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, President Trump, Debanking, AI Instant Chapters, Mars Civilizations, Hemoglobin Batteries, Paid Celebrity Trolls, George Clooney, Rob Reiner, J6 Pipe Bombs, El Salvador Murder Statistics, Alzheimer’s Weight Link, CO2 Levels, Mona Lisa Attacked, Mental Illness, Brainwashed Activists, Electronic Voting Advantages, Election Integrity, E. Jean Carroll, RFK Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy, President Biden Gibberish, Joe Bribin, Snopes Bias, Debanking Truckers, J6 Movie Propaganda, Border Deal Gaslighting, Sexbot Ban, Navy Recruits, Ukraine War, 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
Ladies and gentlemen, it couldn't be a better time.
You have made it to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization, and I don't think you could be happier about it.
Could you?
No.
It'd be impossible.
And so, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard, chalicestine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamines.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
So good.
That is possibly the best simultaneous sip I've had all morning.
Now... Ah, yeah, that's so good.
Thanks for joining me in that simultaneous sip.
Now, the news is all silly and ridiculous.
In other words, it's the kind we like the best.
So we're just gonna mock stuff today.
I'm going to start with the palette cleansers, easy news, and we'll get to the fun stuff.
My favorite thing on Instagram lately is, you know how there's always these reels of people making amazing claims, like Graham Hancock?
And, you know, what's up with those pyramids and stuff?
And I love that stuff.
I'm totally addicted to all of those, you know, the theories about how early life happened.
But my favorite is the guy who, I can't tell if he's joking.
So this is either a really clever prank that he's really taking pretty far, or he's really trying to sell these ideas.
Here's what he's selling.
Now keep in mind this doesn't make any sense, which is what makes it funnier.
So there's a gentleman who has a microphone like I have, and he's in a darkened room and he appears to be like in some podcast, but probably he's not.
Probably there's nobody else in the room, he's just acting like he is.
And he explains that dinosaur is a Greek word invented by the Greeks, but the Greeks had no idea that dinosaurs existed.
But they came up with the word dinosaur that means terrible lizard.
And so this gentleman, it doesn't matter who it is, I don't even know his name, but he concluded that dinosaurs must have existed when the Greeks came up with the word.
Now I know that doesn't make sense, but that's what makes it fun.
And then he went further to say, you wonder how all those big rocks got moved for the pyramids?
Maybe the dinosaurs were employed to bring the big rocks to the... Okay, I told you it was ridiculous, but this is the best prank because he's playing it completely seriously, and it's not the only thing.
Do you want to hear another one?
On another reel he makes this claim that everyone knows, and you can look it up, that you can't make pottery without electricity.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe you can't make pottery without electricity?
Of course you can.
But he says it like it's a fact.
He says that all the pottery that we've been finding from ancient civilizations proves they had electricity.
And they've been keeping it a secret from us.
All the ancient civilizations.
They were making their pottery with the electricity.
But then it gets worse.
And then he says, what about those early explorers who were going out in their ships and like exploring the new world?
He goes, you can't run GPS without electricity.
So probably they were just using GPS and they're lying to us that they didn't have any electricity.
Now, I honestly don't know if he's trying to sell this like it's real or if it's just a giant ongoing prank.
It looks like a prank, but it's so close to the line of something that might be, you know, he's just trying to get views.
I don't know.
I really don't know.
Speaking of things that might be serious and they might be a prank, as EndWokeness tells us on X, Saturday Night Live did a segment, their fake news segment, which is funny because We know theirs isn't real news, but it's the only time you'd know that.
Anyway, they mocked Trump for what they said was Trump introduced an interesting new term, debanking.
I don't know what the hell debanking even means.
And then they go on to mock him for making up a word.
Debanking.
So as Andrew Wokeness points out, the people on the left, the Democrats, they don't know that conservatives are being debanked.
They didn't know about the Canadian truckers getting debanked.
They didn't know about conservatives in general being debanked for whatever accusations.
And so it turns out That Democrats are debunking and Republicans are debunking.
That's right.
No Republican has debunked any Democrat.
But Democrats have definitely, or people on the left in Canada, have certainly debunked or debunked people on the right.
And by the way, debunked is a real word.
Debunked is just the right word.
It's exactly the right word.
So Trump, once again, Knew more than the media that was mocking him, but they mocked him because they didn't know he knew more.
The other case was the drinking bleach case, where what he really said was ingesting, you know, putting light into your body.
So he knew more about that topic, but because they knew less, they got to mock him like he was the idiot.
But once again, he knew more than the mockers.
Well, so if you're going to view this on YouTube, one of several platforms I'm broadcasting to right now, I used AI.
I've been experimenting with AI to see how I can fix up my videos.
So here are all the things you can do with AI to fix a video based on my research yesterday.
There is no app that does all of these things.
So it's probably a five or six app process, but here are the things you could do.
So one of them I did was I took the URL of my YouTube video, just the URL, pasted it into a thing called Instant Chapters.
It's an AI app.
Nine dollars a month.
And it created timestamps.
And so it found all the categories on its own.
You know, where the topic changed.
And it built a formal timestamp that you could paste into the description field of YouTube and it becomes clickable.
Because it knows the format that YouTube is looking for to make a timestamp clickable.
So I did that on the last two videos on YouTube.
All added to Rumble as well.
But take a look at that, and you might be impressed at what it can do.
It's not as good as if you did it by yourself, but it worked.
You could get pretty close to whatever topic you wanted.
But here are the other things it could do.
One of them is if you had bad sound, like I usually do, and a bad microphone or background noise, You can run it through AI and it will fix the sound and make it sound like studio sound.
Now you might say, how can you fix it?
Like, how can you remove noise and do that?
You know, we never could do it before.
And the way it does it is it doesn't remove noise.
It actually makes a whole new video and audio of you.
It just replaces you.
Because it can do such a good imitation of you that if... Let me say this as clearly as possible.
Let's say I was doing my ABCs.
ABC.
And there was distortion and bad sound.
When the AI went to fix it, it wouldn't clean up my original sound.
It would do an impression of me, video and audio, and you wouldn't know the difference.
Is that freaky?
You wouldn't know the difference.
It would be a fake me for that time.
Now here's a weirder one.
There's another app, I forget what it is, AI app, that if I were to do this show, and let's say I misspoke.
So let's say I talk for an hour and I, let's say once I referred to the Democrats as Republicans.
And I want to fix that.
Or as I just did when I said Democrats when I was referring to Canadian politics, which was just a mistake.
I could look at the transcript using a different app.
I could look at the written transcript of my talk that I'm giving now.
