Episode 2338 CWSA 12/30/23 Lots Of 2024 Optimism While Laughing At Today's Batch Of Absurdities
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, Michael Cohen, AI Case Law Research, Elon Musk, Tesla Robots, Ballot Printing Hardware, Swatting Conservatives, Seth McFarland, Bill Maher, President Trump, Insurrection, James Lindsey, Social Media Moderation Policy, Politico Hit Piece, Politifact Hit Piece, Mayor Brandon Johnson, Violence Reparations, Mental Health Detection, Derek Chauvin, CA Free Healthcare, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Thomas Massie, SBF Charges Dropped, Mike Pompeo, Ukraine Funding, Unvetted Immigration, Ukraine War, Adam B. Coleman, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization.
We call it Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is and we're gonna have fun today.
So, don't go away.
It's just gonna get better and better the whole time.
If you'd like to start off at a level that people can't even understand it's so good, well then all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of Charles Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
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 effect.
It happens now.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Savor it.
Savor it.
So I've got this fancy Miele coffee machine.
And let me tell you, that makes a good cup of coffee.
And it only gives you two to five error conditions each time you want a cup.
Sometimes it's out of beans.
Sometimes you need to clean it.
Sometimes something's not lined up, sometimes the pan has to be empty, sometimes the trash part is.
I think I had to clear five different faults this morning to get a cup of coffee.
You know what you want to do less than anything in the world when you first wake up and before you've had your first cup of coffee?
What do you want more than anything in the world?
To not have to clear five faults from your coffee machine.
There's nothing you want more than that at that time of day.
But we're all good now.
I got my coffee.
Speaking of weird things, did you know that unless you're an engineer, you cannot hold in your head three specifications?
I learned this when I asked for recommendations of how to make a Dilbert calendar for 2025.
There won't be a physical one for 2024.
Because I got canceled.
So here are the three things I'm looking for, and then I'll tell you what happened when I posted asking for it.
I'm looking for a printer in America, in America only, somebody who can print a day-to-day calendar, which are the kind that the little squares are on top of each other, and you rip off, rip off each day.
Now it has to be that, so it has to be that physical form of the calendar, no other calendar.
It has to be printed in America.
But on top of that, since I don't have a publisher, wouldn't it be great if the publisher also had an e-commerce site and could do fulfillment, actually mail it to the end customer?
In my perfect world, I just want to tell people where the link is and not do any work, just collect the check.
So I ask people, where can I get these three things?
An American printer who can print this kind of calendar, Who offers a web page where you can go to get it and will deliver it to your house.
What happens if I ask the internet for something that meets those three criteria?
You know what happens?
You will get hundreds of different confidence suggestions that do not meet those three criteria.
And it will be harder for me to go through the suggestions.
Almost all of them will not meet all three criteria.
To find anything that's like a piece of gold in the garbage.
So the reason I ask people on X is because you can't do a Google search.
You know why you can't do a Google search to find this?
It's so polluted with sponsorship and lies and wrong answers that all you're doing is you're just going through this mountain of wrong answers.
And you got to go to every website.
You have to penetrate their lies.
To find out what they can and cannot do.
So you really almost can't research it.
It's almost, by its nature, I don't have enough time in my life to find the answer to this question.
And there's no technology that'll do it.
You might say, well, ask AI.
AI is fucking useless.
I don't want to be the first one to tell you, but AI is fucking useless.
Here's the absurdity that we're having right now.
Just try to hold this in your mind that this is a real experience that we're all having right now.
So Trump's ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen, is in trouble because he used AI to find some case law to make his case about, I don't know, getting out early or something.
And apparently AI invented three separate case laws that don't exist.
And now he's in trouble because it looks like he's lying or something.
Now let me ask you this.
Having also experienced this very same thing, where AI will confidently tell me something that's not true, what would you use AI for?
Once you know it, it can lie to you and there's no way to stop it.
There's no way to stop it, you know.
Nobody has any idea how to stop it from lying.
Have you heard anybody say, well, it's lying, but we've got an easy fix for that.
We'll just put a few lines of code in there so it won't lie.
Nope.
Nobody has any idea how to stop it.
So we have something that we know will lie to us, no idea how to stop it from lying, and you think that's going to be useful.
I swear to God, AI is nothing but demo-ware.
It's nothing but demo-ware.
Demo meaning you can do a cool demonstration of what AI could do if it worked.
But it doesn't.
It just doesn't.
And you think to yourself, well, maybe it's no good for detailed information, because it lies.
It would be great for just having a conversation.
No, it isn't.
Have you ever tried to have a conversation with AI?
It's excellent at understanding what you're saying.
It's really good at that.
The voice recognition is amazing now.
It's not like the old ones where they never could hear you correctly.
They really do understand what you're saying.
But everything interesting AI is banned from talking about.
Everything interesting.
So now just try to understand the landscape.
There is the land of things that are just facts, and it will lie to you about facts.
So you can't use it for facts.
Then there's the world of opinion.
And it won't give you opinions because it's not allowed.
So you can have no opinions, or you can have no facts.
Those are your two choices.
I would like to have no facts or I'd like to have no opinions.
How about both?
No facts and no opinions.
What the fuck is it good for?
Now, have we all been hypnotized into thinking this is going to be useful?
Give me any example.
What the fuck is it useful for?
You know what I hear the most?
I hear people say it helps them with writing.
Really?
Really?
Show me some of this great writing that comes out of the AI.
I haven't seen any.
I've seen AI write nothing that is good writing.
The spelling is good and the grammar is perfect.
But it's not good writing.
It doesn't know how to talk to a human.
It just sort of copies some things it's seen before and that's not good enough.
So, I don't want to be the old man shouting at the sky who says, AI will never improve, even though everybody knows it will get better and better.
My point is, this isn't like a microchip, where you've got a really good microchip and you're going to make it a little faster.
That's a good prediction.
It's something we know how to do, and we have a long, consistent record of improvement.
It's not that hard to predict it'll keep going.
But the trouble with AI is, there's nothing happening that I'm aware of that would fix these problems.
How can you build a large language model that does mysterious things on the inside without your direct involvement, and then fix it from hallucinating?
How's that going to happen?
I don't know.
How are you going to get it to deal with opinions?
It's too dangerous.
You can't let AI have opinions.
So, I was trying to think of what it will do well.
It's going to help you code websites.
Definitely going to help on that.
And I heard somebody whose English was not their first language say that they were building their own website.
It was really helpful because the AI could put things in perfect English and they didn't know how to do that.
So that's good.
But these are really minor things.
Really, really minor improvements.
The big improvement will be if you get your Optimus robot, your Tesla robot, So Elon Musk doubled down on his prediction that if optimists, the new Tesla robots, are designed and built as well as he thinks they will be, that the value of Tesla from just the robot business alone will make it value bigger than Apple plus Aramco combined.
That would be bigger than the two biggest companies in the world.
That's Elon Musk's prediction.
Now let me ask you this.
Does Elon Musk make crazy, stupid predictions that aren't based on good information and a logical sequence of events?
Nope.
Nope.
Now, I do not give you investment advice.
If you take my investment advice, then you're a fool.
Because I do not have I don't have a track record that suggests you should take my investment advice.
However, Musk is making it very difficult to not own Tesla stock.
Am I right?
Because the downside of Tesla is that it just becomes an average car company.
I don't think you're going to lose all of your money.
I mean, you could.
Anything's possible.
But the downside is it continues to be a solid car company that's leading the pack in its domain.
The upside is it's bigger than Apple and Aramco combined.
Now, do you know what an expected value is?
Calculation?
An expected value is you multiply the odds of one thing happening times whatever the dollar outcome would be.
And then the odds of the other thing happening, the other possibility, times the dollar outcome.
So the odds of Tesla just remaining a non-robot company is pretty good.
