Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 10, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:39:59

Episode 2349 CWSA 01/10/24

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, Lauren Boebert, Bob Menendez, Mike Cernovich, Apple Innovation, Zuby, HCQ, Ivermectin, St. Paul City Council, DEI Diversity Pilots, Mark Zuckerberg, Congressional Budget System, Iowa Primary, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, President Biden, Corporate Tax Increase, Nikki Haley, Axios, Hunter Biden's Art, Ray Epps Sentencing, Don Lemon, Fani Willis, 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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Sings Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you're lucky enough to be here when it happens.
	I mean, think about it.
	13.8 billion years since the beginning of the universe, and in all that time, this show has only happened once.
	Today's episode.
	And you're here.
	But if you'd like to take this up to levels that no one can really even understand, All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a styne, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
	It's the dopamine of the day.
	The thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip that happens now.
	Go!
	Oh, the savoring.
	The savoring is what makes it good.
	Well, if you didn't hear, the statues of William Penn in Pennsylvania will not be coming down.
	So Pennsylvania will remain named Pennsylvania.
	Because I think if you take down the statue, because William Penn was a bad person, some say, what that's going to result in is they got to change the name of the state.
	Got to.
	I guess they changed their mind.
	So my suggestion of changing it to Penis Sylvania is tabled for now.
	It's tabled.
	Lauren Boebert continues to do the job of the people by entertaining us with her marriage drama.
	You know, if you can't get your Congress to do the work of the people, which is first choice, you know, first choice is, hey, can you do the work of the people?
	But if you're not going to do that, Could you please give us some marriage drama?
	Some entertainment?
	Anything?
	Just something to make us feel better?
	Well, I feel better now because Lauren Boebert's ex-husband has been arrested and is facing charges, CBS News says.
	You remember the story where the first version was that Lauren Boebert slapped her husband or something?
	But it turns out that the real story is literally the reverse.
	Because I don't think he would be arrested if his wife slapped him.
	So, once again, more evidence that everything in the news is untrue.
	Have I ever reminded you, every single day, that the news about public figures is always untrue?
	And you probably thought, well, it's not always.
	Like, it's not always untrue.
	Yes, it is.
	It's always untrue.
	See, that's how the trick works.
	As soon as you believe that sometimes the news about public thinkers is right on, they got all the right context, they've shown both sides, that's never happened.
	That will never happen in the history of the world.
	Because when it comes to individuals, no one is ever neutral.
	If you see a story about a celebrity, it's going to be written by somebody who either loves that celebrity or thinks it would be fun to take him down.
	There's no such thing as real news.
	It's either biased for or against the public figure in every case.
	The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll understand the world.
	Well, if things weren't getting worse for Bob Menendez, so he's Being charged with bribery and he got caught with a bunch of gold bars from other countries.
	It all looks kind of bad.
	But now we find out that his ex-girlfriend participated, allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	Participated in orgies with Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls.
	Now, apparently this has nothing to do with Menendez.
	You know, unless maybe-- really?
	YouTube is not working.
	All right, let me do a quick check here.
	Is there anybody on YouTube who can hear the audio?
	And is there anybody watching at all?
	So you're not getting any audio, right?
	No audio?
	So nothing there.
	How about now?
	you hear audio now there's no youtube stream How could there be no YouTube stream?
	Not working, no picture.
	I don't think that's anything I can change.
	Because once I'm live, I think I'm just live.
	I wonder if I forgot to click something.
	Interesting.
	Well, no YouTube today.
	We're gonna forge ahead with no YouTube.
	I don't know why.
	The only rumble in locals.
	So it's not working on X. Oh, yeah, I didn't click those.
	I didn't click those.
	Yeah, all right.
	I'm gonna have to redo this.
	I could restart.
	So we're ending on these platforms.
	I'm just going to restart.
	It'll take me about a minute and a half.
	Sorry about that.
	The process for using Rumble Studio has many steps.
	And you don't follow them.
	It looks like I missed clicking one thing.
	Or two things.
	So.
	Let me tell you what's involved.
	All right, there's what I did wrong.
	Select Rumble.
	Select YouTube.
	Select X. Don't select Locals because you're already there.
	Put a placeholder in there.
	Scott Sipping.
	Put a thumbnail in there.
	Scott and the Snickers.
	Put a title in there.
	Second try.
	1, 10, 24.
	1, 10, 24.
	Thanks for sticking with me.
	All right.
	So I've got my destinations picked.
	My placeholder video is not loaded.
	I'll go without it and see what happens.
	I am getting an error condition.
	All right.
	Video, audio on.
	Microphone.
	Let's see if the microphone works.
	In one moment.
	All right.
	Going solo.
	Go live.
	We will know in mere moments whether this is working.
	You know, the reason I actually don't look at the comments from the other feeds, because they're delayed.
	If I see the delayed comments, the whole thing's messed up.
	All right, going live on those other three platforms.
	Not local.
	All right.
	We are live on the X platform.
	Five, four, three, two, one.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen, in theory, we're back live on three different platforms here.
	Sorry about that.
	That was human error.
	There are a couple of buttons I forgot to push.
	It will be the best live stream you've ever seen.
	I just want to make sure that the YouTube people and the X people can hear me.
	Can you give me a yes on the sound?
	Can anybody confirm that we have sound?
	On these platforms.
	I think we do.
	All right.
	Yes, YouTube's working.
	Good.
	That's all we need.
	Let me mic up and we'll be in good shape.
	Sorry about that.
	All right, where was I?
	So Menendez just having a bad day because his girlfriend is allegedly somebody who participated in orgies with underage girls on Epstein Island, but she's just alleged.
	Remember what I say about private citizens?
	The fact that she's alleged to have done these things doesn't really mean a lot, does it?
	You know, when it comes to Epstein Island, there have been plenty of fake claims.
	So I would say that we should give her a break and assume that, although there are allegations when it comes to Epstein Island, don't assume anything's true, you know, unless you got a lot of confirmation.
	Mike Cernovich is, I guess his new movie is about to be out, or maybe it is out, called Meaning.
	Now, if you said to yourself, Mike Cernovich, What's he doing making movies?
	Well, maybe you didn't see his first movie, Hoaxed.
	I don't know if it was his first, but his most recent one was called Hoaxed.
	When that came out, by the way, I was in Hoaxed.
	I was one of the people interviewed.
	That was just one of the best films I've seen.
	I just thought that was so well done.
	And apparently the same crew is doing this movie called Meaning.
	And it's the only thing I've been looking forward to.
	In terms of movies, it's like the only movie I've looked forward to in maybe two years.
	I can't remember the last time there was a movie and I thought, oh, I can't wait to see that.
	Maybe Top Gun.
	Top Gun was good.
	But I cannot recommend this highly enough.
	I assume that I believe the content is about the meaning of life, which could not be more relevant at the moment.
	So absolutely guaranteed.
	We're going to talk about it.
	So it's your homework.
	Go watch Meaning by Mike Cernovich and his crew.
	Well, have I told you too many times that what I want is a phone that does not present me with a big screen of apps?
	So when I have something in mind I want to do, I've got to crawl through the apps and I've got to always re-sign up and, you know, my password is wrong and I can't figure out the interface and they've updated it since the last time.
	It takes me three different apps to do anything.
	And what I said was, you know, maybe AI can solve that.
	And maybe it can solve it by simply having us say what we want and then the phone just sort of does it without bothering us with the apps.
	And now there is a company making a product called Rabbit Phone.
	I just watched an extended advertisement for it.
	So it's a The phone like it's a little square than a phone is your phone's got a rectangle.
	So it's this little square kind of cool looking device.
	It's got a camera and a screen.
	But apparently you just talk to it.
	Or you can type on it, but mainly you talk to it.
	And it does the app stuff for you.
	So you can say things like, Hey, can you book me a trip or plan me a trip?
	I'd like to do this or that on this day.
	You know, make sure it's luxury accommodations.
	And there's three of us.
	And then it just goes off.
	And it figures out which of your apps does that kind of thing.
	Because you still have to have the app in this model.
	But you don't have to open the app.
	You just have to give the rabbit your credentials once, and it'll open it for you.
	So then it'll come back with questions, and you can update it and say, change this, blah, blah.
	That's exactly what I want.
	Let me give you a specific example.
	I'm replacing, I have this outdoor barbecue built-in area that got filled with rats.
	The rats built a home under the barbecue in the cabinetry.