I could find where I said Democrat, which was a mistake.
I could edit the sentence, the text, not the audio.
I could change the text of the transcript and then the AI would read the new transcript And recreate the audio as if I had said it correctly.
Is that wild?
That's just amazing to me.
Alright, here's some other things it can do.
It can find viral clips and make them out of your longer form.
I don't believe that works.
I'm going to have to see that one with my own eyes.
I don't think AI can figure out what people want.
I don't think that's the thing.
But we'll see.
Maybe it does.
It can add captions.
It can remove.
There's one of them that removes your pauses, your ums and your ahs.
So if you did a lot of, you know, this story, got another one, it would remove all of them with just one press of a button.
Incredible.
And yeah.
So here's what I think is going to happen.
So right now it would take you like five apps and you have to do a bunch of research and you'd have to you'd have to sign up for every app just to see if it works.
So it's not a great situation.
I might use a few more of these just to see what I can come up with.
But I assume that it's like the early PC days where the first personal computers the market was just saturated with different companies making computers.
So it's hard to do things.
But then once it became the IBM type PC and the Macintosh type, it became easier to get software and things were more standard and interoperable.
That's what's going to happen with these AI apps.
Sooner or later there'll be a company that just rolls up these little companies and you can take a video And you could just do a checkbox.
Alright, fix the audio.
Give me some viral clips.
Take out my osinomes.
Boom.
The whole thing.
So we're probably six months away from that.
The world's largest cruise ship just launched, the Icon of the Sea.
It's almost four city blocks.
It's got 40 restaurants, bars, and lounges, and swimming pools, and ice skating rinks.
It has 7,600 passengers, 2,400 crew.
So we're up at, what, 10,000 people?
years, 2,400 crew.
So we're up at, what, 10,000 people?
10,000 people on a boat.
Now, don't you think that we're guaranteed at some point in the future that a billionaire will build a boat just as a seasteading new country?
It's going to be like the Freedom Boat.
There'll be one boat that somehow will get funded that will be its own country.
It's pretty much guaranteed, wouldn't you say?
I think it's guaranteed that there will be a boat nation.
Now the beauty of it is that if you need supplies or you need to visit, you just pull your boat up to the shore and buy some supplies and go visit.
And I thought to myself, would I be willing to live, let's say it was my permanent residence, would I be willing to live on a boat that had 10,000 people in it?
I grew up in a town that had 2,000 people in it.
Yeah, I would live on a boat with 10,000.
That would be five times bigger than the town I grew up in.
Yeah.
Actually, it's kind of attractive idea.
I wouldn't mind it at all, probably.
All right.
So I don't know if you've, you heard that, uh, there's probably water on Mars.
So under, under sea water, it looks like there's evidence there was water.
There was, so we might be able to tap into it.
There's one place in Mars that if we drilled, we might actually get water.
Which would suggest that maybe there was more on Mars in the past, which would suggest, um, and by the way, there's, we've got some kind of a Rover up there now that has already scraped up some stuff that could turn out to be signs of life.
It might be some fossils there.
Now, suppose we found that there was water on Mars and signs of life.
I wonder if we're going to start to think it could be like all these lost civilizations on Earth, where we keep digging up a lost city.
Do you think there's any chance that under all that dirt on Mars there's just a whole bunch of dead cities, and that there was a billion years of Mars civilization that just didn't make it?
Or, better, better, they did make it into a planetary state before Mars died, and that we are the Martians.
Eh?
Eh?
What about that?
If you were a Martian civilization and your planet was dying for some reason, Earth would be the most obvious place to go.
You might even seed it with new animals so you had stuff to eat.
Maybe.
All right.
So it turns out, here's some good news.
You're worried about the robots trying to kill us?
Well, here's one reason that they might keep us alive.
It turns out that scientists have created a battery using hemoglobin.
That's right.
The component in your blood, hemoglobin.
So then they can make a really good battery out of it.
So when the robots take over, they don't need to kill all the people because they can turn us into batteries.
We'll be like cows, and instead of giving milk, because robots don't need milk, but they might need our hemoglobin to power themselves.
So we'll probably be in farms, and then the robots will farm us for our hemoglobin.
So that's something to look forward to.
No, don't worry, because as somebody pointed out, you can get hemoglobin from animals, from mammals.
So probably we would just get it from goats or cows or something like that.
Because that's what we are.
We're horrible people.
We're a horrible civilization.
But that's not the only breakthrough in batteries.
There's another solid-state battery there was news about yesterday that you could charge in 10 minutes.
There's probably about 25 projects going on.
A lot more of them, but 25 or so, that could create the next battery that's way better than what we have.
So there's a lot happening in battery technology, and I think we'll see a lot happening.
There is now a little device, handheld device, that can detect skin cancer.
It uses AI, of course.
It's called DermaSensor.
It can detect your skin cancer with 95% accuracy.
Now, it uses light.
It shines light on whatever your skin lesion is or problem.
And the way the light is reflected, I guess, will tell you something different about its nature, whether it's cancer or not.
Now, I was wondering, if Trump had talked about this technology first, how would the news report it?
Trump would say something like, yeah, now they have this new sensor, it can shine light, you know, light on an imperfection on your skin and tell you if you have cancer.
And then CNN would report, Trump suggests shoving a device up your ass to check for cancer.
I feel like that's how they would, yeah.
I mean, and then they talk to experts and they say, um, does it make sense to shove this device up your ass just to check for skin cancer?
And then Dr. Birx would say, no, no, we, we really don't recommend that.
And this is why you should listen to the science and not Trump.
Cause you know, Trump would want to shove this right up your ass.
And we don't think that's good medical advice.
Yeah.
So that's how they would report it.
Well, here's the good news.
I told you that there were paid trolls that came after me.
If you don't know, this is a real thing.
It's not me imagining it.
In 2016, I thought I was imagining that there were paid trolls that were coming after me.
It turns out it was confirmed.
There was a whole operation to send paid trolls after people who said good things about Trump.
And a few days ago they hit me, and you could tell the trolls, because they have similar looking accounts, you know, they don't look so real.
And they've only been around one year, you know, they started their accounts a year ago, so they'd be ready.
And they all say the same things.
They sound like some psychologist told them what to say to hurt me.
All it did is make me trend.
So I trended for two days, and all they said was stuff like, I'm the most divorced man in America.
Because that's supposed to hurt me?
Okay.
And so thanks to the trolls boosting my attention, I'm up to 1.1 million followers.
1.1 million.
So they put me over the .1.
Thank you.
Thank you, trolls.
Good job.