You know, maybe there's a 20% chance it will just be a car company.
In which case, it's not a bad investment.
Some people say it's overpriced.
Some people say it has more to run, but that's normal, right?
So that would just be sort of a normal investment.
And honestly, let me be as clear as possible.
I can't tell you that that would be a good investment.
It would just be a normal one, right?
It would be in the normal domain of investments.
Now, what about the upside of being twice as big as the biggest company we know of?
What were the odds you put on that?
Well, let's see.
Put an odds on it.
Give me a percentage chance that Musk is right and his robot business will be bigger than everything.
I'm seeing 25, 15, 45, 60.
All right.
So here's what you do.
If you say there's a 25% chance he's right, and that's a trillion dollars, You multiply the 25% times the trillion, you get 250 billion, and that's the expected extra that Tesla could go up.
It's kind of a no-brainer.
All right, I hate to say this because it does sound like investment advice.
How can I withdraw the investment advice and keep the math?
Here's what I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to make a distinction between investment advice Which depends on everything from the quality of the management, to the market, to the competition, everything.
I'm not making a recommendation on investing.
This is not investment advice.
This is math.
It's a math lesson.
The math lesson is this.
If you've got an investment that probably a lot of smart people think is worth about what it's valued at,
There's likely continue, but it also has this upside ticker as a 25% chance of being worth trillions multiple trillions That's that's called a no-brainer That's called a no-brainer right in theory, it's the smartest investment in the stock market But I don't give you investment advice
That's not investment advice.
Because the number of unknowns is so tremendous.
For one thing, you don't know if the robots will be worth anything.
They could be worth a zero.
The other thing is you don't know if Musk gets taken down by the government.
Maybe he has a medical problem.
If Musk has a medical problem, the value of his business is going to go down 25% that day.
So, there's a lot of risks, and I do not recommend any specific stocks.
But, there are very few times in the history of humankind that there will be something that looks so obvious as this.
This is the most obvious investment.
There's only one that I've seen that's more obvious.
And I've told you that the mistake I made before.
You remember, was it 2008 and 2009, the stock market tanked terribly?
Help me with my memory.
I've got that right.
2008-9, the stock market just went right in the toilet, right?
Now, when the entire stock market went down, I said to myself, this looks like a once-ever opportunity to buy, to sell every stock I own and put every dollar I have into Wells Fargo stock.
You know why?
Because I rightly reasoned, it turned out rightly, but I didn't act on it, that if things were as bad as they looked, it didn't matter where your stock was, everything was going to be gone.
Because we were talking about the end of America.
That was actually the conversation.
Now, I didn't believe it was the end of America, but that was the conversation.
Like the entire thing's going to fall apart.
If the entire thing falls apart, it doesn't matter where you're investing.
You understand that, right?
Everything's gone.
Doesn't matter where your money is.
But, if it comes back, if it comes back, it's going to be because the banks didn't fail.
If the banks don't fail, the biggest bank, the strongest one, is almost guaranteed to quadruple.
Almost guaranteed.
So it's the only situation I've ever seen Where what you should do with your money was right in front of you and the most obvious thing and you couldn't, it just was the simplest investment in the world.
I should have taken every penny I had and moved it into one or two big banks.
Had I done that, I would have doubled my net worth.
I would have doubled it.
I didn't do it.
Now, when I saw the Tesla estimate of how much the robots can make the value, this is one of those.
This is very much one of those.
You don't see these, but once every 10, 20 years.
You rarely see a case where the downside is close to nothing.
But what are the odds that Tesla, as a car company, will just become worthless?
I mean, anything's possible.
You know, things can change quickly.
That's why I don't give you advice.
I've never seen one this clear.
So, anyway, do what you will, but it's not advice.
Scott McNeely posted this today.
He said, if you can't keep your property unless you pay taxes, do you really own it?
You don't own your car, your job, your earnings, your investment, your inheritance, because you have to pay off the government.
At every step or you lose it.
Huh.
I don't really own my house because if I don't pay the government I can't live in it.
Don't really own my car because if I don't pay property taxes they'll take it away.
Don't own my job because my employer can fire me anytime they want.
Don't own my stuff Because they could always Derek Chauvin me and put me in jail for bullshit and take all my shit.
So are any of you happy?
Because Klaus Schwab said that someday you'll own nothing but you'll be happy.
Is anybody happy today?
I'm pretty happy today and I don't own anything apparently.
So it turns out Klaus Schwab, against all odds, is the most right person in the world.
We don't own anything.
And a lot of you are happy.
Nailed it.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
Already heads exploding?
You already don't own anything.
And it's been a long time since you did, if you ever did.
You don't own anything.
Scott McNeely is 100% right.
Why did it take me until today to realize that Klaus Schwab was right and it wasn't a prediction, that we already don't own anything?
All right.
What do you think of this story that Rasmussen Reports talks about nearly every day, that there are unfolded, allegedly, According to the Rasmussen folks and the news reports, there are unfolded pristine mail ballots with perfectly filled in ovals.
Now, this is based on witnesses.
We don't know that it's true, but witnesses have claimed this, more than one, for the 2020 election.
Now, why is that a huge problem for 2024, as Rasmussen says?
Well, here's the fun part.
You ready for this?
Now, we don't know that this claim could be confirmed.
The claim is that these ballots are in a locked room.
I would think that if they ever existed in a locked room, there's no way they're in there now.
Are you kidding?
Does anybody think we've been talking about a locked room full of proof that the election was rigged and then nobody's emptied that room?
I don't think there's any chance there exists a locked room with a bunch of fake ballots in it.
Because anybody who would put that many fake ballots, like hypothetically, they would be smart enough to get the fuck those ballots out of that room, because everybody's looking at the room.
What, do you think it has cameras on it all day?
If it does, and maybe it does, maybe it has some security cameras, you don't think those security cameras have already been Epstein?
You know what I mean?
So, here's the first thing.
I don't think there's any chance that years after the election, you're going to open a room and find some perfect ballots.
I don't say it's impossible that they were ever there.
That part I don't know.
But are they still there?
Come on.
What are the odds of that?
However, let's play along.
Let's play along and imagine that they could be found.
Here's the fun part, according to Rasmussen reports.
They're an indicator of a multi-state counterfeiting operation, something that requires a specialty ballot software to do because of precinct voting.
Hmm.
Now this claim, I would say, is short of, you know, confirmed by evidence.
But there is the suggestion forming That if in fact there is more than one room that has some of these perfectly printed ballots, it could be because there's some equipment somewhere that is sophisticated enough to make fake ballots for more than one precinct.
Because doing it for one precinct would be work.
Doing it for multiple precincts would almost certainly take specialized equipment.
Would this specialized equipment be located?
What would be more fun than finding there's a warehouse full of illegal ballot printing equipment?
What would be more fun than that?
I saw in the comments, I may have found my Dilbert calendar printer.
Yeah, it's probably in a warehouse somewhere behind a locked door.
All right.
If you had to bet on the outcome of these pristine ballots, I would bet that no matter what the truth is, that none are found.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
I say no pristine ballots will ever be found behind any locked door.
Either because they never open the door, or because they open it and surprise, there's nothing in there.
Yeah, I don't see any way that can happen.
Well, the swatting continues.
Jack Posobiec says that senators, members of Congress, conservative professors, and conservative commentators and their families all hit by a nationwide swatting ring over the Christmas break.
And Jack points out that the FBI has not said a word.
Well, even Jonathan Turley got swatted.
Marjorie Taylor Greene got swatted.
Apparently some others that we don't know about.
Now, wouldn't you predict I'll get swatted?
Seems obvious, doesn't it?
Who should I call to make sure that they check before they run into my house with guns?
Should I call my local police and tell them that there's a high likelihood I'll get swatted?
But what happens if I have an actual break-in?
Are they going to ask me if it's real?
