of her great quality, right?
Do you remember why she got elected?
Because she was female and she also tried hard.
She wore on her sneakers because she tried hard.
Because people were really excited to see a woman try hard.
I hate to say it, but that's what it was.
She's female and she tried really hard.
And that was good enough?
Wow, she's young and female and she tried really hard.
All right.
Latest on Ukraine is that the rumors are that the Biden administration wants to start some kind of negotiating an end to it.
And of course, if they did that, the end would look like some limits on NATO expansion, probably.
Russia keeping the stuff that they already got, probably.
And it's going to look exactly like Elon Musk said it would look before they killed so many people.
You remember how much trouble Elon Musk got for suggesting maybe they should work it out before they just mindlessly kill each other?
But everybody said, no, no, much better to mindlessly kill each other.
But let's just keep mindlessly killing each other.
And so that's what they did.
But they're going to end up right back where the smart people like David Sachs and Elon Musk and other people said they would.
It's going to look exactly like it looks now.
No NATO.
Russia keeps those places.
Now, I think we'll find a way to make the obvious not happen.
The obvious solution is you just work it out.
You do it quickly.
So since that's obvious and smart, we'll find some way not to do it.
How's our immigration doing?
Our immigration court has a backlog of more than three million cases.
Three million people, according to our system, need to be interviewed to find out if they're really coming across because of their, like, what's the word?
Political refugees.
What's the word?
Asylum.
Are they really Legitimate asylum seekers or they come in here for work.
Three billion of them.
So I ask you again, are the systems in this country designed to increase the capability of our workforce and our people or to decrease it?
Well, if you've got a court that can't even look at asylum cases, it is clearly by design, not intention, but by design, you make us less capable.
What else could happen?
There's no other way it could go.
So that's the design.
Design is destiny.
All right, how's Bidenomics coming?
Let's see, stocks are up.
Inflation is, you know, prices are still higher than we want, but at least the rate seems to be down in a reasonable level at the moment.
Gas prices are lower than the highest.
But they're much higher than the lowest.
Job growth is not bad.
Unemployment, not bad.
But, as Michael Schellenberger points out today, real wages are down, so workers have less money.
And interest rates are high, which has the effect of giving you less money.
Because if you want to buy a house, it'll cost you more.
So, how would you net this out?
If you take the net, is the economy good or bad?
Because you do have, people have jobs.
That's good.
Prices are not going up out of control.
That's good.
But people have less buying power.
Well, I think the less buying power was baked into the model, right?
Inflation was guaranteed for a while.
Interest rates will probably come down.
So here's how I would say you should look at it.
It depends entirely upon which of these things you think are temporary.
If you think interest rates are coming down, and the Fed seems to be signaling that, then we might, you know, be, let's say, gliding back into a better situation.
I tend to think that we're in good shape except for the debt that I have no idea how we'll ever handle.
Unless we can figure out, with robots and AI, how to boost our productivity so much that, you know, that inflation gets eaten up by productivity.
Maybe.
But everything we're doing so far seems to be to make all of our productivity worse instead of better.
All right.
Let's look at the lawfare situation.
Remember Brandon Straka?
He was the leader of the walk-away movement, meaning walk away from the Democrats and consider Trump.
Well, he attended the January 6th events.
He did not go inside, did not go inside the Capitol, and he did not hurt anybody.
So he did no violence, and he did not go inside the Capitol.
But he not only was threatened with jail, but he was sued.
By some of the police officers, including this one Byron Evans.
And he was sued under the KKK Act, alleging that Brandon had violated his civil rights and conspired with white supremacists to commit assault and battery.
Holy fuck.
I had no idea that that happened.
Did you know that this poor guy got sued?
Under the KKK Act for discrimination?
Was there anything about January 6th that had to do with race?
In fact, January 6th was the most pure non-racial event in the history of the United States.
We've never had an event that was that completely non-racial.
Look at the defenders of the Capitol.
Did we not see white and black and Asian and Hispanic defenders of the Capitol working arm-in-arm together?
That's what I saw.
Was anybody in the crowd saying anything racial?
No.
Nothing.
It just wasn't even part of the conversation.
This was the least racial event of all time.
You can make almost everything else racial, because we do that with our news and everything else.