George Clooney had some negative things to say about Trump.
No surprise.
But let me just tell you that my working assumption is that the major celebrities who get really involved in politics, I assume that they're working with intelligence groups.
Now, I don't have proof of that.
I don't have even strong evidence of it.
But the people who act like it's their job, you know, the Rob Reiners, the Stephen Kings, the George Clooney, they act like it's their job.
That's different than, you know, somebody who's just a comedian and they're making fun of politics.
That's just normal.
So I don't think, you know, necessarily Jimmy Kimmel is, you know, part of any kind of a plot, because that's just his job to make fun of politics.
When you see, like, a Clooney and a Rob Reiner and a Stephen King, and they seem to spend way too much time saying bad things about Trump, it starts to look like their job.
No, I don't think they're getting a paycheck from anybody and I don't have any allegations that I could back up.
But they act exactly like it's old-time Hollywood and the CIA.
We know this part is not being made up.
We know in the past they did try to influence the big studios and the movies and the TV shows.
So that our entertainment was consistent with what the government want us to think and feel about things.
So, I don't know if any of these are just imitators of other people or if they're actually working with the CIA or somebody else.
But they act like it.
So my working assumption is that there's some CIA connection.
Not that there would be anything wrong with that.
It would be completely legal, and it would just be what, you know, you might have a different opinion about what their message is.
All right.
Somebody asked me what's the difference between George Clooney and Rob Reiner and me, because we're all talking about politics.
The difference is I'm doing this for a living.
Like I said, Jimmy Kimmel, I don't suspect him of being a CIA operative because he does it for a living.
That's what I'm doing.
I'm here every day.
If the only thing I did was, like, post on X, then you should have the same question about me.
Right?
You should have the same question about me.
If mostly I was just being a cartoonist, but weirdly I was saying a lot of political things on the side, that would be suspicious.
But clearly I'm in it for, you know, larger reasons.
Alright, so that whole January 6th pipe bomb thing, I think we can conclude at this point it was, as Kyle Becker explains on X, That the DNC and RNC pipe bomb threats were the backup plan to the plot to frame Donald Trump and his supporters for an insurrection on January 6.
So it looks like it was.
January 6 was a big op.
And that part of the op was to, you know, get that riot to look as dangerous as possible.
But also, if it wasn't as dangerous as it could have been, they had some fake bombs to make it look like it was a genuine insurrection.
So, Kyle Becker describes his theory on all that.
I don't know, because it would require some court case or require reading minds or something.
But everything about the video, there's some problem with the video and something got deleted.
Basically, every sketchy element you could possibly have.
So, I believe the conspiracy theory on this.
Yeah, the January 6th pipe bombs do not look like an organic anything.
It just looks like an opium.
All right, here's some Endwalk News reports that El Salvador, which famously has a very popular president right now, who rounded up basically all the gang members and criminals and just put them in jail, basically forever.
And how did that work?
Well, El Salvador went from one of the highest homicide rates on Earth.
Oh, actually the highest homicide rate on Earth to the total number of homicides in El Salvador this year so far is zero.
That's only this year so far, so it's less than a month, but there's zero.
So it turns out if you put all the criminals in jail, you get zero murders.
Yeah.
So what do you make of that report that El Salvador had zero murders because they are doing such a good job of locking up their criminals?
Sounds right, right?
So you believe it.
You believe it because it sounds true.
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe there's a Central American government that tells you the truth about their government statistics?
Really?
Really?
You're going to believe something that a Central American government tells you about how successful they are?
Really?
No, I don't believe this.
Now, it could be that they are successful, but when they give you a number like zero murders from being the murder capital of the solar system, It's not impossible.
Let me say that.
It's not impossible that it was zero.
But should you believe it just because they reported it and you want to believe it?
That's not good enough.
There's something about this El Salvador situation that's not working for me.
And I can't articulate it yet.
Maybe I will someday.
But there's something very fake about this whole situation.
I hope it's all true.
Because, you know, don't we want it to be?
That there's a there's a obvious way to stop all crime.
Put the criminals in jail.
So, I don't know.
I think it might be a combination of a good idea plus a lot of bullshit.
So it could be a good idea net.
Well, I wouldn't rule out how much bullshit there is in this story.
It just has all the markings of something that isn't exactly accurate.
I just don't know what it is that's bothering me about it.
Too on the nose, maybe?
Too on the nose?
Too perfect?
Yeah, there's something about it that doesn't scream real life.
Well, in other news, eating makes you dumb.
Apparently, there's a link between Alzheimer's and weight.
So if you're heavier, you've got something in common with the dementia and Alzheimer's patients of the future.
Now I don't think, they didn't quite prove that if you're obese you're going to get Alzheimer's faster, but there seems to be a link.
Do you believe that?
That obesity would be linked to mental issues?
I believe it.
Because if exercise is good for your brain, I'm guessing that the obese have a little less of it.
Not necessarily, not for every person.
There are obese people who exercise regularly.
Yeah, I think we need to do a really deep dive into our food issue, as RFK Jr.
says.
All right.
I saw Alex Epstein put a chart on X showing that CO2 is sort of rapidly increasing, as industrialization increased.
But during that same arc, the same period of time when CO2 was going through the roof, as it is now according to the alarmists, at the same time, if you did a graph of the deaths from weather-related events, they would be moving in opposite directions at the same time.
So while CO2 was going up, people dying from weather was going down in just this huge divergence.
Not a little bit.
I'm not talking about the rate of deaths.
It wasn't climbing as fast.
No, it was plunging.
As CO2 was climbing like crazy, the number of deaths from weather was just falling off a cliff.
It just went to practically hardly ever happens.
Now, if you were a legitimate scientist, what would you conclude from those two trends?
If you wanted to conclude that CO2 saves lives, there it is.
CO2's up.
Lives are saved.
It's a very direct correlation.
Now, of course, what causes the CO2 is industrialization and economic growth.
And that's, you know, that's what gives you the assets to protect people from weather problems.
And of course, we can predict it better and our architecture is hardened and all that.
So it does, I think, reveal the agenda of science, because the evidence strongly suggests that more CO2 makes you safer.
Now, the counter argument would be I assume.
Oh sure, Scott.
In the early days of more CO2, maybe it does make you safer.
Makes your plants greener.
You know, you got more greenery because the CO2 is plant food.
And yeah, in the short run you could control your weather because it's not so bad.
You know, maybe you can protect from the hurricanes because they're not so bad, right?
But, you know, if it reaches some point, everything's going to fall off a cliff.
That would be the argument from the alarmists.
But there's no evidence of it.
It's pretty theoretical.