Here's what they should do.
Here's the instructions I should give them.
If I get swatted, they should call me and ask me to turn on my video on my phone and to walk around my own house and walk out into the driveway.
If I can do a 360 video and then also, while it's live, walk into my driveway with nobody stopping me?
Now, the safe word, I think, wouldn't work.
The safe word You know, the bad guys can figure out your safe word.
I know, that feels like a failure.
But if they can put me on FaceTime, and I can walk right out my door onto the sidewalk in the street, and I say, don't worry, you know, look, I'm on the street already.
I feel like that would keep them from deploying.
I'll probably do that today or sometime next week.
All right, and I remind you that getting swatted is a murder attempt.
Do you all agree on that?
It's not a prank.
It's a murder attempt.
It's definitely a murder attempt.
So let's not treat this like a prank.
If I get swatted, I'm going to treat it as a murder attempt.
That will be my attitude.
All right.
Let's see what else is happening here.
Seth MacFarlane was on Bill Maher's Show Club Random.
And they got into a little back and forth on vaccinations.
Seth McFarland is on the page of vaccinations were a gigantic success that saved millions of people, and there's no evidence of children dying at a high rate or anybody else.
Bill Maher, who thought that the vaccinations may have helped some people.
Now, I don't have any interest whatsoever in talking about this topic anymore.
I think you're all on the same page, right?
Here's what's interesting.
part of it was bad and that maybe there were more harm than the government's talks.
Now, I don't have any interest whatsoever in talking about this topic anymore.
I think you're all on the same page, right?
Here's what's interesting.
We have formed two worlds in which these two well-informed public figures are living in completely different worlds.
I mean, to imagine that the vaccinations were a huge success, there was no special problems with the vaccinations themselves, except, you know, normal amount of rare side effects, and that it was a big success, and we sure better do it if we have another pandemic.
And there was nothing... Actually, MacFarlane said, That the COVID vaccination was the most tested vaccine in all of human history by the time he took it.
Because he didn't do it in the first months, same as I didn't.
What do you think of that?
It was the most tested vaccine in human history by the time he took it.
You know, maybe six months in or something.
No!
Because the long-term effects are, of course, important.
And number two, we think that the data was all fake.
Or at least the data was unreliable.
If you have unreliable data, and it's only been six months, that's closer to the opposite of testing.
But I'm living in my bubble, in my own little world where all that makes sense.
The interesting thing is that there are functioning, smart, well-informed adults Who live in completely different worlds.
Doesn't that blow you away?
And that can never be settled.
You could put them sitting in those chairs all day long.
You could surround them with a team of experts, you know, fact-checking.
Nothing would change.
They would live in two different realities and will go to their graves believing that they were in the right one.
To me, that's fascinating.
Way more interesting than the question of who was right.
is the reality that it doesn't matter.
They can both live in their bubbles, and there will never be a problem with that.
Isn't that weird?
This is why I think we live in a simulation.
If you were going to program a simulation, it would be way too hard to make everybody see the same facts.
It would be easy to tell people that whatever they see is true.
Well, whatever you see, whatever you're imagining is.
Just treat it like it's true, and just go on as if that's true.
That's an easy way to program an AI, such as ourselves.
So, do you think it's a coincidence that people can't agree what's even real as they're sitting in a room together?
That's not a coincidence, or it could be, but it doesn't look like a coincidence.
It doesn't look like evolution would have created that situation.
Yeah, it would be one thing if we were all uncertain, then that makes sense.
But to be certain in a completely different world that has opposite consequences?
No.
I feel like that's a pretty strong indication we're in a simulation, because you would have to do that to have enough processing power to simulate the universe.
All right.
James Lindsay pointed this out in a post.
He said people keep saying that this people on the right keep saying that Trump hasn't been convicted of an insurrection.
Have you heard people say that as defense against let's say the states were trying to keep them off the ballot because they say he did an insurrection.
But you've heard lots of people say that right.
Is that a good argument.
Do you think it's a good argument to say Trump has not been convicted.
of any insurrection.
Therefore, any other government entity should not treat it as a true fact.
Is that a good argument?
Nope.
You know what the good argument is?
This is going to make you mad.
Here's the good argument, as James Lindsay points out.
The good argument is he's never been charged with it.
He's never been charged with insurrection.
That's the argument.
Because if the government thought there was evidence of insurrection, he would be charged with it.
If they thought they could make that case.
If the evidence that these crazy people in the States are saying is obvious and true, if that were true, the government would have done at least charging him.
Doesn't mean they would have been successful, but they would at least charge him.
I mean, he got impeached for a phone call.
It was a perfect phone call.
You're telling me they wouldn't even charge him?
So, stop saying that he's not been convicted.
Say he's never even been charged.
Your own government believes it's not true or they would have charged him.
The people, or here's a better way to do it, the people who have looked into it the most, the, you know, Jack Smith types, the people who have looked into it the most, Have not even charged him.
Not even charged him.
And you know, you can get an indictment for... Fill in the rest of the blank.
You can get an indictment for a ham sandwich.
That's right.
You can get an indictment and charge somebody on the weakest, flimsiest bullshit evidence.
That means that not only is there not solid irrefutable evidence of an insurrection, there is not even ham sandwich quality bullshit suggestion of anything.
It's so far from being true that you can't even get a ham sandwich fucking indictment on it.
And you know they would, because I can't believe there would be anything that would be a higher priority.
Good catch by James Lindsay there.
exact thing.
If it were anywhere in the neighborhood, if possible, it would have already happened.
So good catch by James Lindsay there.
All right, there's a new content moderation rule that's going into effect, I guess, for in America for social media.
I guess the social media companies have to publicize their social media content moderation policies.
They have to publish their content moderation policies.
And of all people, Elon Musk is pushing back on that.
Doesn't that seem weird?
Why would you push back on transparency about what things you moderate?
I feel we should know what is moderated.
But you know what the problem with that is?
I didn't see it at first, but Musk is right.
The problem is that somebody has to define what is inappropriate content.
If you can't define what is inappropriate content, in other words, as a public we can't agree what is wrong and what is right, then how can you have a moderation standard which tries to achieve the closest thing you can to rightness And get rid of the wrongness when we don't know what is right and what is wrong.
Damn it.
I hate when Elon is right and I didn't see it.
He's right.
He's right.
Damn it.
He's right.
Yeah, you can't.
Now, I'm not sure that completely says you shouldn't show what your policy is.
But it might be more true that even if you showed your policy, there would be massive problems in implementing it.
So I believe that my understanding is that Musk's standard is that he will allow anything that is legal.
Is that the current standard?
And he will modify it in different states and countries so that it's legal within that country, even if that's a different standard than the other countries.
So why can't he just say that?
Why can't he say our moderation policy is If it's legal, we keep it.
If it's illegal, we bump it.
So there's something else to the story.
There's a nuance to the story I don't quite understand.
Because if that was, in fact, the totality of the moderation policy, I think he'd be bragging about it.
So there's something else we need to know here.
It doesn't quite make sense yet.
All right.
What was my best prediction of the coming year?
Already came true.
I said in the next year, you're going to see a whole bunch of hit pieces, not just against Republicans, and also the Republicans will be doing the same thing against the Democrats, but that there would be hit pieces about me.
You remember me saying that?
I said there would be hit pieces about me in the coming year.
Three this week.
Three.
Three hit pieces on me.
This fucking week.
So I already told you about Forbes, right?
But today I found out PolitiFact and Politico.
They both had hit pieces on me today.
Today!
Right after I predicted.
Do you know what the Politico's hit on me is?
The hit that I predicted Politico would do, or people like them.
They say I'm bad at predicting.
I actually predicted that they would say that.
You'd think they'd mention that I predicted they'd say that in an article about being bad at predicting.
I predicted what you would fucking do.
