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, Taylor Swift Super Bowl, E. Jean Carroll Trial Judge, Snoop Dogg Trump, Self-Protection Voters, Lindsey Graham Iran, David Sacks Iran, Persuasion Words Chaos Risky, President Biden’s Cognitive Decline, Alejandro Mayorkas Intent, George Soros Intent, David Frum Credibility, The Atlantic Credibility, Reid Hoffman Funding, Mark Cuban DEI, President Trump, Biden Border Bill, Texas Border Support, Free Speech, Political Prisoners, J6 Hoax, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
We'd like to call this Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that human beings can't even understand because it's so high, well then all you have to do is grab yourself a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a shell or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Today's show is going to be amazing, by the way.
Go.
So good.
What is today's date?
Everybody's telling me I put the wrong date on my comic today, but I think I got it right on the second try.
People don't believe me when I say I have a... Oh, Monday the 29th.
Yeah, I got the wrong date on the calendar again.
Did I?
I thought I got it right.
All right.
Anyway, we got a show to do.
Does anybody have this situation now that's already starting with me?
I'll be doing something that I always have to do, such as posting my comic in the morning.
By the way, if you didn't know, Dilbert never stopped.
It's just behind the local paywall and also on X. You can subscribe to it there.
It's there every day.
It's very naughty.
Today's especially naughty.
By the way, if you didn't get today's Dilbert and it didn't make sense, think naughtier.
If you put your mind in a really naughty space, the comic will make sense.
That's your tip for the day.
All right.
If you think the future involves AI doing everything for you, I feel like there's going to be a separation.
The dumb people in society are gonna do whatever the A.I.
tells them, because the A.I.
is smarter than them.
So I believe there will be a point where the A.I.
actually tells their owner how to vote.
Like, actually, literally.
I think there will be a point where people below a certain level of, I'm gonna say intelligence, or at least below a certain level of paying attention to the world, they're gonna wait till election day, and they're gonna ask their robot who they should vote for.
And the robot will say, you know, well, knowing you and all the things that you want to accomplish in life and knowing the candidates, I think you should vote for this one.
And then the people below that level of intelligence, or just paying attention, are just going to go with the robots.
But there's going to be a separation.
There will be another group of people, and I hope I'm in it, But I don't know for sure, in which we will be working with the AI and the robots in some kind of a collaborative situation.
So, for example, I've wanted to upgrade the quality of my videos, specifically making clips.
And I wanted to add captions and stuff like that.
And so I did some research and I said, what AI will do all these things I want to do to fix up my videos, you know, to get rid of imperfections and improve the sound and add some captions and, you know, find the good parts and add some timestamps.
There's a whole bunch of stuff you want to do.
Turns out there is no such thing as one app that does all those things.
So you end up doing something like research.
So, for example, if I want to add timestamps, To my video I'm making right now.
I can only do it with YouTube because it knows to find the transcript.
And then there's an app called Instant Chapters, but it only works after YouTube generates the transcript, which doesn't happen for several hours, but it could be delayed.
It could be, you know, many more hours.
So you have this situation where AI can't close the gap between what you want to do And what it can do.
So you still need a human being to figure out it's going to take, I think in my case, maybe six different AI apps to just make a clip.
Now, it would work really well because the apps are excellent.
But take a look at the app created by Descript.
So it's going around today.
It's kind of viral.
So my clip that got taken out of my larger show the other day, in which I... Yes, I already did the simultaneous sip.
Can you shut up about it?
If you missed the sip, it's just because you're late.
OK?
You could all stop talking about it.
All right.
Anyway, so there's an app called Descript that added the captions.
Take a look at it on my video clip in which I'm saying that Vivek is the obvious choice for vice president for Trump.
And you might like the video itself.
It looks like it's going slightly viral.
People seem to like it a lot.
But look at the technology.
Just look at how the captions are added and you can see that nobody's going to do it without AI in the future.
All right, here's the least surprising thing in the world.
Can you believe it, that Taylor Swift's boyfriend's team is gonna get to the Super Bowl?
Huh, nobody saw that coming.
Taylor Swift, the person that everybody thinks might be part of some giant Democrat influence campaign because she's so popular and now she likes the Chiefs and she's very, very Democrat at the moment.
How many of you think that that game was fixed?