All the evidence is that more CO2 makes you safer and richer and happier.
So the, uh, someday there'll be too much of it and it'll fall off a cliff and it will stop being positive and it'll start to turn negative.
Maybe.
Can't rule it out.
But I don't believe this, if this were not a politicized thing, if you imagine all the politics taken out of it and the profit motive taken out of it, I think science would be concluding that CO2 is good for you.
Based on the data.
Am I wrong?
They say CO2 has caused more greening and fewer deaths from weather, and it's been consistent for 50 years.
50-year trend of the more CO2, the happier you are.
Now, there are allegedly climate change disruptions, such as some oceans getting warmer and the sea life there having to change and maybe we don't catch as many fish or stuff like that.
But I've got a feeling that the ocean temperature is always moving around.
As in, if you took any 20-year period, would the ocean temperature in any one place always be the same?
Or would these big bodies of warmth and cold sort of just be floating around under the surface and they don't stay in one place forever?
I don't know.
Well anyway, the Mona Lisa was attacked by climate activists.
They didn't get to the actual painting, but they put some kind of paint or something on the exterior glass.
Then they made a big show of it and stood in front of it and said their thing, whatever.
Now, when I looked at it, I saw two women with mental illness.
I did not see political activists.
Oh, it was soup.
I guess they threw soup at it.
But the people I saw who were the activists, they didn't look like just political.
They looked like they were mentally ill.
Now, what causes mental illness?
Well, organic things, lots of things.
But this political mental illness is caused by, in my opinion, a difference between what people observe and what they're told is true.
A difference between what they observe with their own eyes and what they're told is true.
Now let's see how that would work with this Mona Lisa situation.
So here are two people who did something pretty extreme.
You know, they're going to have legal problems.
I mean, it's pretty extreme.
So, do you think that they believe enough is being done to battle climate change?
And the answer is no.
They believe that not enough is being done.
Now, how would they explain the fact that science is apparently completely convinced that climate change is going to kill us all, and what they observe is we're not taking it seriously?
So imagine you're not very good at analyzing anything in the world, and you look at this situation, wait a minute, all the scientists, all the smart people, they're all saying if we don't address this like an emergency, we're all dead.
But yet I observe, nobody's doing much about it.
So if you were a sort of a person of normal intelligence, what would that do to you?
It might make you crazy.
If you put me in that situation, and I legitimately believed that everybody was ignoring the biggest risk to the Earth, I would get probably pretty extreme or pretty crazy.
But I don't, because my world is consistent.
In my world, we don't have a climate emergency, and we're acting just like that.
Everything in my world is consistent.
I don't have anything to make me crazy.
I go, oh yeah, people are saying it because they can make money or some of them believe it.
But in general, we're not doing much about it.
You know, not nearly as much as you would do if it were a real crisis.
We're doing a lot, but not nearly what we would do if we believed it was a crisis.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree with the statement that we're doing a lot, but not nearly as much as if we really thought it was a danger?
So here's another one.
I posted this.
Everybody who's anti-Trumper will tell you the following thing, and I think actually literally everybody.
They'll tell you he's such an obvious criminal that he can't be president.
Well, it makes him such an obvious criminal.
Everybody can see it.
Like all the many, many ways he's a criminal.
Right?
Because they've looked into his banking, his taxes, his phone calls, all of his records.
They've talked to everybody he's talked to about everything from, you know, January 6th to Russia collusion.
They've looked at him inside and out.
And then what they came up with, as his many crimes, because, as you know, He's obviously, just obviously so criminal, that he had a few normal phone calls.
Let's see, there was a normal phone call to Zelensky saying, hey, could you look into this Biden thing?
Which we now know was a real problem.
And if Zelensky had looked into it, it would have saved us a lot of time, maybe.
So that was a perfect phone call.
But he got in trouble for that.
And then there was the other perfect phone call about finding the votes in Georgia, which clearly, to anybody who's not an idiot, just means that he wishes they did a better count or an audit and they found the votes that probably were real but not counted.
Now, if that election was bogus, it probably was because they added votes that didn't belong, so finding votes wouldn't have helped him much.
There probably wasn't any to find.
But, so we've got two normal phone calls, we've got him getting a bank loan in which there were no victims, and the bank itself said that he handled it in a normal way, and that the banks don't listen to the borrower about what their net worth is, they go check themselves.
So a normal banking transaction.
He's also in trouble in a variety of ways for the insurrection that never happened.
So, let me, and then of course there's the E.G.
and Carol thing that we have an opinion about how real that was.
Now, let me ask you this.
If Trump is the most obvious, biggest criminal in the world, and he's been researched and checked and investigated more than anyone in the world, why did they have to use fake crimes if he's such a bad guy?
Wouldn't they be just like uncovering a real crime under every rock?
Why did they have to make him up?
If you're so sure, it's obvious he's just a giant criminal, and he lies and he does crimes in every domain, but they couldn't find any, so they had to make him up.
Wouldn't that make you crazy?
If you believe that he was such an obvious criminal, that the crimes are just all over the place, and yet they can't get him.
He was impeached twice, but not removed from office.
My God.
He's been indicted 91 times, but except for that weird Eugene Carroll thing, which was not a criminal situation, nobody's finding any specific crimes.
So that would make you crazy, because you're looking at it and saying, Obviously!
Obviously!
Like, a crime everywhere!
Like, everything is a crime that he does.
But then when you look, and you look really carefully, and you look for years, and you're the exact experts who know how to look for it, there's none.
Not even a little bit.
Every one of the charges is based on bullshit.
Kind of obvious bullshit if you're not, you know, in the tank.
So 1.1 million views on that post.
And I know the Democrats read it and said, but Scott, all those things are real.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry if your news sources told you those are real, that there was a real insurrection.
Really?
Yeah.
So that probably causes a lot of mental illness, because people are observing him being a big ol' criminal, but they just can't get him.
Can't get him.
It must be he's just getting lucky or something.
That would make you crazy.
Alright, here's another one for you.
This is just something I need to know.
So it's gonna sound like an accusation, but it's a question.
And one of the things I like to do is ask the question that the news should have answered a million times, but never did.
Ask yourself why you've never heard the answer to this question.
It's gonna, it's gonna make you nuts.
You're gonna get, you're gonna be insane in a moment.
Here's the most obvious, simple, normal question one would ask, but I've never seen it asked.
Here it is.
As a citizen, I would love to know the argument for using voting machines instead of paper ballots.
I've never heard of the argument.
Is it because it saves money?
Is it because they're more accurate?
Is it because the machines are easier to audit than paper ballots?