Politico, I can tell you what you're going to eat for fucking breakfast.
I'm the best predictor there's ever been in political life.
The best predictor ever in all of political life.
Did they find something I got wrong?
They did!
Politico actually found a prediction I got wrong.
Did I get any predictions wrong?
Of course!
Do you know why I got some predictions wrong?
Because I predict for a living.
Like, that's what I do every day.
I get on here and I make predictions.
Now, don't you think if you were going to judge somebody's quality of predictions, what's the minimum you would do if somebody is a prolific predictor?
What's the minimum you would do?
You'd look at what you got right.
You'd compare that to what you got wrong.
And you'd say, OK, what's your ratio?
And then you'd say, how does that work compared to other people who also make predictions?
Here's what you don't do.
Pick out the one wrong prediction.
That as it turns out, it wasn't a prediction at all.
Because they still don't know my game at all.
And then you say it's wrong.
Politico actually said that, here's what they said.
They're talking about people who are always wrong.
They said, maybe it's Dilbert creator Scott Adams who has managed to appear on this annual roundup of the worst prediction in politics more than any other person on the planet.
Why do I appear on their list of worst predictions more than anyone?
Why?
Because every year they do a hit piece on me.
They do the same fucking hit piece on me, and they'll pick one thing I got wrong, ignore all the things I got right, and then after they keep maligning me, they use themselves as a source.
They use themselves as the source that I'm always wrong.
Now, the funny thing is, if you didn't follow politics at all, you wouldn't know any of this.
You would just read this and say, wow, that cartoonist guy, it's a good thing we canceled him.
Getting everything wrong.
By far, I'm the best predictor in politics.
Nobody's even close.
There's nobody even close.
Honestly, there isn't.
Now, that doesn't mean I haven't got some whoppers wrong.
Of course I have.
Because I make a lot of predictions.
Did I ever promise you that it'd all be right?
I don't think so.
Don't think I ever promised that.
All right, so here's the prediction they said I got wrong, and this puts me on the list of worst predictors.
You ready?
The one example of the thing I got wrong.
How many predictions did I make in 2023?
Anybody?
A few.
They only picked one.
Here's the one that they say, and by the way, I don't even remember saying.
I don't remember this, but I'm sure I did.
Apparently, my prediction was that TikTok would be banned by June 2023.
Now that didn't happen, did it?
So if you were doing a good context-laden story about this situation, what did they leave out?
Is there anything left out about that prediction?
What's left out?
Here's what they left out.
It wasn't a prediction.
Do you all understand that?
That it wasn't a prediction?
No, it was persuasion.
It was persuasion.
I was making people think past the sale.
They couldn't even tell the difference between persuasion and prediction.
It was in the form of a prediction, and certainly I hoped it would be true.
But did I predict it would be true?
Not really.
I wanted people to understand that banning TikTok could be ordinary enough and doable, such that you would discuss whether it happens in June, or before June, or after June.
It's a simple case of making people think past the sale, because I wanted to take it from the, my God, you never ban a social media company.
No, we'd never do that, free speech, right?
The reasons against banning TikTok were that it's just too big of a, too dramatic, too drastic.
I wanted to move it from too drastic into, it's just a yes or no, if you ban it or not.
Now, let me ask you this.
Over the year 2023, was I successful in moving the ball toward convincing more people in government and in the public that TikTok should be banned?
Yes.
So Politico reported that I had a failed prediction.
They picked a prediction that was so trivial to me, I didn't remember making it, but I'm sure I did.
And it wasn't even really a prediction.
It was in the form of a prediction, but it was pure persuasion.
It was for that purpose.
The purpose was persuasion.
Now, they didn't even know that.
So that's Politico.
How about PolitiFact?
Of all the things I've said, here's what PolitiFact decided to fact-check me on, on their roundup of People with terrible takes, okay?
Here's the one they fact-checked me on.
They said that I said, people not vaccinated against COVID came out the best.
People not vaccinated came out the best.
And they called that false.
Number one, number one, they got all of the context wrong.
The first thing they didn't understand is that it was a prank.
It was a prank.
I was literally playing a prank on the 4chan people who had played a prank on me by saying that all of my pandemic opinions were the opposite of what they were and convinced a bunch of people to be mad at me.
So to make those people who were mad at me less mad at me, I pranked the prank.
And I apologized for getting everything wrong and making the wrong decisions, which had the weird effect of making people respect me For a fake prank that reversed the thing that was reversed.
Anyway, it was very funny and very successful and totally worth.
Now.
Also, what I said was 100% true.
It was a prank in terms of what I expected to, you know, to succeed at.
Because if people interpreted it as a different, different than I said it, and that's what I expected would happen.
So here's the truth.
Apparently they changed the context to make it false.
It looks like they changed the context from if you're in the middle of the pandemic, you shouldn't have been vaccinated.
And they would say that's false because the vaccinations kept people alive.
That wasn't my context.
You know that, right?
My context was after The worst part of the pandemic is over, and we just got a little Omicron going on.
If you could have gotten to that point without a vaccination, then you would be a person who had nothing in you.
You had no COVID in you, no long COVID, if you did get COVID, and probably no vaccination.
Now, if you did get COVID, you also had some natural immunity, which you probably didn't die from, and you'd be better off than having some vaccination in you.
The way I say it, in context, literally nobody disagrees.
Would you agree with that?
That the way I say it, there's nobody on either side who would disagree.
That it's better to have no risk than one risk.
That's just counting.
My opinion is just counting that one is greater than zero.
It's not even an opinion.
What's bigger, one or zero?
One.
All right?
So if you have zero risks, Is that better or worse than having one wrist?
I think it's still one is worse.
Right?
I mean, that's all it is.
One is bigger than zero.
That's my that's my opinion.
So they fact check that.
PolitiFact is not a real fact checker.
They're one of the Democrat fake fact checkers.
Anyway, here's what they didn't fact check.
So while they were fact-checking, they fact-checked a bunch of people, a long list of people, who they fact-checked as idiots for saying that there would be a recession in 2023.
That's right.
In the same article, where they fact-checked my correct thing and a context for being wrong, they ignored the fact that I'm the only public figure in America who correctly said that 2023's economy would surprise on the upside.
I'm the only one.
The best prediction of the year.
Didn't mention it.
Didn't mention it.
Some of you might have predicted it too, but of public figures who do this sort of thing, nobody else got it.
I was the only one.
So, anyway.
The New York Post reports that the Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson... This is so funny.
You're going to think I'm making this up.
I swear I'm not making this up.
He's calling for reparations funding to reduce violent crime in Chicago.
Let that sink in a little bit.
He wants reparations to reduce violent crime.
Now, the first thing that that does is suggest that the mayor of Chicago, a black man, Believes that violent crime is coming from black people.
Is he allowed to say that?
So he's only going to work on black people because that's where the violence is coming from?
I'm pretty sure I would get canceled if I were the mayor and I said that.
If you were a white mayor and you said maybe the reparations will reduce the violence, doesn't that sound exactly like you're blaming black people for violence?
Interesting.
But that's not the most interesting thing.
If you accept his premise that black people are unusually a big part of the variable of violent crime, if you accept the mayor's premise, then what he's doing is taxing the victims of the crime and giving that money to the perpetrators of the crime.
Am I wrong?
Because reparations comes from taxes.
Taxes come from law-abiding people who pay taxes.
Criminals, not really paying much taxes.
So the mayor wants to tax the law-abiding people, the victims, the people who are victims of the violent crime, and then he wants to take the victims' money and give it to the Perpetrators of the crime, I'm not saying all black people are perpetrators of crime.
That's what your mayor is saying, not what I'm saying.
And he said that in public.
In public, he said, I want to, you know, use his own words.
But in public, he wants to tax the victims and give the money to the perpetrators of the crime.
Because the thing here, if you, well, for example, let's say, let's say you get mugged.