	So I just had that all ripped down because there's just no way to fix it basically.
	And I'm going to replace it with just some standard outdoor kitchen that you buy from Home Depot or something.
	It'll be one of these just metallic Outdoor grills and sink and stuff.
	And I have a special need, which is I want it to be L-shaped.
	And I want to specify what's on each side.
	So I go to the big outdoor grill selling website, BBQ something.
	And they have about 100,000 options.
	No, more than that.
	Because if you combine different things, probably 10 million options.
	You know how long it would take me to sort through 10 million options?
	It's actually not doable.
	It's so not doable, I'm considering not replacing my outdoor barbecue.
	Because I don't know when I'm going to have a week to spend shopping for a fucking barbecue.
	Because every component has its own decision.
	All right, well, there's a hundred different grills.
	And then with each line, there's a hundred different models within each line.
	And how does that compare and which features?
	So it's actually impossible.
	Now, the company does offer some services to help you put things together.
	When was the last time you had a satisfying contact with a company's service department?
	Ever?
	I just look at the fact that, yeah, I get that they have a group I could call.
	And I get that they're going to answer all my questions for me, but I just don't even want to try.
	Because I know that if I do a chat... Have you ever done the chat with the service department of anything lately?
	Let me describe what the chat goes like.
	Hi, I would like you to answer this specific question.
	Here's the specific question.
	What did they come back with?
	Ever once, Have you ever seen in a chat, one of those service chats, have they ever answered the question?
	No.
	The first contact will be, it's great to see you.
	What's your name?
	And what brought you here?
	So that's what happened when I was talking to the barbecue people.
	And I said, can you just answer the question?
	Can you just answer the question?
	I'm not here for conversation.
	Just answer the question.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Can I look into it?
	So I say, yes, I'm looking for something that can do A, B, and C. All right, here's something that can do A. No, I said, I need something, I can find something that can do A on my own.
	I need something to do A, and also B, and also C. All right, here's something that does C.
	No, you're not getting it.
	A plus B plus C. All right, here's something that does B and C. No, no, no, no.
	A plus B plus C. I hope you're having a good day.
	We're working on it.
	And then you want to kill yourself, right?
	So I want AI to deal with their AI that's probably operating in the chat.
	I assume their chat is some combo of canned responses and a person who's dipping in once in a while.
	I don't want to deal with that.
	You know, so much I don't want to deal with that, that I would not even use that company.
	I would just try something else.
	Now, by the way, I'm imputing them before I try, because if I called them, I'd probably get really good service, if I could ever get through.
	So I want AI to solve all of those problems of dealing with other people.
	I don't want to deal with other people ever again.
	I want to be like Howard Hughes, where you couldn't talk to Howard Hughes, but you could talk to somebody who might be able to talk to him.
	That's who I want to be.
	It's like, I think we'll call Scott.
	Oh, good luck.
	There will be no calling Scott.
	That's off the table.
	Well, we'll email Scott.
	Oh, nice try.
	There will be no emailing Scott.
	Well, we'll send him a text.
	Nice try.
	There will be no messaging Scott.
	You can message my AI, and if you can get through it, good luck.
	Then I'll talk to you.
	And you know what my AI is going to say to you the first time you text me?
	Well, what brought you here today?
	What caused you to want to talk to Scott?
	I hope you're having a nice day.
	And then after it says, I'd like to ask Scott if he could schedule this podcast.
	You know what I'm going to have my AI say then?
	I'm going to say, absolutely.
	We can schedule this speaking event.
	And then the person will say, no, no, not a speaking event.
	I want it, it's a podcast.
	Absolutely.
	The speaking event plus a podcast.
	We can book that.
	No, no, no.
	Just, I just want to book it for the, so that's what I'm going to do.
	I'm going to have my AI be the biggest asshole.
	No, I'm not.
	I just think it's funny.
	Well, I don't know if it's because AI is going to change the nature of the smartphone market, but Unusual Wales reports that Apple iPhone sales in China fell 30% in the first weeks of 2024, according to Reuters.
	Now, here's my problem with Apple.
	Now, I'll remind you That I do not give investment advice.
	But, full disclosure, I held Apple stock for a number of years, but I got rid of it earlier this year because I no longer trust that it's the monopoly I thought it was.
	I invested in it because I had such a solid hold on the market that it was just printing money.
	And that was true for years.
	But now AI makes everything kind of... I'm not sure.
	Then China makes everything.
	That could be trouble.
	So suddenly the certainty of Apple printing money by just upgrading to the next slightly better iPhone is not as obvious.
	I don't know if that's why sales are going down in China.
	Probably it's more has something to do with China.
	But I do see this rabbit phone or things like it changing things a lot.
	Now here's a question for Apple.
	You know that at one point Apple was primarily, or exclusively, a computer-making company.
	And then they went into the music business with their iPod.
	And that's because they had a guy named Steve Jobs.
	So Steve Jobs created the company, saved them once by coming back from the next computer and back into the company.
	So he sort of reinvented them.
	Then he introduced the iPod, and that took them to a whole new place.
	And then he introduced The iPad and the smartphone and that took them to whole new places.
	Now what?
	What did Apple just introduce?
	Goggles?
	VR goggles?
	Let me just test your emotional response.
	All right, I'm going to test your emotional response.
	Remember how you felt the first time you knew there was something called an iPod?
	You remember how much you wanted it?
	Probably a lot.
	You remember when the iPad got invented and you were like, whoa, that looks really cool.
	I feel like I have to have one.
	I felt like I had to have one and I didn't even need one.
	It didn't even solve any problem.
	It solved no problem.
	I wanted that thing.
	I mean, I really, really wanted one.
	I've got like five of them.
	Now, how about when Apple did the smartphone?
	The original smartphone was absolute garbage.
	It couldn't even make a phone call.
	Literally, if you had AT&T service, you couldn't hold it in your hand without your finger canceling out the antenna and dropping the call.
	It was a terrible product.
	Do you know how much I wanted one?
	I really, really wanted it.
	Like, I really, really, really wanted it.
	So, so far, every, every product that Apple has made in my lifetime, from the original Lisa computer, I really, really wanted it.
	The first Apple, you know, the first Apple, what was it?
	Apple 2 or 1 or whatever.
	I really, really wanted one of those back in those days.
	And every product they've made since then, with the exception of What was the first product I didn't really, really want from Apple?
	The watch.
	What was it about the watch that was different from all their other products?
	It was their first product after Jobs left, wasn't it?
	Wasn't it the first product after Jobs?
	And yet it was the first product I did not crave, like just irrationally wanted it.
	And now there's these goggles.
	So now they've got a $3,500 set of goggles.
	You know what my emotional feeling is about the goggles?
	Nope.
	I don't even have a little bit of interest.
	The most interest I would have is if I were standing in a room and somebody said, hey, put these on, it's cool.
	I would put them on, just to see.
	If somebody said to me, hey, If you drive across town, I'll show you how this looks.
	I'd say, across town?
	I don't care that much.
	So I don't know how Apple finds magic again.
	Because in my opinion, they have not yet found magic without Steve Jobs.
	Would anybody disagree with that characterization?
	Does anybody disagree?
	Oh, the AirPods were amazing.
	I'll give you the AirPods.
	Yeah, I'm going to give you that one.
	I did want the AirPods.
	Well, I didn't want them as soon as I saw it.
	I don't think I wanted the AirPods the minute I saw them because they look kind of goofy.
	But once I tried them, they were amazing.
	Now, I can't use them anymore.
	Is there anybody else who stopped using AirPods because it tickles your ears?
	Anybody else have that problem?
	I had to stop using them.
	They're very addictive, but very problematic.
	All right, so we don't know what's happening with Apple, but it's a riskier business than it used to be, I think.
	Zuby had a funny comment about the British Empire.
	He was riffing off the world of statistics, showed a list of countries that have never been invaded by Britain.
	It's a comprehensive list of every country That has never been invaded by Britain.
	Turns out it's not a very long list.
	They had to add the Vatican to the list just to plump it up a little bit.
	So Britain has never invaded the Vatican.
	The Vatican City, I guess.
	But in most of the countries that they have not invaded are ones that you've never even heard of.
	Or little ones like Liechtenstein.
	They haven't invaded Liechtenstein yet.
	Yet.
	But here's what Zuby said.
	Of course, he's British, so he can say this.
	He says, I have a theory that the entire British Empire thing was really just a quest for decent weather, hot women, and tasty seasonings.