Is it because it's harder to cheat with a machine?
Or is it that the count is faster so you know your result?
Which one is it?
And why don't you know?
It's the most fundamental fact in your republic.
You know, voting and the accuracy of voting, the most fundamental thing.
And you don't know the most fundamental question, which is why are you doing it that way?
Why are you doing it differently than other countries?
All right, so I can only think of one reason that I could confirm based on my current knowledge.
It doesn't mean it's true.
I can only think of one reason.
And the only reason I can think of is that it's for cheating.
And that if the United States wanted to control the elections in other countries, what they would do is have digital machines, because it's harder to control people and physical ballots in other countries.
But if you could control a choke point, You could control who's president in another country.
So wouldn't the United States, which likes to overthrow other countries, we have a long history of doing it, don't you think that they would do everything in their power to make sure there were electronic voting machines in countries we wanted to control?
Of course.
It's the most obvious thing you would do if you were the CIA.
I don't have to be in the CIA to know it's the most obvious thing you should be doing if you're doing your job.
If our CIA is not trying to manage elections in other countries, what are they doing?
That's like their basic job, is influencing other countries.
So when I look at the list, I use my finance and business thinking to ask the following questions.
Is it likely that electronic voting machines save you money compared to paper ballots?
You know, you don't have to print all the print.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that's why they have them, to save money?
I doubt it.
My guess is that if you add the maintenance and the cost of the machines, and then also the cost of storing them, because they have to be stored somewhere, it's probably more than the cost of ballots.
I don't know that for sure, but that's why I'm asking the question.
So if they're doing it based on saving money, then you'd have something to work with, right?
You could say, oh, if it's only for money, But we're not happy with the credibility of the outcome.
Let's just spend a little more money and then we'll have what we need.
Credible outcomes.
So I don't think it's because of money.
Nobody's ever said that.
How about it's more accurate?
Do you think it's more accurate?
How do we know?
How would we know?
I don't think it's that they're more accurate because we wouldn't have any way of knowing.
Do we do it because it's easier to audit electronic machines versus paper ballots?
No, I would think it'd be the opposite.
I would think paper ballots would be the easiest to audit and you wouldn't know how to, you know, get into the innards of the machine and their proprietary code.
It feels like it'd be hard to audit a machine.
You could audit elements of the machine, But you wouldn't know if a hacker had influenced it.
So, I don't know that it's easier to audit.
How about because it's harder to cheat with a machine?
Is that why they use machines?
Because it's harder to cheat?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
Now, remember, we're not talking about mail-in ballots.
I'm talking about, you know, you arrive in person and fill out a ballot.
Do you think that it's harder to cheat if you arrive in person, show your ID, and fill out a ballot than if something goes into a machine and the people who are in charge of elections don't exactly know what happens once it's in the machine?
Which one would be harder to cheat?
Well, we don't know.
We don't know.
Is a machine impossible to cheat?
Did they build it that way?
Or did they build it so it's easy to cheat?
How would we know?
How about the machines count it faster?
So you get a faster count.
No.
Because places that use paper ballots only get a result the same day.
But we took, you know, longer.
So, this is a serious question, and ask yourself why you've never seen the question asked.
That's the real question.
Why don't you know the answer to this question?
And why has nobody ever asked it in public?
Like, why?
What is the cost-benefit-risk-reward of using electronic machines?
The best reason that I heard for why we have electronic machines is that salespeople are good at selling.
That's from Brian, or Brian AI.
And that might actually be the answer.
Because the people who run elections are not sophisticated.
You know, it's not your captains of industry who are managing the local precinct elections.
So if you were the salesperson for a technology company, let's say the technology is machines, and you come in and you do your PowerPoint presentation, you don't think you could bamboozle those little precinct captains or whatever the hell they are that are running the elections?
Of course you could.
Yeah, a really good tech salesperson could sell just about anything to somebody who's not technical.
Because you just say, yeah.
You would just go in and say, yep, it's going to save you money, it's more accurate, it's easier to audit, it's harder to cheat, and you get a faster count.
That's what the salesperson would say.
But my question is this.
Now that we've been using them for a while, did any of these sales claims pan out?
I'd like to know that.
I would certainly like to know that.
Usually what happens is you end up with more maintenance problems and repairs than you thought.
That would be a typical thing that happens when you roll out technology to replace something else.
So once they found all their surprises, That you can never know until you actually do it.
Did it pan out?
Did you save money?
Get a better account?
Faster?
Why don't you know that as an American citizen?
I once used to think, before I started doing this in public, I'd watch the news and I'd say to myself, God, you know what they need?
The news is missing this one asset.
The asset they need is somebody to ask the right questions.
Because they're not asking the right questions.
People in the news don't have, let's say, corporate experience.
You know, not the normal corporate experience.
They are parts of corporations, but not the same way.
They don't work in cubicles, you know, and do all the bullshit stuff.
If you worked in a big company, and you were around tech, Wouldn't it have been the most obvious question to ask after we've used these machines for years?
Did it work out?
Did you get the benefits?
That's what a big company does.
If they roll out a thing, they don't just say, yeah, we did that thing.
They check on it.
They do an audit later of their own work to find out if that made sense.
Did we do that?
Probably not.
So the E. Jean Carroll payments look like they'll be delayed until Trump exhausts all of his challenges.
You know, the $83 million.
So there was a story going around that E. Jean Carroll's story was identical to an episode of Law & Order SUV that was allegedly one of her shows she watched.
But I wanted to see the clip myself to see how right on point it was.
I'm not sure it's right on point, but the clip had a man saying that he had had sex in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room, which is where she claims that Trump and she were at.
And that in the TV show, it looked like it was consensual sex that they just sort of like doing in risky places.
But it was sex in a Bergdorf Goodman changing area.
Now, is that a coincidence?
How could you explain that there's a TV show with such a specific reference and that somebody who watches the show, yeah, comes up with something that sounds just like it?
How do you explain that?
All right.
Well, here's one way to explain it.
That would not require any kind of conspiracy or craziness.
Are you ready?
Men, I want you to... Well, maybe the women can back me up on this too.
Men, I want you to back me up on internal male thinking.
You go to a changing room in a big department store.
You walk in, you close the door.
What's the first thing you think?
I wonder if I could have sex in here.
You tell me you haven't thought about that in a changing room at a department store.
Have you never, you've never thought if you could, you know, just bring your girlfriend in here, you could have something like public sex without anybody seeing you?
Yeah.
So those of you saying no, I would just tell you to look at the ones saying yes.
See how many people are saying yes?