Let's say you get mugged.
One way to make that crime go away, and I think this is obvious, is as you're being mugged, you say, hold on, can we change the model of this mugging from you taking my money to me paying you reparations?
And the mugger would be like, say more.
You say, all right, so here's what we'll do.
Since I'm the victim and you're the perpetrator, how about I just pay you reparations?
And the mugger's like, well, how much?
And I'll say, how about my entire wallet and all of its contents?
And the mugger will say, well, I was also going to take your watch.
You go, and the watch?
And the watch.
So the watch and the wallet.
And the mugger's like, OK, that's all I was going to take.
All right, well, why am I so confused here?
I wanted to just mug you.
I know, but mugging is terrible.
Would you agree?
Well, no, I mean, I am a mugger, but you have a point.
It is kind of terrible.
Well, how about this?
Wouldn't you rather be a recipient of reparations because of systemic racism is the cause of your criminal activity?
You know?
I never thought about it, but now that you mention it, it does make sense.
Yeah.
So, all right, we'll call this reparations.
So you pay reparations and everything's solved.
That's how you solve crime.
You just turn it into reparations payments and everybody's happy.
So that is clearly the dumbest thing of 2023, if you're going to make a list.
I would like to talk about mental illness space.
I believe that humans, we evolved to identify sickness and bad health in another human.
Now, that's been tested.
You're aware of that, right?
They can do tests where they show pictures of people who have medical problems and people who don't.
And people can, way more than chance, they can pick out the people with medical problems.
Now, I would argue that people who have mental problems are far more obvious than even people who have other kinds of mental health problems.
The mental people, they often have your Charles Manson eyes, crazy eyes.
Crazy facial expressions.
And I think we're really, we're looking at a massive mental illness problem, which the group that has the most mental illness in America is, say it with me.
What demographic group in America has the most mental illness according to prescriptions?
White women.
White women.
So white women are basically mental basket cases.
Relative to the other demographics.
Now, who are the people behind, let's say, all these secretaries of state who are trying to take Trump off of the ballot in the service of democracy?
Does that sound like something sane people do?
Do sane people take the most popular person off the ballot and actually say out loud, I'm protecting democracy?
Do sane people say that?
No, but there's a Zoom call.
People are tweeting around.
I saw Colin Rugg tweet this.
It shows footage of a Zoom call with the secretaries of state, who are all these white women who look alike, and they all have a crazy face, discussing the biggest threats to democracy and how they can solve it.
Now, you've heard people say that the wheels are coming off and everything seems to be falling apart.
School system's bad, college is crazy.
What has changed?
Why did everything go from working to not working?
Well, I have one hypothesis.
And the hypothesis goes like this.
For 99.9% of all human history, women didn't have any power at all.
At least not the political kind.
When women got massive political power, as they do now, they have more political power than any group I think, we allowed the craziest people to be in charge.
Actually batshit crazy people.
We actually promoted our craziest people, literally mentally ill, to be in charge.
And do you know why we do that?
Why do we do that?
Because we're all afraid of crazy bitches.
Let me just say that loud.
White men are afraid of crazy bitches.
We just can't deal with it.
And do you know why we can't deal with it?
Because there's nothing you can do.
You can't physically constrain somebody.
You can't say, I won't hire you because you look like you're part of the group of crazy bitches.
So you can't not hire them.
You can't vote them out of office because you're outvoted.
You can't put them in jail because they're not doing anything illegal.
You can't beat them up because that's wrong in lots of different ways.
So we managed to figure out a system that takes our least capable people, the ones who should be nurturers, and put them in basically defense jobs.
And I think you get exactly what you think you would get if you put crazy people in your important jobs.
The whole thing falls apart.
So at some point we have to be awake enough to say we do have a crazy bitch problem in America.
We have a crazy white bitch problem.
Now I don't think there's another demographic group where the men vote one way and the women vote the other.
Is there?
I asked this question.
I know that most of the demographic groups, more men are leaning Republican than women.
So that's normal.
But I think men And I'm not sure about this, so I'll take a fact check.
Fact check, to be honest.
White men and white women are actually on opposite sides of politics.
But there's no other demographic group where their men and their women are opposite sides, right?
Yeah.
Here's why.
I think it's because white men put less restrictions on white women than other groups.
I think other groups are more likely to Maybe it'd be more traditional in a way that we thought was bad.
Probably is bad in its own ways.
Yeah, if you can't say it out loud, you'll never fix it.
America has a problem with crazy bitches.
They're ruining everything.
This has more chance of being a viral clip Than anything I've ever done in my life.
Except maybe one thing.
Possibly one thing was more likely to be a viral clip.
Now, let me be clear.
This will be the part that gets clipped out of the clip.
Let me be clear.
I don't think all women are crazy.
I don't think all white women are crazy.
But far from it.
Most people are sane and normal.
Most women, most men, most white, most black, most Hispanic, most... Most people are just kind of normal.
But if you let your craziest people in your group get too much power, you end up with this.
So the thing is that men cannot police the actions of crazy bitches.
Women can't police the actions of crazy bitches.
The law can't police the action of crazy bitches.
Voting can't stop crazy bitches because there are too many of them.
We don't have a system that can stop our crazy bitches.
That's it.
So we better fix that.
And by the way, I don't really even want to have a conversation about this not being a case of crazy bitches.
Because, you know, and it's not just the women.
Oh, let me make it more fair.
There are a lot of weak men who are part of the problem.
So I think it'd be more fair to say that men are at least equal to the problem.
Is that fair?
Yeah, let's make this more fair.
Let's say weak men allow crazy bitches to exist.
So it's shared responsibility.
If you could change either one of those things, you might get a good result.
But here's the thing.
Suppose the weak men became stronger.
What the fuck are they going to do?
I'm not sure that the men could do anything.
I have no idea.
What am I going to advise?
Slap them around?
No.
Outvote them?
You can't.
What do you do?
I have no idea.
I don't have any idea.
But I think you have to start by saying we have a crazy bitch problem.
And if somebody has crazy eyes, they look crazy, they act crazy, let's just call it what it is, all right?
It's fucking crazy shit.
All right, there's that.
There was a post by somebody, I don't know, Chicago One Ray, who said this.
Raise your hand if you think Derek Chauvin is in prison because of the color of his skin.
Now, this is in the category of things that we couldn't really say out loud a few years ago, but now you can.
Here's what's interesting.
I noticed it because Adam Carolla agreed with it, but it had one million views.
So a small account got one million views.
Because that's how many people think that Derek Chauvin is a political prisoner because of his skin color.
I absolutely believe that he's a political prisoner because of his skin color and the problem, at least in part, is crazy bitches.
Crazy white bitches, probably.
In part, not entirely.
That one's more complicated.
California is giving free health care to all illegal immigrants on January 1st.
So... Does anybody think that's suboptimal?
Yes.
Once again, we're going to reward people for breaking the law.
So we're going to give reparations to violent criminals in Chicago, maybe, if the mayor gets his way.
And now in California, we're going to reward anybody who can make it illegally here with some free health care.
Now, to be fair, To be fair, because I saw this story reported with the wrong context.
To be fair, what California is doing is allowing everybody who qualifies with low income to get free health care.
So the legal citizens who have low income can also get free health care.
Whether you like that or not, at least everybody has access to low income.
I don't know if you had, you know, In the unlikely event you had an immigrant with a high income, I imagine they would not be eligible, but that probably is so rare that it doesn't happen.
So I have very mixed feelings about this.
Number one, we have a $68 billion shortfall in the state, so maybe we shouldn't give money away too much.
On the other hand, universal health care is the only thing I agree with.
That's like purely socialist.
It's the only thing I agree with.
Now, you can have a disagreement with me about it, but I'll just give you my opinion.