Meaning that there was something going on that's bigger than football that needs Taylor Swift to be part of the Super Bowl.
Because we're already hearing that Joe Biden wants to use a Taylor Swift strategy to get her to endorse him.
Maybe at the Super Bowl or something crazy.
And none of it feels real, does it?
Everything else in the world is so fake and so rigged that even something like football, which I've always assumed was pretty straight, I don't believe it this time.
Now, I'm not going to make a accusation because then you get sued.
I'm not going to say the game was rigged.
I'm just going to say that in today's environment, that was a pretty big coincidence.
Pretty big coincidence that Taylor Swift picked the guy who got 11 catches.
He got 11 catches.
Do you think they were looking for him a little extra hard because he's Taylor's boyfriend?
Maybe.
He can't tell.
You know, he's also a star.
He's also a star, so it could also have happened completely naturally.
Yeah.
Anyway, so we'll keep an eye on that.
If it is rigged, you would expect the Chiefs to beat the 49ers in the Super Bowl.
So the Niners made it.
So far my technique of picking the winner by the mascot is working out well.
I hear other people have used that technique as well, but I've been doing it for 25 years or so in newspapers.
Newspapers used to ask me before the Super Bowl who I thought was going to win, just because they like asking some celebrity types.
And I had a pretty good record just picking the mascots.
But now what happens when the Chiefs and the 49ers meet?
Hmm, this one's ambiguous.
Because a chief has a spear, or bow and arrow, and a 49er would just have a shovel.
So normally, normally I'm gonna say spear beats shovel.
Or pickaxe.
Oh, pick a dynamite.
Okay, now it's getting, now it's getting interesting.
It might be a spear versus rifle.
Okay, there you go.
Yes, if you looked at them as individuals, one chief might get lucky with a spear and beat one 49er.
But if you look at the arc of history, the chiefs didn't do as well as the 49ers.
So, I would say the big picture supports the 49ers winning, unless it's rigged.
No, it's not rigged.
Enjoy your Super Bowl and pretend that it all happened naturally.
I don't know if it's rigged.
I'll tell you, I have a persuasion theory as well.
The Super Bowl doesn't need to be rigged if all the players think that it would be better if Taylor Swift had more exposure with the NFL.
Because imagine what that does for future viewership of the NFL.
Yeah, even if you're on the team that's trying to win the Super Bowl, which seems like that would be the highest goal for you, there's probably a little bit of your brain that says, you know what?
Weirdly, it would be better if we lost, because then NFL does better, and then they have more money, and then I get paid more.
Maybe.
So there is a weird incentive structure there.
I think both Jack Posobiec and Vivek have both said that the Super Bowl looks a little bit suspicious.
Jack points out that Taylor Swift was no fan of the Soros family because they bought her entire music rights.
And without asking her permission, they owned all their music.
But I guess she got around that by re-recording a lot of stuff.
And then she came out as super liberal in 2020, as Jack points out.
And Vivek posted something that suggested there's a little bit of a coincidence.
Just a little bit of a coincidence that Taylor is getting so lucky in her choice of boyfriends.
It looks like it's intentional.
But I won't make that accusation.
I'll just say every bit of it looks like that.
And in fact, the New York Times is saying that Biden is going to pursue a Taylor Swift strategy of getting her to endorse him if possible.
Imagine being Taylor Swift and having that pressure that this million-year-old man wants you to endorse him.
All right.
How rigged is everything in the world?
Well, the Amuse account on X tells us that the, you know the Eugene Carroll trial when Trump was found liable, 83 million he's supposed to pay her?
Did you know that the judge in the case was the mentor of the prosecutor?
Just let that sink in for a moment.
The judge in the case of Trump, in the Eugene Karl case, the judge was the longtime mentor of the prosecutor.
That's insane.
Yeah, and apparently that wasn't disclosed.
How in the world is that considered anything like justice?
Clearly not.
Now, and how did we get to this point before we found out?
Remember I told you that the only thing you need to know to understand the world is who?
If the news is telling you what happened, you don't know anything.
This is a really important rule.
I'll hold this with you every time you watch the news.
If the news is telling you what happened, which is what they typically do, that's not news.
That's literally nothing.
Well, it's a little bit.
But what you really need to know is who the players are.