You can make everything else racial.
But there was nothing, there was nothing in January 6th that was racial.
At all.
That was purely about, you know, the integrity of the vote.
That was it.
So just watching this is mind-blowing.
That this poor guy who became influential, you know, in politics, was taken down by, you know, first a criminal charge and then a lawsuit that's just plainly ridiculous.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Insane.
Well, who else is in trouble?
Let's say... So James O'Keefe, you know, his undercover videos, he's now running his own operation, OMG.
So Axios is reporting that a Manhattan judge has denied Project Veritas First Amendment claims.
In other words, when before he was OMG, O'Keefe was the head of Project Veritas, and apparently they're not going to get protections as journalists with First Amendment rights.
Wow.
But What this means is that prosecutors are going to be able to look at a thousand documents related to the alleged theft of Ashley Biden's diary.
So that was the case that triggered this.
And I guess Project Veritas is claiming it was somebody else who stole them.
So they were just acting as journalists.
But the moment it looks like we might see a lot of documents related to that.
So I don't know if that's good or bad.
All right.
The New York Times, as you know, is suing OpenAI and Microsoft because it says ChatGPT is stealing their stuff.
I didn't know how bad it was until the New York Times gave examples.
So the New York Times gave 100 examples.
You know, obviously there would be infinite more, but they just picked 100 for their legal case here.
And they found 100 cases where if you asked-- Interesting.
You said, oh, so the New York Times tested and they asked ChatGPT some questions, and then they saw how many times ChatGPT gave a verbatim answer from an article in the New York Times without mentioning that it's a verbatim answer from the New York Times.
That's a lot.
So, why does it do that?
Why does ChatGPT take entire sections and plagiarize them, in effect plagiarize them, from the New York Times when it has access to so many sources?
Why would it pick one source sort of preferentially?
Well, I'm going to hazard a guess.
Why do you think they don't use Fox News?
Preferentially.
It must be programmed to favor what somebody would imagine are high-credibility, left-leaning publications.
Now, the New York Times would be, among the left, their greatest standard of credibility.
Among people in the political right, that would be seen as a joke.
Am I right?
If you talk to somebody who's very involved in politics, very informed on the left, they will tell you that the New York Times is not perfect.
It's not perfect.
It's got some things wrong.
But it's the standard for news.
Will they not?
They'll tell you it's the standard for news.
If you talk to anybody on the right, they will laugh and say it's just political.
It's basically just brainwashing and propaganda.
Right?
Now I'm not saying which one is right.
I'm saying that somebody had to pick which one was right.
Or somebody's.
So I'm assuming the obvious.
That somebody who has programming control over ChatGPT decided on their own, maybe with some of their co-workers, that the New York Times was very credible, and that they want their AI to be as credible as possible, so it should give a little extra consideration.
Since AI is not programmed completely in detail, and it gets to sort of do its own thing based on patterns, it's no surprise that it favored patterns coming from one source that was a favored source.
But I assume that's what's going on.
So, under the circumstances, I think I agree with the New York Times on this.
Would you agree?
If it's true, That the AI routinely just quotes verbatim the New York Times?
I think the New York Times has, absolutely, has a case.
And you know what else is really funny?
Apparently Apple has very quietly and cleverly started paying for its training sources for its AI it's building.
And it's paying a lot.
So in other words, instead of just scraping somebody's content the way it looks like ChatGP did, Apple is saying, may we train our AI in your content?
And then the owner says, well, for a certain price.
And then they say, what is that price?
And then they pay it.
So Apple is making ChatGPT look like criminals.
Because Apple, without even requiring to pay, there's no law that says they have to pay.
Yet.
I mean, I imagine there will be.
But they're getting ahead of the law by doing the ethical thing.
So let me stop for a moment.
I sometimes compliment and sometimes criticize Apple.
This is smart.
It's ethical.
And it's smart.
They just said, if it's going to go this direction, We want to be on record as being the ones who paid for it.
We want to pay our bills.
Absolutely respect that.
Good choice.
Apple, good choice.
So yeah, I expect the New York Times is going to win that, and probably it means that Microsoft pays them a lot of money, unless they can unprogram that.