	And it all got a bit out of hand.
	And it all got a bit out of hand.
	I've been following Zuby for a long time, and I rate this his finest tweet or post.
	That's a good joke.
	There's a, did you see the video of a jewelry store in Oakland in which some people came in to rob this jewelry store in Oakland and the proprietor sort of saw them approaching and knew that something was up so he had his gun ready.
	What transpired was a major gun battle in the middle of the store in which the proprietor, you know, I think he got off, I don't know, at least nine or more shots.
	And I think the bad guys, two of them, got off something like 20 different shots.
	One of them had a gun with some kind of extra magazine capacity, you know, an illegal firearm with like extra shooting ability.
	So they really, they really just had it out.
	Now, there are some fun parts of this story.
	The degree that people shooting each other is fun.
	But not only did the proprietor get the best of the exchange, so he shot one or two of them and they managed to leave.
	But as one was leaving, he was struck by the getaway car.
	So the getaway car was trying to leave without the getawayers.
	And the guy runs out of the building, already shot, and his getaway car hits him.
	Now to be fair, that's funnier than it is if you saw it.
	Because if you saw it, he didn't get hurt too badly.
	But the bumper caught him in the leg and he had to probably hurt a little bit.
	So what's the most shocking and fascinating story about the jewelry store in Oakland that was attempted robbery and there was a shootout?
	What's the most surprising part of the story?
	Go.
	The most surprising start of the story is the cop took away the owner's gun.
	That's true.
	There's no charges.
	No charges.
	There were no deaths.
	That's interesting.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	We got the correct answer on locals.
	The most surprising story is there's a jewelry store in Oakland in the year 2024.
	Hold this in your mind for a moment.
	Just put this in mind.
	There's somebody in Oakland who thinks it's a good idea to have a jewelry store in Oakland in 2024.
	Now, that's the first part of the thing that's too amazing to believe.
	But wait, wait, wait, there's a better part.
	There's a better part.
	If you think that's amazing, that somebody actually thought that running a jewelry store in Oakland was a good business model, It gets funnier.
	Wait for it.
	There were two criminals in Oakland who didn't realize that anybody who still runs a jewelry store in Oakland is number one, armed to the teeth, and number two, the bravest motherfucker in America.
	Hey, I think Rob, hey, did you realize, do you know there's a jewelry store?
	We still have a jewelry store.
	I know, I don't believe it either, but we better rob it before somebody else does because it's not going to last long.
	So we'll get our guns and get your illegal magazine thing too.
	We're really going to have some good guns.
	We're going to run in there, catch them off guard and take all their stuff.
	If they had had maybe a business consultant, and I don't know if there are business consultants for criminals, but they need them because crime is a business model too.
	You know, ultimately.
	So if I were the business model, I would say, all right, what's your plan?
	You know, knock over a jewelry store in where?
	In Oakland?
	Well, first of all, I don't believe you that there's a jewelry store in Oakland in 2024.
	All right, well, OK, there is.
	So you're going to go in there with your guns and you're going to rob them.
	OK, here's the problem with your plan.
	Anybody who's still running a jewelry store in Oakland Is looking for a gunfight.
	That's not somebody who woke up and said, you know, I'd like to avoid any trouble today.
	No, that's somebody who has multiple guns and was expecting to use them exactly the way he did.
	So I wouldn't mess with that jewelry store.
	What I'm saying?
	Did you hear the recent news?
	You know, yet again, some study that said hydroxychloroquine, according to a meta-study, caused 17,000 deaths because, claimed these researchers, it was the wrong drug to be taken if you had COVID.
	Do you believe any of that?
	No.
	Do you know why you should not believe this study?
	Because it's a study And it's about the pandemic.
	So those are the two most bullshitty things in the history of humanity.
	It's a scientific study, so right off the bat, there's a 50% chance it won't be reproducible.
	Right off the bat, just because it's a study.
	That's the actual average.
	Now, what kind of study is it?
	It's a meta-study.
	It's a meta-analysis.
	Now, if the only thing you knew was somebody did a meta-analysis, what would you know?
	It's bullshit.
	Meta-analysis is like horoscopes.
	It's somebody deciding what studies are good enough to include, and it's really the deciding what's good enough to include an opinion that gives you the results that you get.
	Plus, there can be big studies that bias, you know, because they're bigger than the averages.
	So, meta-analysis is complete bullshit.
	But so they did a study which is bullshit, they did a meta-analysis which is bullshit, and it was about the pandemic, and everything about the pandemic is bullshit.
	So is there anything else wrong with it?
	Oh yeah, Joe Rogan asked Robert Kennedy Jr.
	about it, and Kennedy explained that they only use the hydroxychloroquine with really sick people, which is the opposite of how you're supposed to use it.
	So yeah, if you over Subscribe the wrong drug at the wrong time to the wrong people, you're going to get a bad result.
	Which had nothing to do with whether hydroxychloroquine could work the way people imagined it could, which is ahead of time.
	Now, I don't know if it worked or didn't work, and you know why I don't know?
	Because it's a study, because there's a meta-analysis, because it's about the pandemic.
	Those three things guarantee you don't know anything.
	You'd just be guessing.
	So, I don't know, did Ivermectin work?
	But let me ask you, are you certain, how many of you would say you're certain that in the fullness of time, with what we know now, how many of you are certain that Ivermectin was effective against COVID?
	I'm seeing yeses, I'm seeing nos.
	Don't you know The Ivermectin has been shown to be effective.
	You know how?
	Do you know how Ivermectin was shown to be effective?
	They did a study that was a meta-study in the pandemic.
	That's how they know.
	Have you learned anything?
	Have I taught you anything?
	There's no way to know if Ivermectin works.
	You don't have any way to know.
	There is no way to know.
	Now, if you guessed it did, you might be right.
	If you guessed it didn't, you might be right.
	If you guessed that maybe it worked in some cases and not others, you might be right.
	Do you think there's any way to know?
	There is no way to know.
	You could talk to people who anecdotally thought it helped.
	That doesn't tell you anything.
	You could look at a meta-analysis bullshit, the study bullshit, the pandemic, everything's bullshit.
	No, don't believe anything.
	I think there's a good chance that Ivermectin worked.
	So, you know, if you put a gun to my head and said, all right, you know, there's only two ways.
	Yeah.
	I'd probably say yes to Ivermectin.
	I mean, I would certainly use it just because it wouldn't hurt me.
	I mean, the risk analysis is very clearly in favor of it.
	But whether it actually works?
	I don't know.
	Oh, we got a glitch?
	34-minute glitch.
	We'll never know what that was.
	In St.
	Paul, Minnesota, CBS News is reporting quite giddily that they have only women on the City Council now.
	So lots of people of color and all women, no men.
	How was this news treated?
	If you had all women on the City Council, did the news say, my God, we're going to have to add some diversity?
	We're going to need to add some diversity to this city council, right?
	So that's the way they covered it, right?
	Because it's the news, and the news is very interested in DEI and diversity, right?
	What am I getting wrong?
	If it's all women, there must be some problem here.
	I've been taught that for 50 years.
	I mean, every time I wake up, I find that if it's all men, it's a problem.
	If it's all white, it's a problem.
	If there are too many Asians getting into Good colleges.
	I'm told that's a problem by some people.
	So wouldn't this be a problem if you have only women on a seven council membership?
	No?
	That's okay?
	How did the news cover it?
	Go girls.
	You go girls.
	Maybe this will fix everything.
	The first order of business is they're going to change the name of the city from St.
	Paul to St.
	Paulina.
	It's going to be St.
	Paulina.
	No, not really.
	Not really.
	But you were going to believe it, were you?
	Okay, tell me the truth.
	How many of you were prepared to believe that?
	Anybody?
	I'll bet at least one person said, really?
	Because isn't it just as, it's exactly as ridiculous as everything else in the news?
	By the way, the chat has completely stopped.
	So the chat seems to have stopped on all of the other streams except Locals.
	Is there anybody at Locals who can confirm the stream is working?
	Does anybody have another device open?
	It's working?
	Is the chat working for other people but not me?
	Oh, okay.
	So as long as you chatters are happy, Then I guess I'm happy to, but let's see if I can maybe clear that and see the comments.
	Yeah, seems to be.
	That is a doornail.
	Sorry, can't see your comments, but apparently you can see me.
	Somebody says YouTube is dead.
	It's a YouTube comment.
	All right, well, some say YouTube's five.