Because once you know the players, then you understand the what.
The what by itself is brainwashing and propaganda.
The who tells you everything, right?
So this trial, if you knew what happened, there was a case, there was a result, that's all you knew.
Well, don't you think it would be important to know that the judge was literally the mentor of the prosecutor?
You don't think that's giving you a little bit of insight about what might be going on here?
Definitely not justice.
Now, that doesn't mean that, you know, Trump is innocent of anything he's charged with.
That's a separate question.
But you can say for sure it wasn't a fair trial.
That much you can say for sure, just based on the relationship.
Alright, this next category I'm going to call the Blackification of Trump.
The Blackification.
I believe that the longer Trump is abused by the justice system, the more support he's going to get from black men.
Women, different situation.
But we saw that Snoop Dogg said he had nothing but love and respect for him because Trump pardoned his Death Row co-founder, the publishing company, music publishing company, Death Row co-founder.
And we saw that Charlemagne, the god, was saying that he's getting a lot of calls from his community, as he would call it.
Saying, what's up with this border?
Which is an indirect way of being more Trump than Biden.
And interesting, Chris Cuomo posted, based on the Snoop Dogg story, and he posted this.
He said, as Snoop goes, so goes the country.
Or is this an example of what should be painfully clear at this point?
People aren't going to just like or dislike a leader because the media and the players in the game tell them to.
At the end of the day, it comes down to self-interest.
These days, perceived self-protection.
Perceived self-protection.
Who do you think Chris Cuomo is supporting when he says people need to realize they have to vote for their self-protection?
It's not pro-Trump, but it's not anti-Trump.
If you know what I mean.
And I've told you, I've hinted at this before, but Chris Cuomo is not the CNN Chris Cuomo.
CNN Chris Cuomo might have been more of an invention.
Human being Chris Cuomo, I think you'd find a lot to agree with.
That's all I'm going to say about that.
But not only that, but the number one black hip-hop artist in the world is amazingly a strong Trump supporter.
Who is it?
Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro.
He's the number one black... Wait, hold on.
Oh, he's not black.
Ben Shapiro.
But he is the number one hip-hop artist, along with an actual hip-hop artist.
They got the number one hip-hop.
Tom McDonald.
Who's the artist?
Tom McDonald, somebody says.
Is that the name?
Anyway, so there you go.
So it looks like hip-hop has turned strongly pro-Trump.
So UFC is pro-Trump.
Even The Rock recently mentioned, you know, did you see with the crowd reaction to Trump?
And when The Rock said it, it wasn't pro-Trump or anti-Trump, but it definitely wasn't anti-Trump.
So you're seeing a whole bunch of people that you didn't necessarily expect To be a little bit more open-minded about Trump.
Well, Lindsey Graham wants to bomb Iran.
That's what I call perpetual news.
Let me read the news that hasn't changed in 20 years.
The Pope is speaking out against war.
Oh, didn't see that coming.
Lindsey Graham wants to bomb Iran.
Oh, another surprise.
There's two surprises.
I didn't see either one of those coming.
Did you?
That's your news.
That's the news.
Well, here's a counterpoint from David Sachs.
Now, I'm going to tie this together later with another story.
So David Sachs, as you know, one of the PayPal founders, along with Elon Musk, along with Peter Thiel, and along with Reid Hoffman, and a few others.
Now, when David Sachs gives you an opinion online, I'm going to read it to you.
I think I'll just read his whole opinion.
Because I want you to see how clear it is.
Right?
You don't have to agree with it.
It just has to be clear.
Just watch how well expressed it is, and then later I'm going to compare it to something else.
Right?
So you don't have to, you know, focus too much on the argument.
Just see how clear it is, and then we're going to compare that to something later.
All right, so David Sachs says, it feels good at the moment for hotheads to call for retaliation, talking about Iran, because Iran's proxies killed some Americans in Syria, which I didn't even know we had any there.
But I should have, I should have.
So retaliation, we have to think through the second order of consequences.
All right, so here's what we need to think through if we were to attack Iran.
The US only has about 4,000 Tomahawk missiles in its inventory.
We can do about a week of shock and awe.
Then what?
Are we going to send in ground troops?
Iran's territory is vast, its forces are decentralized, and enough of its infrastructure is underground by now.