At the same time, US Senators Chris Coons and Marshall Blackburn are trying to figure out what to do about fake music.
So they've got, they're drafting a Some legislation, the No Fakes Act, that would not allow you to use AI to create music that comes too closely from any specific artist.
And I guess this became more important.
This was a gigantic viral video that went around of some fakes of Drake and The Weeknd and Drake.
Now, suppose you had asked me, Scott, It looks like we're entering an age where AI will pretend to be real people and real performers.
Who would be the first artist you would want to copy?
Well, you don't want it to be an artist who is so unpredictable and good that you don't know what they're going to do.
You don't know what they're going to do.
Right.
Well, who would be the artist who makes every song sound like the song before?
I got it.
Drake.
Yeah.
Would you like me to give my impression of every Drake song?
I'm falling asleep as I make my own song.
I think I'm bored.
I don't know why anybody listens to this.
I am the worst hip hopper in the world.
Even though Scott likes hip hop, I like the genre, but I can't even understand why anybody ever listens to Drake.
I don't get him at all.
Now, let me be consistent with my artistic opinion.
Art is subjective.
So the fact that I think Drake has no talent whatsoever is irrelevant, because that's on me.
Because Drake sells a lot of music.
That guy sells a lot of music.
So what can you conclude about that?
He's very good.
I hate to admit it, but if you sell that much music for that many years and people are really happy they bought it, he is a great, great artist.
That's just the truth.
The way you can measure great art is people want to pay for it.
Year after year after year, they're going to pay for it.
And they do.
They pay for it.
So, if you use the most objective and most reasonable standard, and indeed, it's the standard I like applied to me.
I don't want you to tell me that Dilbert is good or bad.
I want you to tell me, did people subscribe to it?
Did they buy the book?
Did they want the calendar?
Because that tells me what I need to know.
I don't need the internal thoughts.
So Drake is one of the greatest artists of all time, but he's probably the easiest to copy.
Is that too far?
Would you agree with me that he's got to be the easiest one to copy?
Yeah.
Anyway, so no offense to Drake.
He's actually great.
Let's see what else is going on.
Jack Smith is trying to block Trump's defense from offering any defense.
That doesn't sound real, does it?
That doesn't sound like it could possibly be real.
That in public, in front of all of us, he's trying to make sure that Trump can't give a defense.
So one of the things that he's trying to block the jury from hearing Is that Trump requested increased capital security and was denied.
Now, if you were on the jury, and you're trying to figure out if Trump were trying to take over the country or not, you know, is he an insurrectionist?
Wouldn't you want to know if he had tried to stop the insurrection?
And somebody stopped him from stopping it?
I can't imagine what would be more important.
Now, since I'm not a lawyer and I'm not following this as closely as I should, am I missing the point that because Smith is not charging him for insurrection, which is weird in itself, right?
Is that true?
He's not being charged specifically with insurrection?
If he's not being charged with insurrection, is that the justification that Smith is using for why he can't defend himself against a charge for insurrection?
Is that what's happening?
Because there's got to be a legal argument for it, right?
So he's saying it's just off point.
But if I were the Trump defense, I would consider it completely on point.
Because it suggests a frame of mind.
Now, what exactly is the charge against Trump for January 6th?
If it's not an insurrection, it's inciting violence?
What is the charge?
See, it's all so sketchy and lawfare that I can't even hold my head with it.
Obstruction.
So charging him with obstructing a government process.
Don't you think it would be relevant to obstruction that he tried to make sure the obstruction didn't happen?
That's the most relevant thing in the world.
That is so relevant.
Here's what I take from this.
I think we all understand that the legal system is a contest where you're fighting as hard as you can.
We all understand, and we agree, that the defense can try everything that's legal.
They can maybe stretch the truth.
They can throw every defense they can.
Because we want the best defense.
We also think that the prosecutor can do the strongest prosecution that they do, because you want them to do that as well.
But isn't there a bit of an ethical problem if your prosecutor is trying to take away the defense of the defense?
That's a little different than trying hard to convict.
That doesn't even look legitimate.
Not even a little bit.
You know in the legal profession there's the concept that if you lied about one thing, if you lied under oath about one thing, the jury is often instructed that they can assume that the person is a liar in general and may have lied about the other things.