	I don't know.
	We'll just forge on.
	I saw a post from Pichi Keenan, who apparently is getting some DMs from pilots, people in the pilot world.
	Because, you know, people are worried that the pilots won't be good.
	And here's what some pilots are saying, that the so-called DEI diversity hires Are of course newer pilots, so they would not be as skilled as the older ones, but as long as the new pilots are paired with some boomer who's experienced, you're probably going to be fine, because that's how people learn to fly.
	They fly with experienced pilots, but the experienced pilots are retiring in record numbers because they're boomers, and the question is what happens when the You know, the people who really do have the experience are no longer sitting next to the people who don't have the experience.
	Are you going to get two people with relatively light experience?
	And then are you going to be in trouble?
	Now I remind you that when I talk about the incompetence problem and the DEI hires, the diversity hires, I'm never talking about their genes, Or anything about their race.
	It's just math.
	If everybody's trying to pull good employees from the same limited pool, somebody's not going to have enough.
	So it should result in a massive incompetence if you're just trying to do DEI the way it was designed.
	If all you did is DEI the way it's designed, it should, by design, guarantee the end of the country.
	Because it would drive your capability level lower and lower because your priorities would be on looks instead of capability.
	Now, I'm quick to point out, as others do, that the whole point of DEI is that you're not picking people who are lesser qualified.
	But in the real world, And in 2024, we're allowed to say this?
	Nothing like that's going to happen.
	In the real world, there just aren't enough people for everybody to hire to get all the capability you need.
	So it's not really possible in any practical sense.
	All right, Mark Zuckerberg did the best failure to read the room that I've seen in a long time.
	So think about the problems in the world.
	Think about your own life, you know, whatever problems you have, and then consider that Mark Zuckerberg decided that posting the following message on his platform was just fun and interesting and wouldn't bother you at all.
	And he's posting that over there in Hawaii, in his compound in Hawaii, he's growing special cows.
	The Wagyu and some other kind of special cows that are good eating.
	And he's feeding them only macadamia nuts that he grows on his own plantation.
	And some kind of beer.
	I've never heard of that before, but is that a thing?
	Feeding cows beer?
	Because it makes them tastier?
	I guess that's a thing.
	So he makes his own beer on his property and they grow their own macadamia nuts.
	They feed them to the cows.
	And then he's proud to say that his girls, his kids, They take care of the animals, so they're learning to take care of them.
	And then he shows a big old steak in front of him on a plate as he's enjoying his meal.
	Now, I feel like those two children who are raising the cattle as their pets, before they eat them, are going to be vegetarians by the time they reach college.
	Let me tell you one of the big reasons I'm a vegetarian.
	It's not the main reason.
	I primarily do it just for, uh, because I don't, I don't process meat very well.
	But, uh, so for me, it's just my physical biology doesn't work with me too well.
	But, uh, I also worked on a farm.
	My uncle had a farm nearby.
	So, uh, my siblings and I would work there.
	And have you ever watched an animal be slaughtered?
	You should try watching that when you're 10 years old.
	Try watching an animal be slaughtered when you're 10 years old, from start to finish.
	If that doesn't turn you into a vegetarian, I don't know what will.
	But yeah, I'm still out of PTSD from that.
	So anyway.
	I didn't realize there was a company that was almost ready to land on the moon, but they got some kind of fuel leak, so they're going to fly around up there and try to get some stuff done, but they won't be landing on the moon.
	What company is it?
	It's Astrobotic Technology and their Peregrine spacecraft.
	So there is a ton of space activity that doesn't get as much attention as SpaceX, but there's a whole bunch of People making rockets to go to a whole bunch of places.
	There's tons of activity.
	And I'm wondering what the DEI policy on the moon will be.
	Because if they don't have a DEI policy on the moon, I'm still looking for a place to go.
	My backup plan in case America keeps getting more and more racist and I have to leave.
	So maybe the moon.
	Mars seems too far away.
	All right, have I ever told you that design is destiny?
	Of course I have.
	And do you think that our Congress is designed in a way that will give you good budgets to focus on your priorities?
	Do you think our government is designed to do that?
	No.
	Our government is designed to waste your money and get away with it.
	No, not intentionally.
	Not intentionally.
	Nobody thought, oh, that would be a good idea.
	But that's the design.
	And you know it's the design because it's the only thing that happens.
	Because they just keep spending more.
	And if they keep things complicated, you, the public, won't know exactly who to blame or why.
	Because you'll be like, okay, that sounded like a good idea, but can we afford all this?
	Yeah.
	So the government is a confusopoly.
	They can only keep their jobs because you don't know what they're doing.
	The moment you understood what they were doing, you'd vote in new people to do things you want them to do.
	So it's only the hiding of the useful information that allows our government to function the way it does, if you can call it functioning.
	So now we have the new Speaker of the House, Johnson, who has agreed to a spending level that is so high it guarantees the destruction of the country.
	Is that too far?
	I'm not saying that just this one year and that one budget will destroy it, but there's no effort or energy toward reducing our expenses, which are clearly ruinous because we couldn't possibly cover it all, you know, the budget that we're racking up, the debt we're racking up.
	So, Congress just goes to work and then they do the things the way their rules require and the forces are in place.
	And then they come up with something that can't possibly serve the interests of the people.
	And we're not really sure exactly what's going on, because people don't follow the news that closely.
	If they did, they couldn't understand the budget.
	So, we have a system, by design, that guarantees America ends.
	Unless we change something really, really basic about the design, I don't see how we can survive.
	It's designed to fail.
	And we just keep waking up every day and saying, well, I guess I'll eat lunch.
	It's such a big problem that you don't know what to do about it.
	Yeah, Thomas Massie can complain about it.
	But then what?
	Then I repost his complaint.
	And then what?
	Nothing.
	Nobody votes differently.
	Nobody acts differently.
	Nothing.
	Because you can just keep kicking that can.
	So, In my opinion, Republicans have completely failed to do the job for their constituents.
	Completely failed.
	And apparently they're trying to not shut down the country.
	You know, they don't want the country to shut down because they haven't agreed on a budget.
	I don't know.
	I'd be in favor of shutting down the country, if the alternative is guaranteed failure.
	To me, that's a risk-reward no-brainer.
	You should definitely shut down the country as long as you want and as painful as it needs to be.
	Because the alternative is worse.
	We spend ourselves into ruin.
	So designed to fail.
	That's what we are.
	So I guess the Iowa Republican debates are coming up and it's only going to be DeSantis and Haley.
	Vivek Ramaswamy has a little Quick ad in which he suggests that your best play would be to, quote, turn that shit off.
	Don't watch it.
	Now, he gets bleeped for the shit part, but you can tell he's saying it.
	It's a snappy little ad.
	And his point is, which he says, that you're only being allowed to see the two corporate darlings.
	Now, of course, the rules require you to poll above a certain amount before you can be in the debate.
	That's what they would say would be the reason.
	But it is kind of interesting that DeSantis and Haley, according to Vivek, would be the two most acceptable Republicans.
	That is a little interesting, isn't it?
	Oh, is it CNN's rule?
	It's not the debate rule?
	Well, whosever rule it is.
	So, Vivek says, just turn it off and don't watch.
	Now, I did not need that advice.
	Were any of you even a little bit interested in watching a debate between DeSantis and Haley?
	I can't imagine that would be interesting, or useful, or would tell me something I didn't know, or would help the country, would make democracy richer, would grease the republic, would get us a better result, would get us a better candidate.
	I can't see any reason to watch it.
	Literally no reason.
	And I was worried about it the other day, because I was thinking, oh God, you're going to expect me to comment on the debate.
	And I really, really don't want to watch it.
	There's nothing to watch there.
	Now, suppose Vivek had been part of the debate.
	It's too late for that, but suppose he had.
	I would definitely watch it.
	You know why?
	Because if Vivek is in the debate, it's going to get really interesting.
	We know that.
	You don't have to guess that because he's already proven that will be the case.
	So yeah, don't watch.
	I'm not gonna.
	Have you noticed that every day you wake up and you look at the news and you say, uh-oh, Scott is going to have to explain what Trump really meant in this story.
	Uh-oh, here's another one.
	It looks like Scott is going to have to explain why Trump is not a dictator.
	Uh-oh, there's another one.
	It looks like Scott is going to have to explain that Trump doesn't really mean violence is a good idea.
	Uh-oh.
	So all day long, I look at the news and I'm like, oh, fuck.