It will also be supplied by China and Russia.
In retaliation, our highly exposed bases in Syria and Iraq, which neocons refused to remove, leading to this strategy, will likely come under heavy fire.
In fact, our troops there are setting ducks.
Our carrier groups could even be targets.
America will take meaningful casualties.
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz could be closed, compounding the situation in the Red Sea, causing a global oil shock.
Assuming Iran wants to continue the war, we'll have no exit strategy.
Regime change will fail.
We'll be stuck in a new forever war.
In fact, there's a decent chance that we get run out of the Middle East.
Now, you could disagree with that.
You know, there's always room for disagreement in these big international affairs.
Because a lot of it is, you know, conjecture and assumptions and stuff like that.
But would you agree with my statement that this is really clear?
Will you give me that?
Even if you disagree with it?
That's very clear.
Later, we're going to talk about something that makes less sense.
That's why I like to put this up as contrast.
So the contrast is that there's a founding member of PayPal, all geniuses, basically, with a musk and teal, etc.
And sure enough, they act like really smart people.
All right, so just hold that in your mind for a while.
I'm not going to give you an opinion except that, well, I will give you an opinion.
I don't know of any wars we get into and then we win and then we leave.
It's like that's not a thing anymore.
So whatever we do about Iran, we're going to have to find something else.
We're just going to have to find some other way.
Now, you could argue maybe Trump had it right.
Just starving them economically would make them concentrate on survival over getting cocky.
Maybe.
I'm not sure there's any good result here.
All right, here's your persuasion lesson for the day.
Here's your payoff for watching me.
I like to make sure there's at least one thing you hear on my show that you won't hear anywhere else.
So here's your one thing you're not going to hear anywhere else.
If you're new to me, I'm a trained hypnotist, and so when I talk about persuasion, I'm not guessing.
You've heard in the news, the Democrats refer to Trump as the chaos candidate.
And the word chaos, they try to work into every opinion.
So if they have an opinion about Ukraine, they'll say, oh, Trump this or that, and chaos.
And his opinion on this is chaos.
And they just insert chaos everywhere.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is not an organic word.
Do you remember any other candidate who was accused of chaos?
I don't.
Chaos is like dark.
Do you remember in 2016, the first time all the Democrats, in unison, they all started saying that Trump's speech at the convention was dark?
And it was obvious that the memo had gone out.
Now at the time, if you don't remember the story, I had called out That probably that word dark is such a professionally chosen word that they probably had some help from a professional persuader, and I thought it was Cialdini, the author of Influence and Persuasion.
Now, he was asked by some people who'd heard me say that, and he refused to... He said no comment when asked if he was helping at the time of the Hillary campaign.
So no comment generally, in that context, would be considered a confirmation that he was.
And indeed, he helped Obama.
So if you were the brilliant persuasion mind behind helping Obama, It makes sense that Clinton may have used you as well.
So we have pretty good information that the word dark was chosen by the most professional people.
But what about chaos?
It's used exactly the same.
It's a catch-all.
And chaos is specifically meant to scare senior citizens.
Do you know who's not afraid of chaos?
Young people.
So the Democrats have a lot of young people.
And, you know, but they don't care about that word one way or the other.
But the old people are really scared about chaos.
And the old people are more likely to vote for Trump.
So chaos is a really good word to work into every sentence, and it has no specific requirements.
There's no objective standard for what is chaos and what is not, which also makes it good.
So here's what you need to know about it.
This is an engineered word.
Every time you hear it, especially in the media, if you see a media report in which they use the word chaos, that's propaganda.
Because it's an indefinable scare word.
An indefinable scare word is always propaganda.
Always.
Now, the word chaos is being used exactly the way the Clinton-Gore campaign back in 1990-whatever it was.
When did Clinton-Gore run for re-election against What's his name?
96, I think?
96 was the re-election campaign, yeah.
So do you remember when Gore started saying that trickle-down economics was risky?
It was a risky scheme.
And then, yeah, it was against Bob Dole.
Because Bob Dole was pushing trickle-down economics with Kemp as his running mate.
And Clinton Gore just crushed that by saying it was too risky.
It might work, but it's risky.
Why would you do something risky when the economy is going well?
Risky, risky, risky.
Do you know where the risky word came from?