My opinion is, I don't feel like a good person if I could watch somebody die sitting next to me because they don't have health care.
I just can't feel like a good person.
Period.
Now, if you can, well, okay.
But my entire political philosophy about healthcare is that we should find a way for the free market to make it cheap enough that everybody can get it.
So I'd love to see technology, etc., make the cost of healthcare come down so much that everybody can get it.
So my preferred way for everybody to have healthcare is the free market.
But if you can't make that work, Is there always going to be some people who can't earn money?
If you can't make that work, I don't want to watch them die because they can't get a doctor.
Now, in reality, they'll still, they would still go to an emergency room and, you know, the hospital would eat it and it would come out in your taxes.
So they didn't exactly die.
But I'm, so let's say that I'm philosophically in favor of everybody having health care, but I would do it, the details I'd do a lot different if it were up to me.
Well, Vivek Ramaswamy was asked about the Civil War, of course, because Nikki Haley did such a bad job of answering that question, and I won't give you his answer because it's long, but if you want to see the kind of leader that America could have, if you want to see what it would look like,
Have a president that you could send to the G20, and everybody there would know that our president is the smartest one in the G20.
If you want that, then look at the post from Vivek, simply describing a little bit of American history, about the Civil War and more, and just watch him do it.
And if you don't like that one, pick up Any other campaign speech or appearance by Vivek, especially the ones that are not scripted, because actually I've never seen him do a script of anything.
So everything he does I think is unscripted.
But just watch him answer any complicated question.
About anything.
And you're going to walk away saying, um, I've never seen that before.
And what you've never seen before is somebody that capable, and that smart, and that much on your side.
You just don't see that.
Now, Trump, very much on your side, and like I always say, I'll say it a million more times, he really can't be compared to other people.
So if you think I'm saying Vivek is, in some general way, better than Trump, that's not my point today.
You can like Trump for his own energy.
Right, he brings a lot that can't be duplicated.
But if you want the smartest president, like you really want to feel good that the president has your interest in mind, and he's smarter than the others, and he understands all the topics, and he's not likely to be bought off.
I can't see him being bought.
You do have a choice.
Now, of course, he's deeply in the shadow of Trump at the moment, and it's basically Trump's election to win or lose.
But there's a lot that could go wrong.
A lot that could go wrong.
And if anything happened to make Trump unavailable, you really need to pick him second.
He needs to be your backup plan.
Because America won't see a Vivek come along but every 40 years.
I think he's a once-in-40-year politician.
I think he's a Ronald Reagan in the 80s.
Yeah.
I think he's a completely different animal and the public hasn't quite caught on yet how different he is.
Different in just a whole other level.
I mean, we're not seeing Anybody operate on that level.
And again, I don't put Trump on any level like the others.
Trump's just Trump.
He can just be Trump.
Yeah, no, Andrew Yang, not in the same category.
And I like Andrew Yang.
By the way, Andrew Yang, very smart.
Don't think he could have been bought off.
Had good ideas.
But he's like the poor man of the bank.
I'll say it again.
Andrew Yang is pretty awesome.
But he's the poor man's Vivek.
You know, maybe not economically, but it doesn't quite have the energy, the pure mental firepower.
All right.
Congress has figured out a way to thwart democracy again by, instead of getting Congress's approval to fund Israel, I guess all they have to do if you're the president is declare an emergency.
So if you declare an emergency, you can send the money Because we do like our presidents to have a lot of power when it comes to emergencies.
But this is pretty fucked up.
This is fucked up.
Is this an emergency?
You know, I'm completely on Israel's side in the Gaza situation.
100% on their side.
But what, did they run out of money?
Really?
Israel ran out of money?
Did they run out of borrowing power?
Really?
They can't pay back a loan?
I had now heard that their economy was on the rocks.
Is it?
I thought they had some borrowing power.
Like, why are we funding their war?
And again, I'm 100% in favor of Israel, but don't they have some money?
They really need our money?
I just don't understand it.
Now, if they do need our money, and they can't succeed without it, well, I'm in favor of it.
But wouldn't this be something that Thomas Massey should be able to debate in Congress?
Why the fuck do we have a Thomas Massey if he can't even be in the conversation?
We've got this national asset.
I say this all the time, because I like it.
But Massey is not like the others.
You all know why, right?
He's just smarter.
He's smarter, and he appears to be completely unbribable, and he appears to be completely able to go where the argument goes without regard to team.
Now, why do we bother electing and paying a superstar, in my opinion?
He's had shoulders above the other people in Congress.
Not all of them, but most of them.
Why do we bother going through all this trouble to elect him and then he can't even be in the conversation?
He's not allowed to even argue it?
What a waste.
What a waste of a national asset.
Just a total waste.
All right.
As you know, I already talked about that.
And as, well here's another example, Thomas Massey explained on social media, and for some reason I didn't know this, so this will be a test of your general knowledge as well.
I think I mentioned this before, but Massey says that only the House of Representatives has the final say over whether electors from states are certified.
So apparently all this business of the various states trying to keep Trump off the ballot and all that, Could be completely overridden in the Republican House, but only if the Republicans hold the House.
So they're going to have to be in office in order to have any.
They're going to have to hold the House.
But really, how did I get this far with nobody telling me that the states could do whatever they want and the House could just overrule them?
How?
How did I get to this point with the news not mentioning that?
How?
And there wasn't any other Republican who was aware enough to mention it?
This is precisely what I'm saying.
What's the point of having a Thomas Massey if you're not going to let him be part of the argument?
Throw him loose.
Let him do his thing.
This is funny.
This is another Jonathan Turley point.
So DeSantis has publicly said that he would fire Jack Smith, who's the prosecutor for Trump, one of them, on day one if he got elected.
Now that would, of course, put some pressure on Jack Smith to try to wrap up all of his, you know, trial stuff, whatever he's going to do about Trump, before the election.
Because after the election there might not be any Jack Smith and might not be any anything.
So you can see why he needs to hurry.
But, here's the great thing.
If you're ever in a situation where your strategy can work if you can delay things, and you can use the bureaucracy and the rules of the system itself to delay things, and delaying works for you, it's a real tough strategy to beat.
So it looks like the Trump people have a strategy that would allow them to just keep dragging things out until after the election, so that if Trump gets elected he can just fire Jack Smith.
But even better, any Republican who gets elected is likely to also fire him.
So he's got to rush to get this done before he gets fired.
Now, if this were a movie, which someday it will be, it will be a movie, is this the best third act?
So you've got the election, you know, maybe there's some locked door with some ballots in it.
Imagine the movie version of this.
Imagine the movie version that always has an A story.
It's called the A story and a B story.
So the A story would be about just, you know, Trump.
There's Trump doing this, Trump doing that.
The B story could be the Rasmussen people who keep chipping on these ballots that are behind this locked door.
And like every once in a while you go to the B story in the movie and you see them like standing in front of the locked door and like, ah, how do we get in?
And then you see them like just grinding through the process.
Every once in a while you go back to them and it looks like they don't have a chance of finding out what's behind the door, but maybe they do, maybe they don't.
And then you look at the, uh, the trials.
So the trials would be a, like also a B story, but you wouldn't call it that you like B or C story.
And you watch the trials going on, and you see, like, Jack Smith behind the scenes.
He's got to figure out how to beat the bureaucracy, beat the legal rules, and everything.
And then you get, like, right up to the, you know, the final thing.
And then Biden drops out.
And Newsom comes in.
I mean, just think of the movie.
The movie would be amazing!
And it's all based on real stuff.
Or, could be.
Then imagine, in the movie, That Newsom comes in, and suddenly, shit.
He's leading in the polls.
Because really, it was all about not electing Biden.
The moment he's replaced, the polls reverse.
Let's say Trump was just dominating the polls, and it goes right into like, you're into September.
And it's like an emergency now.