When you go in there, you think to yourself, hmm, this might be the kind of place some naughty stuff could happen.
It's just automatic if you're a guy.
Guys are thinking about sex all the time.
So when I go to a new location, the first thing I think about is, am I safe?
Right?
Safety first.
And then number two, could I have sex in this new location?
It's just natural.
So, let me connect it all together.
So here's how it could be a coincidence, but not a real coincidence.
Suppose if you went into the Bergdorf Goodman, which is a real high, high-end store, or was, I don't know if they're still in business, but what would their changing rooms look like?
At the highest-end, fanciest store.
I haven't been in one.
But I'm guessing they look more like little bedrooms.
With, you know, just a bench and... right?
I'll bet you if you went in a Bergdorf Goodman changing room, it wouldn't be like the ones in Macy's.
They're just sort of cubicles separating each other.
Wouldn't it seem like a little... a high-end, almost like a... a little sitting area within a chair?
And if you went in one of those, would you think to yourself, huh, I'll bet a lot of people have had sex in here.
And then if you were a TV writer and you were thinking of, you know, places somebody would have some public sex, you'd say, oh, I was just in Bergdorf Goodman's.
I'll tell you, I was thinking about it when I was in there.
I'll bet people have sex in here.
So then I'll just put that in my script.
Right?
So, there is an argument that this could be a genuine coincidence.
And it could be, and the thing I don't know, is if you walked into a Bergdorf Goodman changing room, would you say to yourself, well, this does look like a place people have sex.
I'll bet it's happened.
Just asking.
I don't know.
Yeah.
So, I don't think there's evidence that would convince me that Trump was guilty of these alleged crimes, but I don't know if the Bergdorf-Goodman part is really telling you as much as you think it might.
It's definitely an eyebrow-raiser, though.
It's definitely an eyebrow-raiser.
Alright, RFK Jr.
says he's open to running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination, which he won't.
What would the race look like if RFK Jr.
ran?
There's a new poll from Harvard-Capps-Harris poll, and they say that the result would be... Oh, actually, it's just a favorability result.
The favorability, Kennedy has a plus 18.
So Trump is neutral.
In other words, as many people dislike him as like him favorability-wise.
And Biden is negative almost as much as Kennedy is positive.
So Kennedy would really change things in the race, and I think I had numbers that if he got in, oh yeah, if the election were held today, 21% say they'd vote for Kennedy, 36% for Biden, and 44% for Trump.
So adding RFK Jr.
to the race should something like guarantee Trump's victory, based on these preliminary things.
Does it feel like everything's heading in one direction?
That doesn't seem like It's like Trump can't be denied Yeah, it I've never seen more things trying to stop one thing than I've tried I've seen all the different ways That they tried to stop Trump with the hoaxes and the lawfare and everything else But there must be just something That's unstoppable or whatever about it All right, so just an update on the VP thing.
In my opinion, there's no question who he should pick.
Do you agree?
Does everybody agree that the question of who Trump should pick is now obvious?
Whether he does or not, I can't predict who he picks.
Predicting who the vice president is just, it's like a loser's game.
You can't predict that.
But it's now obvious who we should pick.
It's Vivek.
Because Vivek, as I said, solves for Trump, and Trump solves for Vivek.
Trump has experience, so Vivek can get seasoned before he needs to be president.
And Vivek is the one who does a better job of explaining Trump than Trump can explain himself.
And also, just explaining what makes sense and what's not, you know, what's not racist.
Vivek's great at that, right?
So, I don't think there's any question it would be the right choice if you wanted to win and do a good job for the country.
So I posted that and it got over a million views, which means it's a popular notion.
For my posting it over a million views means it's really popular.
So there is definitely a grassroots good feeling about Vivek.
The negatives that I've heard about Vivek from Republicans are that they're a little concerned that he's not a Christian.
He's Christian-compatible, but he's a Hindu.
I like to say he's Christian-compatible, because he buys into and studied Christianity and likes all the parts of it.
He just has a different flavor with his Hindu focus.
But he's completely compatible in terms of the morality and the ethics of the religions.
But I would say if he were vice president for four years, people would stop caring about that.
They'd just get used to him.
And they'd say, oh, everything he does is compatible with what I think, so that's good enough.
And then the other question is, he kind of came out of nowhere, people say.
And, you know, that makes people suspicious.
If you're conservative, you're conservative.
So it doesn't surprise me that conservatives are saying, hey, this sudden change is suspicious.
Because that's sort of what conservatives do.
Why are we doing it differently now?
Where did this new guy come from?
All right, just basic conservative stuff.
But you give Vivek four years to season, yeah, you give him four years to season and nobody's gonna ask where'd he come from.
So they solve for each other in a way I've never seen.
I mean, it's almost a complete solution for each other.
All right.
If you compare either Vivek or Trump to Joe Biden, I would say the contrast is growing, wouldn't you?
Because Vivek can clearly explain just about anything.
And I'm going to give you an example, my impression of Joe Biden, and this will be a direct quote, of explaining something to a crowd recently.
And Joe Biden said, and I quote, So, that's a direct quote.
So that's a direct quote.
And he's running against Lodzhekhe.
If Vak was on the team, he would be running against the two best communicators in the history of politics. x.
But, you know, he's got a strong game too, as I said.
So, could be a tie.
I mean, very skillful, that Joe Biden.
I call him Joe Briban.
Why has nobody done Joe Briban?
People have done that one, right?
I couldn't possibly be making this up that they have, right?
Yeah.
I wonder why that didn't stick.
All right.
Snopes, remember at the same event in which Biden said, and I quote, that's where he allegedly wore a hard hat backwards without knowing it was backwards.
But Snopes, who, as you know, is a good friend of Democrats, fact-checked it and said, no, that hat is not on backwards.
There's photographs of him wearing the hat backwards.
Snopes fact-checked it and said, no, that's not backwards.
It's a picture of it.
And they even have a picture of the people wearing them correctly so that you can see how the hard hat people wear their hats the other way.
So, uh, and Wokeness and others hammered on Snopes until they reversed it.
Snopes finally gave up and they're like, all right, it was on backwards.
Now, What good is Snopes if they say his hat is on forward when they have photos of the correct way to wear it and a photo of how he wore it?
Now, was that a tough one?
Got that one wrong.
But you know, with all that pressure, they had to pressure them to say what they saw with their own eyes was what they saw with their own eyes.
Now to be fair, the hat is a little weird, so it wasn't obvious which way is the right way.
But once you know what it's supposed to look like, because you see the other people wearing the hat, well, then it's obvious.
Bribie.
So now we know that there's a report from Public, which is a news entity on Substack, I believe.