Does anybody know the answer to that?
Because risky, chaos, dark, those are all professional words.
Yeah, the average pundit doesn't come up with that.
Let me tell you who came up with risky for Clinton and Gore.
That was me.
True story.
Yeah, I was working with the campaign.
I mean, unofficially, I was working with them.
So I had a connection in the campaign and they asked me specifically about the debate where Gore used it and I told them, say it's risky because it'll scare the old people.
Because nobody knows if trickle-down works or doesn't work.
But they do know it's different.
So they'll believe it's risky.
And that pretty much got them elected.
Now, do you think that persuasion is powerful?
It's very powerful.
Yeah.
If you pick the right word, it changes the world.
Now, by the way, they would deny this story.
So if you go to fact check it, don't expect it to be fact checked.
That's not how any of this works.
Yeah, nobody's going to nobody's going to confirm that.
All right.
And by the way, I thought the Clinton Gore administration was successful.
Remember, I've told you that I'm not in the camp for anybody in particular.
I just liked Clinton because he was somewhere in the middle.
I like middle presidents.
For most of the times.
At the moment, I don't like a middle president.
At the moment, I want a Trump president because that seems to be more, I don't know, it seems more on point to our current problems.
You need a bigger, bolder thing.
Whereas I thought Clinton and Gore were, You know, more right down the middle, just try to reach some middle point.
And I thought that was the right solution at that time.
Did we get the glitch?
Did we get a 34 minute glitch?
Looks like we might've lost some comments when that happened.
Did we lose some comments?
Yeah.
I'm going to fire up my other device, which will show me your comments on the Locals platform.
This works every time.
All right, you're back.
All right.
Did you see the visual persuasion that the New York Post ran with Trump?
Oh, that's not working, interestingly.
Is locals down?
I guess I can't ask you.
If there's somebody who's on Locals who also has my phone number, could you text me and tell me if Locals is completely down?
Because I can't see it on my other device.
But we'll keep going because we've got three platforms that are definitely live.
But let me show you a photo that the New York Post decided was a good photo of Trump.
So now the photo people, the people who picked the photos, they're often separate from the writers.
So look at the photo that was chosen.
I'll show you on both platforms.
That's a photo that was chosen for a generic story.
The New York Post thought of all the photos in the world of Trump, you know, infinite photos, that that photo was one for a generic story.
Remember, it had nothing to do with what he's motioning or any of that.
It's just a generic story, and they ran that photo.
Whoever chooses the photos really has way more power than they should.
It's working.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you.
Got confirmation that Locals is working.
Just, uh, I'll make sure comments come back on.
All right.
They'll, they'll come back in a minute.
All right.
Uh, let's talk about Biden's brain.
So his latest, uh, mashed potato brain, somebody, somebody used that phrase.
I liked it.
Um, he actually called Trump the sitting president.
Uh, Did you see what he recently said about, this is Biden, he wants to, he wants to see the economy crash this year.
A sitting president.
Do you think Trump wants to see the economy crash this year?
No, but it would be good for his reelection.
Do you think that's an accurate statement of what Trump's inner thoughts are?
Oh, I'd like to see America go down the drain so I could get elected.
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
And then he led us in a prayer.
And he said, as they say in my faith, this is Biden, as they say in my faith, bless me father for I mean, come on, man.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm not really a religious person, but I do feel inspired today to lead you in prayer.
If you don't mind, could you just bow your head?
I'd like to lead you in a Biden prayer.
Everybody, pray with me.
As they say in my faith, bless me, Father.
I mean, come on, man.
Amen.
Amen to that.
Come on, man.
So Biden's brain is working just great.
Meanwhile, CNN is dying.
Over in the Philippines, they closed their operation, CNN did.
I don't know if it's the beginning of their global media destruction, but I feel like a lot of the stories about things I don't like are dying.
Biden's dying.
CNN's dying.
DEI is dying.
CRT is dying.
ESG is dying.
China's dying.
So I'm having a good year.
All the things I don't like are dying.
Speaking of Mayorkas, Alejandro Mayorkas, let me ask you this.
What's up with him?
Why is it that we have a person whose job it is to guard the country, who's doing literally the opposite, and we don't know why?
Does that bother you at all?
Mayorkas?
I'm pretty sure you could figure out a way to close that border, even though you're not the president.