So a lie about one thing in a court setting is reasonable to extend that to, well, maybe they're a liar.
What would you assume about somebody who's doing something that, at least to our non-legal minds, looks obviously corrupt?
If Jack Smith would do one obviously corrupt thing, preventing Trump from, you know, this part of his defense, and by the way, if this defense actually affected Smith's ability to get the prosecution, then it should be him.
If it doesn't affect that, then what's the difference?
It just looks illegitimate to me.
So if Jack Smith can do one thing that looks clearly illegitimate, it would be reasonable to assume that the other things he's doing are illegitimate.
And indeed, they do look illegitimate to me.
All right.
Mike Benz is, again, Showing us who the players are.
So, let's see.
So there was a group, non-government group, behind the lawsuit that removed Trump from the Colorado ballot.
We think that'll probably get reversed.
But at the moment, Colorado court said Trump can't be on the ballot.
Who do you think is the biggest donor to the group that removed Through the courts, Trump from the ballot.
George Soros.
And the head of the group says that on camera, so it's recorded.
But it says that Soros has never tried to get them to do anything specific.
So she wants you to know that George Soros and nobody in his organization ever said, do this or don't do that.
They just gave him money.
So that's fine, right?
No!
No!
Because this is a Democrat who used to work for high-ranking Democrats.
It's obviously one of these Democrat cut-out groups.
Everybody knows what they're going to do.
You don't have to tell them what to do because they form to do the thing you want them to do.
To be, you know, dirty tricksters against Republicans.
So, she said to an interviewer, I used to be political.
So she's trying to tell people that she used to work in politics, but now she's in this non-government role as a Democrat who used to work for high-ranking Democrats, who's taking money from Soros to take Trump off the ballot.
But you know what?
She used to be political.
Yep.
Yep, she used to be political.
There was that one time when she was political.
It's exactly what it looks like.
It is exactly what it looks like.
Amazing.
All right.
And in her own documents, they call President Trump the most corrupt president in American history.
But she's not political.
There's a surgeon who's complaining that DEI has infected medicine and led to a erosion of quality of their care.
So we had a system of medicine that guarantees you get less good medical treatment.
Because they're going to value diversity over capability.
Certainly in the medical schools, they do that.
But even after medical school, apparently they're doing that.
That's consistent with my theme.
Yeah.
So, let's see.
Here's something that Vivek said that I feel like you couldn't have said two years ago.
And you couldn't even say it unless you're as good at defending yourself as Vivek is.
He posted, everyone agrees that affirmative action in the NBA would ruin basketball and affirmative action in the NFL would ruin football.
Turns out that affirmative action in the sciences has a similar effect.
This should surprise no one.
Well, when he says this should surprise no one, how do I say that?
The way I say it is, design is destiny.
Design is destiny.
So they have a design that guarantees they'll get less good medical outcomes.
But what about the NFL and the NBA?
What does their design guarantee?
The best players.
Yeah.
Yeah, the NBA and the NFL are designed to get the best players.
All right.
Here's one argument for Vivek over Trump.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of the MAGA people are sick and tired of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the negative it has done to the country.
And, you know, Trump's Opposes those things too, but he doesn't oppose them nearly as elegantly as Vivek does So I would say that depending where you place your priorities for getting rid of wokeness Nobody's ever made a better argument than Vivek and Trump's not the one to make that argument because he He's not so much the Explainer as he is the persuader.
It's a different skill All right.
And then Vivek talking about January 6th.
So he's evolved on this from, you know, his first impression was it was all bad.
But the more he finds out, the more his opinion changes.
So listen to this.
So Vivek said this about January 6th.
If you'd have told me nearly three years ago when I was just a CEO that January 6th was an inside job, I would have said that's crazy talk.
It's not.
There is now clear evidence that there was, at the very least, entrapment of peaceful protesters, similar to the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot and countless other cases.
I think the Brendan Strzok situation tells you it's illegitimate.
The FBI won't admit how many undercover officers were in the field on January 6th.
Capitol Police on one hand fired rubber bullets and explosives into a peaceful crowd, Who they then willingly later allowed into the Capitol.
That doesn't add up, and the actual evidence turns the prior narrative upside down.