	Do I have to once again explain what Trump meant?
	You know what I never have to do?
	I never have to explain what Vivek meant.
	And I'm endorsing Vivek for president.
	I never have to explain what he meant.
	Do you know why?
	Because he can say it better than I can.
	Unfortunately, Trump can't.
	Trump can't explain his own opinions better than I can explain his opinions.
	Now Trump is more provocative and he gets more energy and he definitely knows how to rile up his base better than I ever could.
	So his skills are transcendent in what he does.
	But it does cause this whole big problem of people like me being accused of terrible things because he didn't say something as clearly or as elegantly as maybe he could.
	But Vivek has been campaigning for a long time now.
	And anytime somebody tried to do that to him, where they tried to misinterpret him, he's turned it into a news cycle and just buried him.
	Just buried him.
	How many times?
	We just saw a clip of President Biden giving a talk, and he was interrupted by Heckler.
	And he looked like he was shaken.
	But then he tried to do that thing that politicians do, like, it's okay, you know, let them speak, you know, but not really.
	They're just yelling in the audience.
	Nobody's really hearing them.
	And then, of course, they're escorted out.
	So that gives you the impression that Biden doesn't want the alternative you heard.
	Yeah, it's just sort of an awkward thing, and that's why the protesters do it.
	Well, now I think we've seen the third example.
	There might be more.
	In which Vivek is at a public event, a protester interrupts, and then Vivek says, I'll tell you what, why don't you come up here and have your piece, I'll listen politely, and then when you've completely explained what you'd like to explain to my crowd, do you mind if I give you my view so they can compare it?
	Words to that effect.
	So he just did it again.
	I couldn't play the clip, but I could tell that He had once again invited a climate person up to give their opinion before he debunked it.
	Now you know what I don't have to do?
	I don't have to explain what Vivek meant when he criticized climate alarmism, because he said it better than I could possibly say it.
	I never have to explain that guy.
	That's sort of the dog not barking, because it takes a long time to realize the pattern is forming.
	And the pattern is no pattern.
	The pattern of no pattern is the hardest one to spot.
	Because you're thinking, where's my pattern?
	Where's the press saying that Vivek said something crazy?
	Or violent?
	Or racist?
	Nothing.
	Nothing at all.
	And they know that if they do, there's going to be a whole news cycle about them being complete disrepair.
	Completely disgraced, um, bullshit professionals.
	It's not going to go well for them.
	I love that.
	All right, so, uh, President Biden is defending his idea to tax the 55 biggest corporations in America that pay zero federal income taxes in 2020.
	But not anymore, he says.
	Now, Do all of you understand why that's a good idea, economically, to tax the big corporations who are paying no taxes?
	Everybody understands why the economics of that are good?
	Well, he explained it, right?
	Didn't Biden clearly explain the purpose of this and why it's good for the country?
	Because they weren't paying any taxes.
	What else do you need to know?
	That's the complete story, isn't it?
	No!
	It's really, really complicated.
	Do you know why companies don't pay taxes?
	Number one, they didn't have profits.
	Now, that's not what's going on here.
	They had cash profits probably, but on paper, no.
	Do you know who else doesn't pay taxes?
	Companies that are growing quickly and investing and growing so quickly that they will be the greatest companies America ever produced.
	And do you know why they don't pay taxes?
	Because the government prefers they don't in some situations.
	And they prefer they don't when the alternative is you can grow fast and become much, much stronger and bigger, have more employees paying taxes, pay lots of dividends, yeah.
	And all those things are amortized over time, exactly.
	So eventually the government should get its money back.
	Because at some point, you stop investing in capital assets, and at some point, you start becoming a cash cow, and that's when you pay your taxes, when you're a cash cow.
	Now, Biden, I don't know if he doesn't understand it, or doesn't want to, or doesn't want to explain it, but did you know that this company that's not paying any taxes, does it have employees?
	If you've got a company with, let's say, 10,000 employees, and you're not paying corporate income taxes, Those 10,000 people got paid and they have to pay taxes.
	What about the investors?
	Well, they might not be getting dividends in the early part of the company, but they will all be taxable.
	In fact, taxed twice.
	Once on the company and once when the individual gets it.
	So the companies that are not paying taxes Are because, at some point, our own government reasonably said, it's better if they don't pay taxes under these situations.
	Because they're growing, they're investing, and that's much more important for the country.
	We'll get the taxes later.
	Right?
	Now, are there also a bunch of ways that big companies can essentially avoid taxes in ways you can't?
	Probably.
	But I think he's I think he's just sort of broadly saying, they don't pay taxes, and citizens pay taxes, so they think, oh, that's unfair.
	That's unfair, because the corporation doesn't pay taxes.
	You know what else doesn't pay taxes?
	Here.
	This napkin.
	This napkin paid zero taxes.
	Fuck this napkin.
	I pay taxes.
	But do you know why the napkin doesn't pay taxes?
	Because it never made sense.
	It doesn't make sense.
	But if the only thing you hear is that you have to pay taxes, but this napkin doesn't, the napkin doesn't have to pay taxes, and you say, but Scott, a napkin isn't like a corporation.
	Yes, it is.
	Yes, it is.
	In this conversation, a corporation and a napkin are the same, because they're not people.
	People pay taxes, right?
	The napkin shouldn't pay taxes.
	And the corporation probably shouldn't.
	You could take all taxes from all corporations as long as they pay their owners and pay their employees.
	You're gonna be pretty close to fully taxed.
	All right, here's Trump again getting in trouble.
	He's questioning Nikki Haley's citizenship because she was born to parents who were not yet citizens themselves.
	So she was born in South Carolina, which according to our Constitution makes you absolutely guaranteed positively an American citizen.
	But because Trump questions birthright and citizenship, the idea that just being born here makes you a citizen, he is bringing up the idea that maybe Nikki Haley isn't exactly quite as legally perfectly a citizen as other people.
	Now this is a shitty thing to do.
	It's un-American.
	And he creates a situation for me where I have to explain why he'd say something so fucking stupid.
	Well, maybe it works.
	Maybe he's in the primary and he just knows that people will be a little racist and it might make a difference.
	This is just fucking stupid.
	This is really stupid.
	So I can't support Trump on this.
	Do any of you support Trump's claims that Haley, born in South Carolina, is not quite perfectly a citizen?
	Oh, you do?
	So you support it because you want, in the future, that law to change?
	Or do you want to travel back in fucking time and change the rules so that she's illegal?
	People say yes.
	Alright, so I guess Trump is correct that there are a lot of racist He has a lot of racial animosity, apparently, that he could capitalize on.
	So here's something that, you know, this is why I'm backing Vivek.
	Vivek would never say this.
	In a million years, Vivek would never say that Nikki Haley is not 100% a citizen of the United States.
	And even though Haley is, you know, in the public arena and she's a politician, This is not really the kind of attack I'm cool with.
	I'm not cool with this at all.
	Not even a little bit.
	Not even a little bit.
	So not cool.
	And how did he not know that this was not cool?
	Well, maybe because the answers you gave me.
	There were so many of you who agreed with them, maybe it works.
	That's not good enough for me.
	President's also arguing presidential immunity.
	This is way more interesting than I thought, the presidential immunity.
	Now, the idea is that the president shouldn't be held legally liable for doing anything illegal that's roughly part of his job.
	Now, a president could still go to jail for murdering somebody if he's president.
	But if it's in the realm of his official business, Um, Trump argues that nobody's ever been indicted or convicted, and he'd be the first one.
	And that, um, there should be a blanket, you know, guaranteed immunity if you're doing any kind of presidential business.
	And he points out, in all caps, if they take away my immunity, they take away Crook and Joe Biden's immunity.
	Without immunity, it would be very hard for a president to properly function.
	He also says, in all caps, without immunity, it would be very hard for a president to enjoy his or her Golden years of retirement.
	They would be under siege by radical out-of-control prosecutors, much like I am, but without the retirement, which is kind of funny.
	But what do you think of that argument?
	Let me just test you.
	Do you think that's a solid argument that as long as it's about his job, that there should be no, no criminal action?
	Well, here's the problem.
	You can think of ways that it would be abused, right?
	And here's the question to get to that point.
	So he was asked, hypothetically, what happens if the sitting president hires SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent?
	Would that be okay?
	Yeah, would it be okay to Have a hit on a political opponent because you're in office.
	Well, I'm not sure that's a good example, is it?
	Because would that be official presidential business?