So Public is reporting that the Trudeau government used fake intelligence to illegally frame protesting truckers as extremists.
That's right.
Remember all the bad things that happened to the truckers?
They got, and this is for Saturday Night Live, this is a real word, debanked.
They got debanked.
Yeah, it's a real word.
Happened in Canada.
And they got debanked and they got, I don't know, every other kind of privacy violated and treated like criminals.
And I guess the intelligence was that the truckers were a bunch of right-wing extremists.
Right.
They were a bunch of right-wing extremists.
So they thought they were all terrorists.
Literally.
Thought they were terrorists.
They were basically patriots in trucks.
Patriots and trucks.
And the Canadian, you know, intel people.
So not only do they smear him, it looks like they told the world, you know, that they had these bad actors here.
So, yep, everything you thought about that was true.
Yeah, they thought it was right-wing extremism.
Did you see the videos of the truckers are going down to the border with Texas?
I couldn't tell from the videos how big a deal that is.
Because, you know, a video is going to show a collection of trucks.
But if you're not there for a while, you don't get a sense of scale.
So I saw a lot of American flags.
I saw a lot of trucks.
I just don't know if it's a lot when you consider the size of the border and whatever it is they're trying to do.
Yeah, so I'm very concerned.
About going to any kind of organized protest.
Because don't you think the same thing's going to happen to these truckers?
That our intelligence people are going to look into it and say, it looks like a bunch of right-wing extremists.
Because it worked in Canada.
It worked.
I mean, it was wrong, and it was illegal, and it was unethical.
But it worked for what they wanted to do, which was suppress one side of the political debate.
So, if it worked in Canada, even though it was illegal and unethical, you kind of expect it to be tried here.
So I'd be very concerned about those truckers.
The only thing that could save them is a Republican president.
There's a new movie about January 6th, and guess what?
Their message about this new movie is that we were so close to losing the Republic.
Oh, we were so close.
Now, I'm not going to watch that movie, because it's obviously propaganda in an election year.
As I've told you, beware the documentary effect.
Any documentary Is persuasive, and really persuasive.
If they can get you to watch one point of view without seeing the opposing view, and you'll spend an hour doing it, they have you brainwashed.
So this is a, I assume, a priming and brainwashing organ.
If you looked at who funded it, I don't think you'd be surprised.
I don't know who it was.
I don't have that information.
You're either gonna find that the filmmaker is a diehard Democrat or they're funded by diehard Democrats or something.
So I wouldn't see this as legitimate.
It looks more like propaganda.
So there's new gaslighting on the so-called border deal.
So there's a border bill that would allegedly try to fix the border migration problem, but what it does is it would codify and make legal a huge number of people coming in every single day.
So it would try to reduce the total number, but it would still be a way too big number every day, and so it's kind of a losing idea.
Trump said he was against it, but also made the mistake of telling somebody, allegedly, I haven't heard it, but allegedly told somebody that it was good politics not to sign the bill because he'd rather have the issue than the bill.
So how do RINOs and Democrats interpret that?
That the bill was turned down just to help Trump.
Is that what happened?
Do you think all those Republicans like Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis, to name just two, who looked at it and said, wait a minute, you don't even need a bill.
All you need to do is do what Trump did, basically use your executive power and just close the border, like he did.
Do the same thing he did.
Just repeat what he did, because nobody said that wasn't doable.
None of his executive orders were reversed.
So you can just do that.
You don't need any bill.
So the argument against the bill, I think, is rock solid.
That you don't need it, and it would guarantee to make things worse.
By its nature.
By its design, it would make things worse.
It's designed to make it worse.
So, not to make it better.
So now that will be repeated as the only reason that the Republicans don't like that terrible bill is that they're trying to get Trump elected.
And do you think Democrats will believe that story?
Of course they will.
They will believe that story because they won't look at the bill, and CNN won't tell them that version of it.
CNN's not going to say, you didn't even need the bill.
You could just do the executive orders.
They're not going to tell their audience that.
So their audience will now believe that the only reason the border is still open is because Trump is bad.
Now, is that even close to reality?
Now, here's another source for insanity.
They're going to ask people to believe that Trump's number one issue, closing the border, he really doesn't want.
Because he'd rather have the issue so he can get elected.
How do you believe that?
Now I get everybody's a politician, they're all full of it.
But it is his number one issue for like 10 years.
And they believe he doesn't really mean it?
That he wouldn't really rather have the border seriously closed?
Of course he wants it closed.
Now, he also wants to win an election.
So if you can do two things at the same time, you can get rid of a bill that isn't needed and would make things worse by making it legal to bring in over 5,000 a day.
And he can get elected by killing it.
He has at least three reasons to do it.
But the Democrats will just hear the one.
Oh, it's for politics.
It's only for politics.
Yeah, Biden had this solved.
He has solved this border thing.
If only the Republicans wouldn't be so political.
That's actually what Democrats are going to believe.
That that's a version of the world.
Nope.
Well, Jonathan Turley, Writing in the Hills, talking about some countries are trying to ban sex robots.
You know, the sex bots.
They're going to have AI, if they don't already.
But even before AI, there was a question whether you could have a, let's say, a prostitute who was just a doll.
A sex doll.
And a lot of people object, but the people, according to Turley, who are objecting the hardest are feminists.
And in Sweden, for example, a feminist organization is moving to ban the sexbots because they think the sexbots are, quote, objectifying, sexualized, and degrading attitude to women.
Like that's found in pornography.
So they don't want them to objectify and sexualize women.
So they want to ban the sex bots.
May I make a suggestion?
Why do you think there's such a demand for sex bots?
Could it be Feminists?
Could it be that the feminists are the reason that men are giving up on women?
That is why they're giving up on women.
They're giving up on women because the feminists have just taken themselves out of the market.
They've made themselves less good than a fucking doll.
Oh, literally a fucking doll.
Yeah.
Do you think that they will take a moment to examine their own actions in the past?
To wonder why we're trying so hard to have sex with dolls?
We do live in a competitive free market.
If men are banging dolls, it's because women stop being competitive.
Maybe we should dig into that a little bit harder.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe the sex bots don't complain.
Maybe they have a perfect BMI.
Maybe they don't care if you watch sports or relax on the couch.
Maybe there's a really good reason that men are moving to bots.
And when they have the AI, it's over.
At least half of men are going to say, you know what?
The human women are just not doing it for me anymore.
So, good luck with that.
Well, Robert Scovel, who writes a lot about AI on X, tells us that AI apparently can fly a fighter jet better than a human, and would perform better in a dogfight or a tense aerial situation, because AI is not susceptible to high G-forces.