They put in Newsom, and the polls reverse, and it's only weeks before the elections.
Days before the election, the legal stuff gets beaten back so Trump's not in jail.
Or, even better, he spends one day in jail and the country just goes nuts and, you know, they have to let him out.
Or, they find those ballots.
Imagine finding the ballots two weeks before the election.
The alleged fake ballots, which I can't confirm exist at all.
Wouldn't that be awesome?
If you think of this as a movie, it's got everything.
It's got star power, intrigue, it's got levels.
I mean, it's just got everything.
I can't wait to see the movie.
I mean, quite honestly, it's going to be a great freaking movie no matter what happens.
But I think it's a better movie if Trump wins.
It could also be a movie if Trump had to drop out and Vivek won and then just laid havoc To the government.
You know, gets rid of all those departments, fires all the bad people, you know, jails all the criminals.
You know, he just goes full Argentina on it.
Because you know, Vivek is going to go full Argentina, right?
He's very clear about it.
He's going to go full Argentina and just get rid of all the shit.
Just sweep that stuff out the door.
Trump as Attorney General?
Oh my God, that would be funny.
How corrupt are the Democrats?
Well, Watcher.guru points out that Sam Bankman Freed donated 100 million in stolen, he calls it, stolen customer funds to U.S.
politicians.
I guess that's a fair characterization.
And then he reports that today the U.S.
government announced they're dropping six charges against him and will not prosecute him for political campaign finance violations.
To which everybody in the world says, Well, there's a big surprise that the biggest donor isn't going to be prosecuted for finance violations with his stolen money.
Well, Tucker had the so-called Wolf of Wall Street, you know, the real person who made the movie about the Wolf of Wall Street, on his show, and among other things, he said that Pelosi has to be operating on information that's non-public.
In other words, a guy who knows a whole lot about Investing says it seems kind of obvious to him that it's insider trading and it's right in front of you.
Now, I don't know that that's true.
It sure looks like it, doesn't it?
It looks exactly like it.
He also said that Biden is great at laundering money.
From what I've seen right now, I don't get it.
Like, just imagine if it was Trump who was president.
Yes.
Imagine if Trump had been receiving $40,000 checks through this obvious, you know, sketchy-looking situation.
There's no way we would be just, well, you know, that's just Hunter.
Nobody would be saying, well, you know, that's just Don Jr.
Come on.
Come on.
That's just Don Jr.
Don Jr.
does things.
Don Jr.
is not Trump.
That's what Anyway.
So yes, perhaps the Democrats are exactly as corrupt as you think.
Is there any other corrupt people?
Well, I don't know if they're corrupt, but Mike Pompeo said this on a post.
He said, if Putin wins, he won't stop at Ukraine's border.
Now, this is just today.
This is like a brand new post.
If Putin wins, he won't stop at Ukraine's border.
Our allies and our interests will face a constant Not constantly, I should say continuous.
Greater threat, and the cost to America will be far higher.
It is in our core interest to provide Ukraine with the weapons to win the end of the war.
Now, so Mike Pompeo really, really wants Ukraine to be funded.
Yeah.
So Ian Miles Chong notes this.
Wondering why Mike Pompeo is lobbying so hard for Ukraine?
Well, look at who is employing him now.
He's now on the board of directors of Kyivstar, the largest mobile service provider in Ukraine.
Really?
Really?
Is it that obvious?
But when did people stop hiding it?
He's not even hiding it.
It's like a public knowledge that he's on the board of the biggest mobile phone provider in Ukraine, which is basically a license to print money.
Not only that, but he was the head of the CIA.
So now you've got the ex-head of the CIA, who's got the best money laundering job, which is being on the board of this mobile phone company in Ukraine.
You know what's wrong with this story?
Everything.
Everything is wrong with this.
Absolutely everything is wrong with this.
Oh well.
Elon Musk commented on a post by Data Hazard, I think, at Fintesl.
Anyway, since August there have been more immigrants arriving than American children born.
And that's only the official number we know that were processed or caught.
That doesn't count the people who got in illegally and nobody knows.
So, we are literally bringing in more immigrants than we're birthing new children.
Where does that end up?
It only ends up in one place.
And why are we doing it?
Why do you think this situation continues?
It's a two-word answer.
Two-word answer.
Have you forgotten already?
The two-word answer?
Crazy bitches.
It's crazy bitches.
If white women wanted this to stop, it would have already stopped.
Because white women control the Democratic Party.
Republicans are already on board.
This is a crazy bitch problem.
Why do I say it's crazy?
Because you'd have to be a crazy bitch to let in a bunch of men That are unvetted.
There's nothing crazier than that.
Yeah, that's that's crazy bitch stuff.
And honestly, it suggests that women shouldn't have power over anything that involves national security.
I hate to say it.
But no, obviously, there would be plenty of women who would be perfect for that job.
But if you put them as voters, if you look at them as an average, they're not getting it done.
So I'll make a distinction between an individual woman who could be, you know, terrific as a president, terrific as a commander-in-chief.
That's very possible.
Nothing against individuals.
So this is not a comment about any individual woman who can be super.
But on average, you don't want them to have a vote about your national security because they apparently can't do it.
Women don't seem capable of Protecting national security.
I don't know why and maybe it's only white women But we need to look into that All right Ukraine is entering what I call the pre-negotiation phase of the peace deal And pre-negotiation looks like this the heaviest aerial attacks on Kiev yet So the report is the heaviest missile and drone attacks on Kiev and I guess other places.
Why is that pre-negotiation?
Does everybody see it?
Why is it pre-negotiation?
It's because it won't win the war and they're not doing anything on the front line that would change how much territory they control.
The reason you would do massive bombing Before you negotiate, you want the people that you're negotiating with to be in the maximum sense of fear.
So you want them to be emotionally rocked by the fact that rock has just landed near them in camp.
You don't want them to think the war is something happening on the border and that they're all safe sitting there in camp.
Because the people who feel safe are not going to want peace.
They're like, well, so far it's just other people dying, not me.
But if you take that risk to their family, which is what Putin is doing, you're going to get a much better deal.
So I think the uptick in bombing civilians, and I think it's mostly civilians, in the populated areas suggests to me, because wouldn't you agree that if you were trying to win the war, you would use all those assets on the military that's on the front line?
Wouldn't you bomb, Rick, you would use those on your direct threat if you were trying to win the war.
So it seems that they're preparing for peace.
Here's your test.
See if anybody else in the news says what I say.
Because this is my prediction that Putin is prepping, he's priming for a peace talk.
I want to see if anybody who knows what they're talking about mirrors me on this.
What do you think?
So that's a prediction.
The prediction is that this will be seen as priming for peace talks.
All right.
Here's what, oh, here's a post by Adam Coleman.
He calls himself the president of Ain't Blackistan.
So anyway, Adam says, the woke, who's texting me?
I'm always interested who would text me during the show.
Come on, you know I'm on the show.
Oh, you're watching right now.
December 20th?
Why December 20th?
We'll be known as Crazy Bitch Day.
Anyway, that's an incoming comment.
All right, Adam Coleman said this.
Let's see if you agree with it.
Now, before I tell you, I'll tell you that any absolutes are, you know, generally false.
So he puts us in absolutes, but in your head you should say he doesn't mean every single person.
He says the woke left believes the only way for black people to get a job is with DEI, whereas the woke right believes the only reason black people have a job is DEI.
He says two sides of the same coin.
And I spent some time thinking about this.
Now, Adam, I believe Adam is black, if that makes any difference to how you receive this, but I feel like he has a point here.
He's saying that the left believes that you need DEI for black people to get a job, and the right believes that they got a job because of DEI.
It kind of does make sense, doesn't it?
I don't know, I just have to live with this one for a little while because it does look like they're saying the same thing in a weird way.
All right, I promised you some optimism and now I'm going to give it to you.