	What would be official business about that?
	I would say that that doesn't count because that would not be... Nobody would see that as a legitimate part of the presidential function.
	If it's outside the presidential function, it's just a crime.
	So I think the question was wrong, but I don't think Trump's lawyers questioned the question.
	Instead, they said a qualified yes, that if Trump ordered a hit on his political opponent, his lawyer argues that, yeah, maybe in that case, there should not be any prosecution for murder.
	And points out that you do have the option of impeaching him first, Which apparently if you impeach and you get all the way through the Senate impeachment process that apparently some say you can then Break through the immunity, but that others argue that's not true.
	You know things that this Supreme Court needs to settle.
	I don't know the details of the political stuff, but I would add this In the real world, there's never going to be a real problem with this.
	You know why?
	Because if you were a president who did something so bad that the public said, you know what?
	You really need to go to jail for that.
	It's not going to be a winning play.
	Like, no president wants to commit an obvious terrible crime in office that everybody knows is a crime.
	You know, unless they plan to stay there forever as a dictator, it's a really, really, really bad idea to do something that everybody can see as a crime.
	Do you think any president would order a hit on a political rival and think that would turn out okay?
	Here's how that should have been answered.
	Your examples are ridiculous because no president could expect to survive that.
	Survive it.
	Under this hypothetical, the president orders SEAL Team 6 to kill his political opponent.
	Whoever ordered that is not going to survive.
	They will be killed.
	They will be murdered.
	Because the system would never allow that to go on.
	Like the ordinary citizens would say, all right, now we're going to kill you.
	Ordinary citizens, in fact, not just one lone gunman, but you would see organized groups of Americans say, you know, we actually have to kill this guy.
	We'll kill him in office, we'll kill him after office, whatever it takes.
	But if a president actually organized the hit on a political opponent, I would be on the side of killing.
	Wouldn't you?
	I mean, I'm not saying I would be involved, but I would definitely be, I would be in favor of assassinating my own president under those conditions.
	In fact, if you put me on a trial, I would, uh, I'd say innocent.
	I said, no, that's probably just self-defense.
	That president had to be killed.
	That was a Hitler situation.
	Yeah.
	I'm not going to convict somebody for killing Hitler.
	And if the president became an obvious political murderer, you know, to use this ridiculous example, yeah, no, they would be killed.
	The citizens would take care of themselves.
	And that's why I think this is a ridiculous question.
	I do think I'm favoring Trump's argument here.
	I'm actually favoring his argument that even though it would protect you from actual real serious crimes, you're not protected protected because you still have to live in the real world.
	You could never win re-election.
	Your party would be destroyed in the midterms.
	Right?
	You know, you'd probably be assassinated by SEAL Team 6 as soon as they were done.
	And first of all, may I stop right here?
	SEAL Team 6 isn't going to do a fucking hit in the United States against the political enemy.
	I guess I should have started there, right?
	It's the most ridiculous thing.
	The president is not going to get the military to do a political hit in the United States.
	They're not going to do that.
	Anyway, yeah, it would be illegal in a hundred different ways.
	So Axios, which is less and less a credible source of reporting, reports that DEI is not only popular in corporate America, but it's growing, and that reports of it shrinking or people cutting budgets are Exaggerated and really it's very popular and could not be better.
	57% of 322 U.S.
	executives surveyed in November said that they're expanding it.
	So most companies are expanding and only 36% are maintaining them and only 6% might be coming back.
	Do you believe that?
	Do you believe Axios when they say that DEI is popular and expanding?
	Popular in what way?
	I don't think popular is the right word.
	I think they're captured.
	I think that if the DEI group gets big enough, then the entire company is captured and they just can't do anything.
	So wouldn't it be easier to say they're blackmailed?
	It's not popular.
	They're blackmailed.
	They're basically penned in.
	They don't have a choice.
	Yeah, they're captured.
	So Axios is just garbage at this point.
	The narrative that is popular is so surface-y, obviously fucking stupid, that, you know, it tells you what Axios is all about.
	And Axios reports that Trump is talking about more violence.
	Well, let me tell you what he said.
	You tell me if Axios is being a legitimate news source or a complete fucking bullshit, right?
	So they say that the former President Trump warned on Tuesday, following a court appearance in his January 6th case, that there will be, quote, bedlam to come if the charges result in him losing the presidential election.
	And then Axios says, why it matters, because they like to tell you why things matter.
	Trump's rhetoric has turned Increasingly violent as he vies for a second term in office while under four indictments.
	Is that what you see in this?
	When Trump warns that there will be bedlam.
	Does that sound like he's supporting violence?
	To me that sounds like somebody trying to avoid it.
	How in the world do you, how in the world do you interpret this as warming violence?
	He's literally warning what to not do so you can avoid violence.
	How about don't do something that is so fucking awful and terrible and biased that people are going to be driven to violence.
	Isn't that like good advice?
	Don't do something that would drive the country to violence.
	And they're acting like he would love the violence or something.
	Axios, you're crazy.
	But did I have to explain to you why Axios said something about Vivec that Vivec didn't say?
	No.
	No, Axios doesn't do this to Vivec, because if they did, he would bury them in the next news cycle, as he does.
	Well, today we find out there might be five different things called Alzheimer's, and it would explain why we're not having the greatest of luck with treating it.
	It might be that there are five things that are different, but we've been calling it all Alzheimer's.
	So, that's just sort of one of those mind tweakers.
	Imagine waking up today and finding out that my entire life, people have been saying, you know, this person has Alzheimer's, that person has Alzheimer's.
	And I find out today, after decades, that there was no such thing as Alzheimer's.
	There were five different things that maybe have five different causes and five different potential treatments.
	That's kind of a big mind bender to me, that it wasn't real.
	I mean, it wasn't real like one thing.
	Makes you wonder how many other things are like that.
	Well, a co-founder of a company called Bloom Tech, and the CEO, his name is Austin, and he says the Overton window is shifting fast.
	What he means is, There are a bunch of positions that people take publicly now that they wouldn't take before.
	Then they were actually untouchable.
	So here are the examples of things that people now talk about in public that they just couldn't do a year ago.
	DEI versus merit.
	Correct.
	Aspects of COVID.
	Correct.
	The validity and security of elections.
	Correct.
	The aspects of Trump and Biden.
	Yeah.
	I guess that's true.
	The trans topic, correct.
	And other would-be conspiracy theories, correct.
	Yes, I would agree with all those.
	Those are all things which people did not feel as free to talk about, but so much has happened that somehow that's loosened it up.
	Then Austin says, I think it basically comes down to the fact that for one reason or another, the likelihood you'd get fired for taking controversial positions is dramatically lower today.
	What caused that?
	What reduced the odds that you would get fired if you said these things?
	Number one, Elon Musk.
	Number one, Elon Musk.
	Not only the things he says without getting canceled, because it's hard, but also, of course, the X platform that doesn't cancel you for saying things, and it doesn't, apparently, doesn't try to suppress you either.
	What else?
	How about the fact that lots of people who did talk about these things got canceled, and none of them died.
	They all came back.
	Tucker came back.
	You know, Info Wars, still going strong.
	I got cancelled, I'm back.
	So I think the fact that people got whacked but came back, and sometimes stronger, does give people a little boldness.
	O'Keefe, O'Keefe is a good example.
	So that helps.
	How about the fact that a lot of people reached the last straw?
	I think the last straw is a big part of it.
	You know, there had to be people who went first.
	So that matters.
	But don't you feel like the whole too far got reached in a way that we all feel?
	At least anybody who felt abused by the current system feels it.
	Yeah, I think we just hit the you've gone too far level.
	Everything is absurd now.
	The news went from, my God, that's provocative and interesting, or I don't agree with it, to, oh, that's kind of funny.
	It's just so stupid.
	This is so stupid.
	Like, I treat the news like it's humor.
	Right?
	The six women who were in charge of St.
	Paul, I don't treat that story like it's news.
	That's a joke.
	Because of DEI and diversity and all that stuff.
	So, I think people treating it like a joke makes a difference.
	I think we're closer than ever to Republicans pardoning all the January 6th people.
	And I think the country probably knows that the January Sixers were overcharged.
	So now you can say it, and it doesn't get as much pushback as it used to.
	Partly because so many people are saying it.
	So there's safety in numbers.
	But you don't get safety in numbers until the first people go and get slaughtered.
	But if the first people go and get slaughtered, and then they pop back to life, that's when the crowd forms.