You could probably work with him.
Probably figure that out.
But he seems aggressively uninterested in fixing the border in a way that's surprising.
What would be your assumption about somebody whose job performance is the opposite of what his job would require, and you don't quite know why?
How would you explain it?
I explain it by outside influence.
Meaning that he's not his own man.
Could be just that he's, you know, bowing to the Democrats and he has to say dumb things to make them happy.
But don't you assume that there's something sinister behind him?
It just feels like there's something there.
That's really the only thing I have to say about it.
But I have the same feeling about Soros.
How do you explain all the things that Soros does because they seem to be 100% designed to be bad for the country?
And it's all different things.
If he did one thing I didn't like, then I'd say, oh, he and I have a different opinion about what's good for the country.
But if you do a whole range of funding and every single one seems clearly bad for the country, what are you going to conclude about that?
Well, you could conclude that the Soros family is evil.
And that's what other people conclude.
I don't believe that.
Because it'd be too weird that the father and the son shared this evil, and the whole organization shared it.
It would be too weird.
I don't believe that.
I believe that it's more likely that the people who act opposite of what seems like a person should act are probably blackmailed or bribed.
Or in some other way beholden to somebody.
Or they're under duress in some way.
So I think that the Soroses are not the top of their pile.
I think that somebody has blackmail on the Soros family.
I can't think of any other way to explain observation.
So that doesn't mean it's true.
I don't have any facts.
I don't have any evidence.
But if somebody acts exactly like they're under duress, What are you gonna assume?
If it's just once, you'd say, well, I guess I'm just confused.
But if it's all day long, every day for years, I'm gonna assume that there's somebody who wants to destroy the country who's pushing them in ways we don't understand.
Here's some more stupid fake news about Russia.
So, somebody named David Frum, And remember, I keep telling you, you have to know the players.
It doesn't help you to know what happened.
It only helps you to know who was behind it.
That's the news.
So David Frum is someone that, if you didn't know, would be one of the least credible people on the whole planet.
I don't need to go into the details, but in the history of politics, you'd have to look pretty hard to find somebody with lower credibility.
He's part of the propaganda part of the world.
And he writes in the Atlantic.
Do you know the Atlantic?
If you said to yourself, what happened?
Oh, there's a major publication with a story, you wouldn't know anything.
If you knew the Atlantic is basically just a Democrat tool for insulting Republicans, it's not anything like a publication.
It's just a political tool at this point.
So if you knew that Frum is the least credible person in the world and the Atlantic is the least credible publication, Then, does that make this story sound more understandable?
That Frum is writing that as Trump has neared renomination, his party, especially in the House of Representatives, has surrendered to his pro-Putin pressure.
Oh, big surprise!
The two least credible entities, David Frum and The Atlantic, are writing that Trump is pro-Putin during an election year.
Now, imagine if you didn't follow the news, and you didn't know the players.
You didn't know that the Atlantic is not to be trusted, and you didn't know that David Frum is a propagandist.
You would read this and you'd think, oh, this is kind of scary.
This is a little Putin.
But if you know the players, it's just sort of funny.
Because it's just so right in your face, how fake it is.
When I read it, I just laughed.
Really?
The Atlantic?
David Frum?
Now, here's my favorite mystery.
Reid Hoffman.
So we know that Reid Hoffman, or reportedly, maybe you shouldn't trust any news, but reportedly Reid Hoffman is the person who funded the Archie and Carol suit.
Do you think he did that because he really wants women to be heard and he cares about me too, and it's justice and he's helping this victim?
Does it feel like that's probably what's driving him?
I don't know, there are a lot of victims out there.
It's funny you picked this one.
So that seems a little, just purely political, some way to hurt Trump.
Then also, Reid Hoffman was a big funder of Nikki Haley.
Which is weird, because he's a Democrat.
And why would you fund a Republican who even the Republicans have some trouble with?
None of that makes sense, does it?
So if you were one of the PayPal geniuses, Literally a billionaire, literally a genius.
And three out of four of the ones you can name who are in PayPal are clearly on the same side of things, which I wouldn't call Republican.
I don't think that's what's going on.
I don't think that Musk or Sachs or Teal are pro-Republican.
That's just not the way I take them.
I take them as pro-makes-sense.