I think 2024 is going to look good.
I believe that we are all suffering some form of a PTSD if we watch the news a lot.
If you watch the news, what makes it interesting is it's the worst case scenario, right?
So the news is nothing but non-stop, your side is so bad we're all going to die.
So if you follow the news, the natural thing you should be feeling is that everything's falling apart.
How many of you have the natural feeling you should be feeling, if you're watching the news, that just everything everywhere is like suddenly everything's falling apart?
And I'm looking at the yeses and nos.
So I get lots of yeses, yeses, yes it is, it obviously is, yes I do, I do.
And that's the way you should feel.
If you took any normal people, a hundred normal people, and said I'm going to sit you in front of the news, but you should know that the news will focus on the bad news.
Because that's the interesting stuff.
So when we're done, there's no doubt about it, you're going to be, you're going to have PTSD.
Because that's how it works.
If I give you bad news all day long and no good news, you're going to be damaged at the end of that.
So, since I'm not paid by advertisers, and so I don't need to say only bad things to get your attention, I have the luxury that I can say some good things.
So I'm going to fix your bodily anxiety right now.
Here are things that are going right and likely to continue going right.
First of all, free speech is in better shape than it's been in years, thanks to X. And we can now say things out loud that we could never say before.
People like me and Tucker Carlson and even Alex Jones and some others have created a model Which suggests that even if you get canceled for what you say, you can still have a life.
And it could even be better.
In fact, in a number of cases, it would be.
So free speech, I think, is in the best situation it's been in maybe five to seven years.
And that's really good.
It's not great, but it's way better than it was just a few years ago.
I'm going to agree with Joe Biden That the economy is strangely strong.
And you can look at all kinds of indicators in the economy and they're strangely strong.
And I do think inflation will continue to come down if only because of robots and AI and we'll find ways to save money and we'll adjust and blah blah blah blah blah.
So I think inflation will come down.
I think that our debt Is the biggest problem I worry about, but I think we're actually going to figure our way around it through productivity.
So in theory, we could boost productivity enough that we could make debt less important.
So we might do that.
I think there's a good chance of that.
So stocks are up this year and stocks are future facing.
If you're trying to predict the future of the economy, One typical way to do it is to look what stocks have done, because stocks are a leading indicator, meaning that the stock price today does not tell you what things look like today.
That's not what it does.
It tells you what people think it will look like next year.
So the stock market, the entire stock market, just told you that 2024 looks good, according to the people who have to make it work.
That includes optimism, right?
The market would not be up If there were no optimism.
Optimism is what makes the economy work.
So if you've got good employment, which we do, and you have optimism, which we do, and you have a clear path toward enormous reductions in cost, which we do, robots, fusion, better green energy, AI, you do have a plan that suggests optimism is warranted.
In the 20 to 30 year range.
How about this?
I think immigration is a disaster, but it's going to end in November.
Whatever's your worst thought about immigration, it's going to be done in November.
Because you're either going to get a Republican president, or Biden will have to shut it down just to win the presidency.
Now, he could shut it down and then reopen it as soon as he wins, But I'm not seeing that as the most likely case.
The most likely case is either Democrats will close it because they have to, or Republicans will close it for them.
But this is not a permanent problem.
This is the most solvable problem we've ever had, with an obvious solution that's, you know, every day is getting closer to the solution.
So we'll solve it.
And we don't have enough people that it will wreck the country.
We actually can absorb three million immigrants Pretty easily.
We can't absorb infinite immigrants, and we can't absorb them if they all come in and flood one city.
You can't do that.
But it's not the raw number of them that's the problem.
It's the rate that was the problem, not the total number.
So as long as you take care of the rate, the ones who are already here, we'll be fine.
They're probably additive in the long run.
Might take two generations, but they'll be additive.
What about DEI and ESG, two things destroying the country?
Well, big companies are cutting them, the DEI departments.
They are now being treated more like the joke that they should be treated as.
And because of free speech, people like me can say that these are garbage programs by idiots and mostly driven by crazy bitches.
Crazy bitches.
Now crazy bitches are not By numbers, not the primary reason there's DEI, of course.
Because the people who would most benefit from it are probably the primary drivers.
But if you removed from the argument the crazy white bitches, it wouldn't happen.
You need that big group of crazy white bitches to be in favor of DEI or it just wouldn't happen.
So they are really the problem.
But now we can call them crazy white bitches and call it what it is.
So DEI and ESG are now disgraced and declining.
I would say that whatever you thought was the risk from the climate, you probably think is less now.
Because everything from fusion to electric cars to not really seeing the worst predictions.
How many years ago was it that Gore did Inconvenient Truth?
An inconvenient truth made a bunch of predictions.
Literally none of them happened.
Am I right?
And it's more obvious now that we can't measure the temperature there.
I'll always laugh because you know how you look back in time, you say, how do those crazy primitives ever believe that thing they believe?
But if you're in the time when people are believing crazy stuff, it's even weirder.
Here's what I think will seem funny to the next generation.
This is going to seem hilarious to the next one.
That we could ever measure the temperature of the Earth over the last 100 years to within a degree.
Come on!
Come on!
Don't call me an anti-science if you're also going to ask me to believe that science could measure the temperature of the Earth on average to within a degree over the last hundred years.
Now, do I even need to give you any reasons why that's absolutely fucking crazy?
Do you know who would believe that that's even possible?
Who would believe that's even possible?
What kind of person?
Crazy bitches.
And the men that want to sleep with them, I guess.
You'd have to be pretty fucked up to think that that's even a thing.
Am I wrong?
So independent of whether or not climate change is a problem, I'll keep that as a separate question.
If you think you can fucking measure it over a hundred years, Within a degree?
You think you can make a model that will predict it over the next 50 years?
This is crazy shit!
These are not even like a difference of opinion.
It's not a difference in priorities.
This is absolutely fucking crazy shit that you could ever measure those things.
And again, I want to be very clear before PolitiFact puts me on their list of worst predictions.
I don't know if the temperature is going up.
I don't know.
And I'm kind of glad that people are panicked about it.
You know why I'm glad that people are panicked about it?
Because it does create a lot of action that will give you your electric cars and your fusion energy and all that.
That stuff is only happening because we're panicked about climate.
And I think we need to get there.
We do need to get to a post-coal world.
If this is how we get there, well, it's not the best way, but it might be the way we get there faster.
So I don't mind a little panic about the climate.
It gets people working.
But don't tell me you can measure the fucking planet of the Earth within a degree over a hundred years.
Please.
Please don't take that anywhere near me.
It's ridiculous.
All right.
How about Ukraine and Israel?
I say Ukraine is going to wind down.
And they'll talk peace.
I think that Israel is on track for de-Hamas-fizing the area.
It'll be longer than anybody thinks, more expensive than anybody thinks, uglier than anybody thinks.
There'll be horrific things that happen, and of course, it's war.
But it looks like it's on track.
Like, I don't see anything that's gonna take it off track.
I think Iran will stay contained.
I think China's on the decline.
I think our U.S.
energy situation is good.
Surprisingly.
Pumping and exporting more oil than ever in the history of the world.
Our country is right now producing more oil than not just more than we've produced, more than anybody's ever produced.
Like we're the highest producer in the world.
That's pretty good.
And that's under Biden.
If you get a Republican president, it's going to go, you know, another X times that.
I assume.
Fusion's looking good.
We've now had three ignitions at the Lawrence Livermore lab near me.
They've had three successful ignitions and created more energy than they use.
So, you know, it's probably 15, 20 years away, but it's on the way.
Robots and AI are coming.
That'll change everything.
I think it'll be good.
And Californians have health coverage, whether you like it or not.
In my opinion, And also, I'll note that the news landscape has transferred power from the networks and the billionaires to just influencers who are good on social media.
You know, I want to see a world where NBC News has less power.