	That's what you're seeing now.
	It's the popping back to life part that's the important part.
	Thank you, Tucker.
	Thank you, X and Elon Musk.
	And thank you to locals and everybody who allowed me to pop back to life.
	So it's the popping back to life that's really important.
	And I also think that the news has made it obvious that every institution is corrupt and every news story is fake.
	Once you understand that everything is a lie, it gets easier to, you know, to call it out.
	So lots of things coming up.
	But maybe the single, well, and there's also the, all the ethics and Biden crime family stuff that's really hard to ignore.
	No matter how much you like Biden, it's really hard to ignore, you know, the bribery allegations, because they do seem pretty solid.
	But here's what I think.
	I think dad's home, or he's on the way.
	I think white people in particular, white men in particular, are just done.
	We're just fucking done.
	And you can fire me, you can beat me up, you can kill me, but I'm not gonna lie anymore.
	I'm not gonna lie anymore about what's obvious and true, and I'm not gonna lie about how people treat me.
	So you're gonna get some truth if it takes me down to death.
	I love the fact that both Musk and Trump are anti-Mark Cuban.
	Not that I don't like Mark Cuban, I like him fine, but I'm loving this billionaire battle, you know, from an entertainment perspective.
	And I just want to read again, because Elon Musk said this was epic, but back in, whenever it was, when Mark Cuban tried to buy a Major League Baseball team and was rebuffed, Trump tweeted this out.
	Major League Baseball was really smart when they wouldn't let Mark Cuban buy a team.
	Was it his financials or the fact he's an asshole?
	This is before Trump was president.
	You can see his presidential capabilities already.
	And then Elon Musk just responded, epic.
	And then somebody else called Present Witness said this about Trump.
	The arc of history is long.
	But it bends towards Trump being right about everything.
	Well, I don't think Trump is right about Nikki Haley not being a citizen, but I also don't think he's serious about that.
	So I don't take that as a factual statement.
	But it does seem to be true.
	It does literally seem to be true that Trump is just going to be right about everything in the long run.
	Which is funny.
	Now there's new news about Hunter's art.
	The publication Just the News is reporting that there was some art dealer guy who was talking about this whole situation and here's what we know.
	Most of the people buying Hunter Biden's art are Biden donors.
	Most of the people buying Hunter Biden's art Are Joe Biden donors?
	It's exactly what you thought it was.
	But even better, when, uh, when the White House was first challenged about this, like, isn't this obviously a laundering situation?
	And the White House, uh, John, John Peer, Karine Tringe, whatever her name is.
	I can never remember her name, which is on me.
	That's not a statement about her.
	Karine John Peer.
	Um, If you have three names, don't expect me to get them all in the right order every time.
	Don't expect it.
	All right, so apparently at some point in the past, she had said that there would be an ethics standard, which would be that Hunter would never be selling any art to any situation that would be a sketch, because they were going to have a process, have a nice ethical standard, and they would always be above that standard.
	Well, it turns out there was never any standard, Nothing like that happened.
	It was just a complete made-up bunch of shit.
	So yes, so it looks like everything you suspected about Hunter's art is exactly what it looked like.
	You know what else is exactly what it looks like?
	I think everything.
	I think everything is exactly what it looks like.
	Oh, I've got a battery problem.
	Why is that?
	Why would I have a battery problem?
	Something got unplugged.
	Here, give me a second.
	This will only take one second.
	Check to make sure where I got unplugged.
	There we go.
	Fixed.
	That would be my seventh technical problem to fix this morning.
	Four faults on my coffee machine, printer.
	Yeah, okay.
	Oh, and then the fault that we have right now.
	Eight?
	Eight technical problems just so far.
	I hope your day is going better.
	Well, Ray Epps, I guess he, did he plead guilty?
	But he got, I think he pled guilty.
	So Ray Epps, as you know, was one of the January 6 attendees, and he got sentenced to one year of probation, so no jail, $500 fine, And a hundred hours of community service that who knows if he'll ever do.
	If you'd like to know how that compares to other January 6th defendants, um, they typically receive three years if they fought it, but closer to two years in jail if they pled guilty.
	So now I don't, I don't know that he went inside.
	Some of them went inside and maybe that makes a difference.
	And, But somehow, and even Elon Musk posted, this verdict does seem weirdly weak.
	Weirdly weak.
	How could you possibly explain that Ray Epps' punishment seems to be, we don't know, but it seems to be less severe than everybody else?
	Could it be the accusations that he's the Fed were 100% accurate.
	Can you think of any other explanation for why his sentence would be different than others?
	Well, I can think of one.
	I can think of one.
	One explanation would be that the story, we don't have all the facts.
	And that if you were in the court, you would say, oh yeah, this is a little different.
	Maybe he didn't go in the building.
	Maybe he didn't go inside.
	Maybe that made a difference.
	So I wouldn't rule out that maybe sometime in the next few days somebody will say, he was inciting.
	That's true.
	He was inciting.
	But everybody was inciting.
	I'm going to say in all likelihood, this is exactly what it looks like.
	And here I do not blame Ray Epps.
	Let me be very clear.
	If Ray Epps was working for the government, he didn't break any laws.
	And if this is a way that you would clear him as an informant, I'm in favor of it.
	I'm actually in favor of it.
	I think that if he was working for the government, he probably thought he was doing the right thing.
	And if he needs to be protected, because the government should protect its sources, and if this is how they're doing it, I think maybe I'm okay with that.
	From the perspective of Ray Epps, I'd be okay with him.
	I'm being very specific.
	I'm not okay with the government.
	I'm not okay with the FBI.
	But as a citizen, if it's true, our worst assumptions about him, he was working for the government.
	Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing.
	If that's true.
	Now, we don't have a confirmation that he worked for the government, but we do think that the way the government treated him looks like the government admitting he was an asset.
	I have to say that again just to be clear.
	The fact that he took this deal does not tell you that he's an asset.
	The fact that the government offered it is a very strong indication that they think he's an asset.
	So blame the government if there's anything sketchy.
	Don't blame Ray Epps who is an American citizen and in all likelihood he's probably just a patriot.
	He may have done something you don't like, but I doubt he did it for the wrong reason, or at least I doubt his thinking was something you would hate.
	Well, Don Lemon has a show on X, so I think I already told you that, but I find that exciting, not only because Elon Musk is being true to keeping X a platform for anybody who's obeying the law, but I'm actually kind of excited about it.
	When Don Lemon was on CNN, with everybody else who was there, I just assumed they're doing what their boss wants them to do.
	So, you know, it was very annoying.
	And he was especially very annoying.
	But it always felt to me like it was in the context of, you know, doing the job his boss is wanting him to do, more or less.
	Well, I'm really interested to see him untethered.
	I want to see what his actual real opinions are.
	Because you remember, we talked about this, Prior to CNN getting super anti-Trump, Don Lemon was what I considered a really useful and honest witness to what's happening in racial situations, because he did talk about black people Needing to do more to make their own situation better.
	And I think that was a good place to be.
	I thought that was a productive place for him to be as a leader.
	So maybe more of that.
	I would love to be on his show.
	So if he's looking for guests, I'd love to talk to him.
	Anyway, there's a report that Texas has spent more than $100 million shipping those migrants to other cities.
	That's Governor Greg Abbott.
	And people commenting on this said, 100 million?
	Perfect.
	I'm not sure the reporting went the way people expected.
	I think the expectation was Republicans were going to say, what?
	How dare you waste $100 million shipping migrants to other cities?
	But I'm pretty sure that almost every Republican who heard this news said, 100 billion?
	That sounds about right.
	I feel like I got my money's worth if I lived in Texas.
	I would feel like that was a deal.
	Wouldn't you?
	I mean, $100 billion is a lot of money, but remember, they're going to recoup that by not being the cities that take care of those same migrants.
	You know how that shouldn't have been reported?
	Let me tell you how this should have been reported if it were not bullshit propaganda brainwashing.
	You ready?
	The return on investment for Governor Abbott's clever political move appears to be about 400%, according to economists.
	Now, no economist said that, but if they had asked them, hey, can you do, you know, figure out what it costs to ship, on average, one migrant, and then figure out what it would have cost them if they stayed, and then we'll take the difference.
	Do you think this was a good investment or a bad investment?
	Well, because the reporting is so bad and biased, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Is it a good investment or a bad investment?
	I don't know.
	But on the surface, you know, my economics background and my MBA tell me that he made money.