If the Deep State is willing to manufacture a, quote, insurrection to take down its political opponents, they can do anything.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
That is correct, Vivek.
January 6th has always been an op, and not by Republicans.
It was a Democrat op from the beginning, and now it's obvious.
But if you get outside of our little political bubble, the bubble of people who watch live streams like this and pay attention, nobody knows this stuff.
Nobody really knows who the players are.
They don't know who owns what magazine.
They don't know which ones are typically organs of the CIA.
They don't know any of that.
They're just reading what their team says and then adopting that opinion.
But Vivek looks like he's just ready to rip the cover off the ball.
So he's calling out climate change as a hoax.
He's saying that DEI is just, you know, unproductive garbage.
Racism, basically.
And he's saying that January 6th looks more like a hoax than a real thing.
Those are some bold things to say.
And you know what?
MSNBC can't touch him now.
Because if they bring him in, they have to ask him these questions.
And the problem is, he has answers.
You know the old lawyer thing?
Don't ask a question if you don't know what the answer will be?
Well, they don't know what the answer is going to be if they ask him.
So you got, you know, MSNB is mostly failed lawyers who became online hosts.
They're mostly lawyers, right?
It's like, I think half of their hosts are lawyers.
No lawyer is going to bring Vivek on and have him dismantle MSNBC's entire narrative.
That would be bad.
But you could bring on other Republicans.
You could bring on a lot of Congress critters, and they wouldn't embarrass MSNBC.
They would just do their little talking points, and then MSNBC would embarrass them after they were off the air.
Wouldn't leave a mark.
But Vivek will leave a mark.
So I think they fear him at this point.
They should.
Let me summarize this.
I think Trump speaks like his base.
And that's what makes him so persuasive.
When people listen to him, even though, you know, he's a billionaire and you might have a regular job, you still say, he's talking like me.
Like the words coming out of his mouth.
It sounds like I could have said that.
So that really is a bonding thing for his base.
But Vivek doesn't speak like his base.
You know what Vivek speaks like?
Before I tell you my opinion, you tell me what Vivek speaks like.
Trump speaks like the base.
What does Vivek speak like?
Some say a professor.
Some say a car salesman, pastor, father, president.
Dad, preacher, highly educated grad student, Chad, executive.
All right, I'm going to give you a lawyer.
I'm going to give you the right answer.
All of your answers are pretty good.
All of your answers are pretty good.
CEO is a good answer.
Here's the right answer.
He speaks like the leader you want.
I don't want somebody who's only as smart as me.
I don't want somebody who talks like me.
I want somebody who talks better than me.
I want somebody who can take my exact opinion on climate change and then go on television and explain my opinion, my opinion, better than I can explain it.
That's what I want.
I want somebody who understands economics better than I do.
I don't want somebody who talks the same way I talk about economics.
I want him to go on and promote essentially my point of view, but better than I do it.
And I do it pretty well.
But he's better.
I hate to say it, but he's better at it.
That's not easy for me to say.
I mean, I don't know if you're catching this, but I'm saying that somebody is a better communicator than I am.
I don't say that a lot.
I'm pretty cocky.
Pretty cocky in that particular domain.
I don't say that a lot, but he's better.
Yeah, he has more communication skills than any politician I've ever seen.
Now, Trump is still Trump, right?
So I don't like to get into the comparing them directly.
And the reason I don't compare them directly is I believe Trump has earned icon status.
There's some things you don't compare things to.
Comparing something to Trump It's a waste of energy.
There's only one of it.
He is what he is, and that's just the end of the story.
The same reason I say don't, you know, compare things to the Holocaust.
There are some things that just don't compare anything.
You can talk about it, but to compare his communication style to Vivek is wrong question.
Wrong question.
Yeah.
All right.
Bill Belusion at the border says that I guess Secretary Mayorkas came back and said, you got some challenges down there, but they're really happy that Mexico is stepping up their commitment to help.
So good.
That's a good job.
So Mayorkas went and met with the President Labrador of Mexico and got this commitment for lots of Mexican help.
So we're all set, right?
All good?
Border's fixed.
Well, not according to Fox News' Bill Malugin, who spends a great deal of time down in the border and is, you know, probably the strongest reporter from that area.