Make sense of it.
Make sense of the border.
Right?
Is that a Republican thing?
Or is that just everybody looking at it going, can you make some sense of this?
Can you close that thing?
Alright, that's not a Republican opinion.
The fact that we imagine it is, is just crazy.
That's just a logical opinion.
So why would it that Reid Hoffman, who's as smart as them, as well-informed as them, would be so on the opposite side?
And I'm going to say that whenever you see a mystery like this, it's probably outside influence.
So, I don't know what nature, but it looks like blackmail.
So I would assume that all the billionaires who are doing things that we don't understand are just blackmail.
Now, I don't have proof of that, but as a working assumption, almost everything in our government seems blackmail related.
Like everybody has some kind of influence, or pressure, or bribery, or knows something.
And I feel like our whole, that we live in a blackmailocracy.
We know that Epstein was a big old blackmailer.
We know that Reid Hoffman once went to the island.
There's no evidence, no claim whatsoever that he did anything, you know, improper.
Because there were a lot of people who went to the island.
They didn't all do anything improper.
So, and also I'm not sure I believe he necessarily went there.
All the stuff about who was on the Epstein list, I don't know that that's true.
So if you see a name on a list, whether it's Reid Hoffman or anything, don't assume it's true.
And don't assume that they did anything other than there was somebody who had a common interest and that's not unusual for people to get together if they have a common interest.
But, given that we know Epstein was a major blackmail operation, and then we see people who are acting in ways that don't seem to make sense for their own best interest or the country, to me the most logical assumption is some kind of influence.
No, I don't think it's mental illness.
Not in their case.
I mean, there's a lot of TDS, but I don't think Soros has TDS.
I doubt Reid Hoffman has TDS.
There's something else going on.
What about Mark Cuban?
He's a mystery too.
Another billionaire mystery.
So he's all in on DEI and diversity.
But watching him debate this in public is getting kind of hilarious, because his argument keeps getting smaller and smaller, because he's trying to find a way to publicly support discrimination.
He's tried to support racial discrimination against white people, but make an argument for it.
So here's where he retreated all the way to today.
So he was posting, I guess he was arguing with the Rabbit account.
He said, hypothetically, alright, you have 30 white male employees, and you think you can improve your profitability if instead of having 30 white male employees, if you had at least a black woman, you might get more perspective.
You get a diverse perspective, and that could help your company.
So he says, are you okay with hiring the black woman?
Or would you call that racial discrimination?
Let me ask you.
You got 30 white male employees, and maybe not because you discriminated, it just turned out that way.
So let's just use that as our hypothetical example.
And then you say to yourself, you know, I think I could do better work if I had a black woman, because she brings some diverse perspective.
Is that racial discrimination?
Of course it is, by definition.
That's exactly what it is.
But the question is, should it be okay?
Should that very narrowly specific thing, where you don't have diverse perspectives, but you know you could add it, Why do you think you would get the useful, diverse perspective from a black woman, but not from one of the 30 guys who's already there?
What, none of the 30 guys know any black people?
They don't have any insight whatsoever into that world?
They couldn't ask somebody?
No, it's just discrimination.
Would it work?
Maybe.
Is that ever a reason for racial discrimination?
Nope.
So I think the argument is, if it could make your company better, and you weren't doing it for racial reasons, would it be okay?
It could make you more profitable, and you're not doing it because you're a racist.
You're doing it just to make yourself more profitable.
No, it's not okay.
That's just racism.
Just racism.
We don't do that.
So why would Mark Cuban be in favor of something that is so hard to defend?
My guess is that he runs businesses that have a lot of diversity in them, and that's the end of the story.
If you were the leader of a bunch of companies that really, really valued diversity, and you had a lot of diversity, And then I would say, yeah, as the leader, you probably want to take into account that the people you lead have this opinion and supporting them actually makes sense from a business perspective.
From other perspectives, you could be mad at it, but it makes perfect sense that if you're a leader of a bunch of diverse people who like diversity, you should be pro-diversity.
I think I would be too, if you put me in the same situation.
I'd probably say what he says.
Because there'd be a lot of... I think there'd just be a lot of pressure to support the people that you work with.
I think we all understand that.
But let me try Mark's... Let's try Mark's example.
It's very narrow.