	Now, the better alternative would not be to deal with it at all.
	But if you had to deal with it, shipping them to another city that would bankrupt the other cities, Feels like an investment.
	I mean, it's political primarily, but it feels like it would have a positive ROI.
	So I think that's the way they... Now, imagine this, right?
	Let's just do a mental experiment.
	President Trump is asked what he thinks about spending $100 million to ship these people.
	What would he say?
	Oh, we got to do it, or, you know, the country is in trouble, and blah, blah, blah.
	I don't think that Trump would have the perfect answer to this.
	He'd just say, yeah, it's worth the money.
	Now imagine Vivek being asked the same question.
	He's going to say, well, given what it would cost to house them, the return on investment is probably positive.
	You should be given an award to Governor Abbott.
	Now, I don't know that he would say that because I can't read Vivek's mind, etc.
	But just consider The quality of the answers that have been given so far about this event, and the quality of the answers that you could give, it's a positive ROI.
	That's why we do it.
	We're saving money for taxes.
	And we're saving crime and every other problem.
	And we're trying to end the problem.
	Man, oh man, do I want... I so want my candidate to be able to handle these situations.
	Where what they're doing is trying to confuse the public, and if you've got somebody who's the best explainer of all time, then confusing the public is going to stop working.
	Vivek is the best explainer of all time, politically.
	I've never seen anything like it.
	Now, RFK Jr.
	is awesome, but he's got some baggage because of other things he said that he's accused of.
	Vivek doesn't have that baggage.
	The reason that they went after him with fake claims about the WEF, fake claims about Soros, some of you still believe those fake claims.
	The reason they had to do that is that there was nothing else.
	He didn't have a record, so he was a little safe there.
	But you couldn't even attack him as he wept.
	You couldn't attack what he said on Tuesday, because it made sense.
	And if you did, he was going to kill you on Thursday.
	So that's different.
	All right, Fannie Willis and her lover becomes, it's a great story.
	So Fannie Willis, the AG who's trying to take down Trump.
	I get all the states at which legal cases involved mixed up.
	Do you have that problem?
	Are y'all having trouble keeping straight all 91 of the charges against Trump and the four different venues and prosecutors and all that stuff?
	Fulton County DA.
	All right.
	So Fannie Wells and the Fulton County DA.
	So the lead prosecutor is her boyfriend.
	And the boyfriend visited the White House and even charged for visiting the White House.
	And Newt Gingrich said, and this is hearsay.
	Now, Newt says, make sure you know this is hearsay, but he got it from a great, great source.
	He says that Weiss, another prosecutor, God this is all so confusing, now the special prosecutor or whatever they call it, but in order to hide the story of Weiss who made the sweet hard deal to Hunter Biden, which was so embarrassing to the administration they wanted the news to hide it, the rumor is, the hearsay according to Newt Gingrich, is that
	That Fannie Willis was told to indict Trump no matter how late at night it was, and it was after 11 p.m., which would be really unusual, that they had to change the news cycle, because it was just killing the Bidens, so that they had to get somebody to indict Trump for something, like right away, change the news cycle.
	Now, if that really happened, that would be pretty terrible.
	But we don't have confirmation of that.
	What else do we know?
	And apparently Fannie also visited the White House.
	Anyway, what if this situation is exactly what it looks like?
	What it looks like is the White House either fully coordinated all of the state cases against Trump, which would look like a RICO case to me, but I'm no expert, or Equally possible.
	The various DAs, they knew what they had to do, the attorneys generals and the DAs, and they simply did what they did as Democrats.
	But when they started doing it, or they started talking about doing it, maybe the White House communicated with them, coordinated in some way.
	But it's still just as bad.
	In either case, it would be a coordinated, managed, criminal enterprise.
	In my opinion.
	In my opinion, jailing your opponent and organizing with these people to get it done and even giving them threats and maybe incentives.
	Here's what I really want to hear.
	I don't think we will.
	But imagine if we did hear that one of these prosecutors was promised support if they run for higher office.
	We will support you for higher office because they all want to run for office.
	If you take down Trump.
	Or if you even act like you're taking him down.
	So yes, it's probably exactly what it looks like.
	It's probably a gigantic, RICO-like, whether it's technically illegal, I don't know, but it looks like a RICO-like, coordinated, Democrat attack to take the leading candidate out of the race.
	It looks exactly like everything it looks like.
	Hunter's art is just what it looks like.
	Joe Biden's mental capacity is probably, almost certainly, exactly what it looks like.
	What if everything is exactly what it looks like?
	Oh, I forgot one point.
	The one point about Trump saying that presidents wouldn't be able to relax.
	If they didn't have immunity?
	Do you see the real play there?
	Because that's actually way more clever than it looks.
	Right?
	So Trump is saying that if you don't give me immunity for what I did in office, no president in the future could assume that they would have immunity.
	I would imagine that Joe Biden has more potential crimes that he could be prosecuted for after office.
	If you have a Trump administration, suddenly, You don't think they'd find some crimes to prosecute Joe Biden for?
	And then what would people say?
	Oh, you can't prosecute Joe Biden for crimes while he's in office.
	Is that what they'd say?
	Because he's going to take away that argument himself.
	So I think that when Trump brings up that no future president would be safe, here's what he's really doing.
	This is funny.
	He's guaranteeing that the Democrats can't change out Biden.
	Because at the very least, Joe Biden would have to say yes.
	He has to say yes.
	Because he still is president.
	And he can stay in the race if he wants to.
	You can't physically force him to get out of the race.
	So Trump has created a situation where the Democrats want, the thing they want most, is to get rid of Biden so they've got a chance of winning.
	Because even Cenk Uygur said today that there's 100% chance that Trump will win.
	That's a Democrat.
	He's running for president.
	He was trying to, but Biden's keeping him off the primaries as well.
	So he's trying to run, but even a staunch Democrat Trump hater is saying Trump has 100% chance of winning.
	So now Trump Can guarantee that he wins simply by guaranteeing that Biden's own party's rules, which they're saying, hey, we can prosecute this guy for acts in office, could be applied to Biden, which actually staples Biden to the campaign.
	He can't leave.
	Because Trump is saying very clearly that Biden will go to jail if anything happens to Trump.
	And I'm down for that, by the way.
	Totally in favor of that.
	If Trump goes to jail for something he did under his official axe as president, and it's not ordering a hit, you know, it's ordinary stuff, then I'm absolutely in favor of jailing the current president for the rest of his life.
	Would you agree?
	If Trump goes down, you know, it's just an opinion.
	I don't have any control over anything, obviously.
	But in my opinion, That would be the one and only case where I would be completely in favor of jailing the current president, once he's out of office, jailing him for the rest of his life.
	I think that would be completely acceptable.
	And you know what?
	The Biden family is completely aware of that.
	I don't know what Joe is thinking, but certainly Jill Biden knows it.
	Hunter definitely knows it.
	They're all going to go in jail.
	Not Jill, but, you know, I think Hunter and Joe would end up in jail.
	And alternately, if they could change course, maybe they can.
	You can imagine them changing course.
	You can imagine Joe dropping out, but not until all the charges against Trump have been dropped.
	Then you can imagine things going back to normal.
	But the Democrats are going to have to go first.
	The only way I can imagine Joe Biden getting out of the race is if he had first agreed with the states to drop all the charges.
	Or, yeah, to drop all the charges.
	But let me ask you this.
	How many of the charges are federal?
	Is there anything that Biden could pardon Trump for?
	Because that would really help.
	Because my perfect situation is Trump gets pardoned if there's anything to pardon, if there are federal charges.
	And then Biden does not go to jail.
	And we just kind of move on and try to make things work.
	Anyway.
	Oh, shoot.
	I've been gone a long time.
	The Hooties are still sending missiles and they're still getting shot down in the Red Sea.
	But the only thing I wanted to add to this Hootie story is that They're trying to destroy these ships in the Red Sea.
	So you know what I call them?
	Hootie and the Blow Ships.
	That's right.
	Not the Blowfish.
	The Blow Ships.
	Hooties and the Blow Ships.
	I think that's an upgrade.
	We already had Hootie and the Blowfish, and that wasn't bad.
	But Hooties and the Blow Ships?
	Better.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining.
	I don't even know if anybody on YouTube saw any of this.
	Sorry about the technical problems.
	We'll fix all of that by tomorrow.
	I'm gonna end the stream, say goodbye.

▲