And Bill Malugin says about that, continuous efforts?
What efforts?
Mexico is enabling the chaos at the border.
By mass issuing humanitarian visas to migrants that allow them to travel through Mexico straight to the U.S.
border.
Then they discard the visas on the ground when they cross illegally.
And then he says, and the trains?
And the trains?
Mexico is running like trainloads of migrants with visas that they issued to the border.
So he's like, what progress?
What commitments?
All right.
Have I completed my theme?
My theme is that our current systems in this country are by design, not by intention.
Not by intention, but certainly by the way they're designed, they guarantee lower capability of future citizens.
They're making us less capable, less educated, more divided, and it's everything.
It's not just education.
It's not just corporations.
It's not just government.
It's everything.
And I think that's why you need a Vivek.
Right?
If you want, well, let me give you an example.
So we're all watching Argentina.
They got their new president, Millet.
And he's just a crazy guy in a good way.
Right?
He's changing things.
Getting rid of departments, he's streamlining things, he's bringing free markets back, and all that.
Now, if you say to yourself, what is it that makes him so strong as a politician?
And you probably have lots of answers.
You say, well, he has a real good broad background, he was a popular athlete, but he's also an economist, he's a wild man, he's got a look with his hair, he communicates in a certain way.
So you'd have all these reasons.
But there's one thing he has Then not everybody can duplicate.
Well, actually a lot of things.
But one that stands out?
He's young.
How old is he?
Give me his age.
President of Argentina is 40s?
Is he pushing 50 or no?
Early 40s?
He looks like he's a mid 40s, I'm guessing.
Right.
Yeah, under 50.
I think you can still shake things up.
Over 70?
Good luck.
Yeah, good luck.
I don't see anybody in their 70s ripping something out by the root.
By the time you get to your 70s, you're like, well, we could trim that tree and keep it.
You know, you need to be a certain age He's 54, somebody says.
I'm seeing 53.
That would have been my guess.
Yeah, I would have put him early 50s, actually.
But early 50s, still young enough.
Still young enough.
He's got the fire to change things fundamentally.
I just don't think older people change things fundamentally.
And that's another Vivec advantage.
Now, the other Vivec advantage is if you don't like wokeness, and I know that on the right, that's a big deal.
Who can rail against wokeness more effectively?
If Trump does it, and you support Trump, what are you?
A white supremacist.
Right?
Even if you're not white, you're still a white supremacist, if you support Trump.
What if you support Vivek, and he goes hard to dismantle DEI?
Are you a white supremacist?
Well, now it's a little harder argument to make, isn't it?
Because you're saying, He's brown.
So how does that make me a white supremacist if I'm supporting the brown guy?
Right?
So Vivek has not only the communication skills that are unparalleled, he's coming from a place that's just the more comfortable place to make the argument.
Anybody can make the argument, but we're not all coming from comfortable places.
I would be a good example of that, right?
I couldn't run for president And make a DEI argument without half of the country saying, well, you're just a white supremacist soul.
Right?
But if Vivek makes it, they're going to have to do better.
They're going to have to defend DEI.
Because they can't just go after him.
Say, well, you're obviously a white supremacist.
Okay.
Why isn't this working anymore?
So that's another advantage he has.
Now, Vivek says he doesn't think that those in charge will let either Trump or Biden didn't get to the finish line.
He doesn't think either one will get there because there are too many powers trying to prevent it.
So if you're looking for your backup plan, I think Nikki Haley is looking like the insider deep state military industrial complex friend.
DeSantis just sort of disappeared.
But if you're looking for your Your backup plan?
You might need a backup plan.
So, at the very least, here's what I'd ask you to do.
Just become familiar with Vivek's policies.
Just become familiar with them.
That's all.
Just in case it becomes necessary.
Because I know most of you are just Trump supporters, probably.
But keep an open mind.
Because a lot could happen to Trump that's not good.
You know, if Trump is not taken out with lawfare or some other dirty trick, we can't imagine, he should win.
But there's a lot of dirty tricks and a lot of time left.
So don't be too confident.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
Thanks for joining here on YouTube.
Sorry for my bad timing this morning when I started early and had to try it again.
But, uh, yeah.
Hit that like button and subscribe and do all those other things.