So the planes, like an F-35, the plane itself can handle more G's than the human pilot.
So if we were to send up an AI jet to fight with a human pilot from Russia or China, we would beat them every time.
We'd beat them every time.
Because the AI could make the plane go into higher G's, so it could just maneuver better and it would just have a commanding advantage.
Now, we'd probably take out their planes from five miles away, so we wouldn't be in that situation.
But when I heard this, I said to myself, oh, Our army has to become robots.
I was thinking it was optional.
It was like, you know, one of those things that could happen, but it's not optional.
Because if we ever go into a war against robots, we're going to lose.
We have to have robots because they're the only ones that are going to make fast enough decisions and handle the G-forces and be, you know, wounded and still fight.
So you know what's going to happen?
We're heading toward the Star Trek vision and it's guaranteed.
Let me explain this.
Someday in the future...
Two civilized countries will go into a war.
100% of the battle will be done by robots.
So they'll meet on a battlefield and battle it out.
It'll be in the plane with the AI, etc.
And it will be robot on robot with no human casualties.
And they will complete the entire war Robot on robot.
Now, of course, you can imagine that both countries would still have some humans, you know, in military.
You know, just in case, I guess.
At that point, the victorious robot army would look at the country that now has no robots left and only humans to defend it, and it would say, this would be a good time to surrender.
And then the humans would say, yeah, yeah, there really isn't any choice.
We will surrender.
So in Star Trek, they had this weird future where people did civilized wars, where they would do some kind of simulation to see how each of them would have done.
And then once the simulation was over, it would be like, OK, it looks like your side would have lost and you would have lost 10 million people.
So we need 10 million volunteers to be exterminated in a painless way.
You know, they just go into a machine and they disappear.
So that was the Star Trek version.
But there's a real version coming.
The real version is that Countries will battle it out on the robot battlefield, and then when the robots have a conclusion, the other country will just say, all right, you own us now.
What do you want?
We're part of Russia now.
Your robots just beat us.
Because there's no reason for a human to die.
Right?
If the military is 98% robot, because they're the ones that can fight well, as soon as the robots are done fighting, the humans need to just say, all right, we have a result.
That's the result.
You win.
You win.
Now, the exception would be if the winning army was planning to exterminate, you know, the locals.
Which they would have done at the same time they were fighting the robots if that's what they wanted to do.
So, you know, there's a case where you can't let them win and you have to fight the robots to the death because they're gonna kill you anyway.
But I do see a world where the robots fight and then the humans just say, all right, you won.
We're done.
Alright, Navy's getting dumber.
They just lowered their requirements to get in the Navy.
Now you don't have to have a high school education or a GED.
You don't have to be able to swim.
I just made that up.
Wouldn't that be funny?
If you could join the Navy and you didn't need to know how to swim.
I just assume they require that.
They do, don't they?
Don't they?
Maybe they don't.
They don't ask you if you can swim or make sure that you can swim once you join.
Oh, I'm seeing a lot of nos.
Oh, I just assumed that swimming would be sort of basic to Navy work.
Nope, apparently they throw you in.
All right.
Well, I guess you can learn to swim as an adult, so it's not a big deal.
But the Navy's getting dumber.
The country's getting fatter, so that'll make us have Alzheimer's and dementia.
So basically, in every possible way, we're getting dumber.
I don't see how that could turn anything wrong.
So, now speaking of the war where only the robots fight, between now and the time that Ukraine gets solved, 100% of the casualties were unnecessary.
Agree?
Between today and the time that there's a negotiated settlement, 100% of the deaths are useless, because they're not going to change any territory, and I doubt it'll even change the negotiations much. 100%.
Here's something I've never seen happen, but it should.
The soldiers who are on the battlefield should send a message to the other side and say, you guys are hearing the same news we are, right?
That this is going to be negotiated probably soon before or soon after the election.
And then Russia is going to say, what?
And they're going to say, yeah, check it out.
Everybody says they're going to negotiate this because nobody's winning on the battlefield.
Now let's say you could get them to agree, soldier to soldier, that there's no use in fighting.
Could the armies, soldier to soldier, quit fighting?
And just say, as long as you stay over there, we'll stay over here.
And we'll just be done.
Because our leaders are telling us to fight, Yeah, the Russians are not getting the same propaganda, right?
So the Russians might believe they're ready to win, but I think you could convince them that winning looks like keeping the things they already got, and maybe no NATO and Ukraine or something like that.
I think this might be the only time in history Where you know how the war is going to end, and every death until then is a waste.
I think that's unusual.
Because even when two sides are negotiating, you don't know if that's going to work.
Right?
Remember when Vietnam was negotiating for a long time, and it just wasn't working for a long time.
In that case, maybe it does make sense to keep fighting.
Because the fighting is part of the negotiating.
But in this very specific situation, I think every observer who knows what's happening knows that the fighting doesn't have a purpose.
It did before.
It once had a purpose.
But it doesn't now.
Yeah.
So could you ever reach an armistice, I guess it would be called, if they just stopped fighting, soldier to soldier?
Or at least maybe in a local way.
You know, just say there's one little region where it's just a pitched battle.
You don't think you could say, look, We're just gonna stop shooting for an hour.
If you stop shooting for an hour, let's see if we can keep it going.
Because we're not, there's just no point.
There's just no point at all.
I'd love to see that happen.
I doubt it will, because the Russians would just start shooting their troops.
But, it's all mercenaries.
Yeah, if you get enough mercenaries, none of that works, I guess.
Actually, maybe it would work with mercenaries.
The mercenaries would have the same incentive.
They just want to stay awake, or stay alive, and collect a paycheck.
So the mercenaries, in theory, would be the first ones to say, let's just collect our paychecks and not shoot each other.
Because either way, it's going to be done in a few months.
Yeah, just pretend to fight.
Yeah, literally just shoot over each other's heads.
Ukraine has a history of turning on their supporters.
Oh, it's a real thing.
I'm looking at a long thing.
Let me read it.
To attack a German... Offering a promotion as an incentive.
It was a suicide mission.
Planning an attack.
Demands a corps-martial of three random soldiers.
Wow.
Yeah, you could probably get soldiers to do anything.
That's the problem.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this brings you to the conclusion of the best live stream you're ever going to see.
I ran late again, but I'm going to say bye to the YouTube and Rumble and X people.
YouTube people, check the timestamps that I added for the last two videos.
I'll add one for this, but it takes a while to process it.
So it won't happen right away.
Just see if you like the timestamps and if they are good enough to keep doing.