So let's say you had a basketball team that had only black players on it.
And you said to yourself, if we added a white player, we might get some white perspective.
Because what if the basketball players are bringing a black perspective to the game?
And I'm blind to it because I'm white, so I don't see it.
But shouldn't I add a white basketball player who is maybe not as strong as the rest to get that extra perspective?
I don't need to answer the question.
I'm pretty sure a basketball team is just picking the best shooters and blockers.
Anyway.
Putin's going to run again.
Looks like he's running for re-election.
So the Russia Election Commission has formally registered him for a March election.
You know what?
I don't like to go out on a limb and make predictions about politics because, you know, a lot could happen.
Putin running for re-election in Russia?
I'm gonna say I like his chances.
I'm gonna say I like his chances.
I don't know.
I'm just gonna put myself out there, take a risk.
Sometimes you gotta take a risk.
I like his chances.
Nancy Pelosi is suggesting that we should look into the pro-Palestinian protests because they have a connection to... Can you guess?
Anybody want to take a guess?
Nancy Pelosi, the pro-Palestinian protesters, they might be influenced by somebody from the outside who could be... Could it be Putin?
Yes.
That is what she's suggesting.
Is there evidence?
No, but it's an election year, so I'm sure we're going to blame Putin for everything.
All right, here's some fake news about Trump.
Surprise.
So you've heard the story, and even the GOP lawmakers are believing the story, that Trump is telling people, even his Republican friends, that he doesn't want a border deal because he'd rather run on the issue.
Does that sound true to you?
Does it sound true that Trump doesn't want to solve the border issue with a bill?
He doesn't want to solve it with the legislation that's being proposed.
But he wants to run on it instead.
So here's what they told us.
They said, Trump doesn't want Biden to have a border bill victory.
Does that sound true?
Trump doesn't want Biden to have a border bill victory.
Yeah, of course.
Because Biden could run on it.
Now, I think that's true.
Second part is, does Trump want to run on the issue?
Of course.
Well, who wouldn't?
It's the biggest issue.
Are we surprised he wants to run on the biggest issue in the country?
No.
But what's missing from it?
Have you spotted it?
Have you spotted the brainwashing propaganda?
There's something missing from the story.
So the parts they tell us, and this was in The Hill, I think, that he doesn't want Biden to have a legislative victory on the border, and that he wants to run on the issue.
I think both of those sound true.
But here's what's left out.
Does Trump think the border bill is good?
Isn't that the most important part of the story?
Because if Trump thinks the border bill is good, and he still wants to kill it so that he can win an election, well, fuck him.
I wouldn't support that.
Would you?
Who would support that?
I don't know any Republican who would support that.
But isn't the important part of the story is the legislation being considered making things better or worse?
My understanding is it codifies an untenable situation.
In other words, it lets in so many people, legally, that we'd still have a huge problem.
It wouldn't solve the problem, it would reduce it a little at best.
So if Trump is against a terrible legislation attempt, and given that he wouldn't want that to be signed under any condition, no matter who was president, Is it fair to say that Trump doesn't want Biden to have a border bill victory, and that Trump wants to run on the issue?
Both true.
But if you leave out that the border bill is garbage, it looks like he's just being a jerk.
If you know that the border bill makes things worse, not better, then you say, well, of course he wants to run on the issue.
Of course he doesn't want Biden to have success passing a bad bill.
Like, who exactly is fooled by this.
How many of you were fooled by this story, and you didn't realize the part left out is that Trump doesn't like the bill?
I'll bet a few of you.
I'll bet that even got a lot of Republicans.
It's just so obviously propaganda.
Well, here's some fun over in Gaza.
Two words you don't think you'll ever hear together.
So it turns out that Al Jazeera is reporting this.
Now, if you didn't know, Al Jazeera is considered one of the most reliable news outlets.
Were you aware of that?
That people who pay attention call Al Jazeera one of the most reliable?
But, with the exception of Israel stuff.
If Al Jazeera is reporting on Israel, That's not necessarily where they're going to be objective.
But on other stuff, if it has nothing to do with Israel, they're actually considered a good news source by a lot of people.
I'm not agreeing with that.
I'm just telling you that serious people think it's a good news source, except about the Middle East.
But they're reporting that several members of the Israeli government are on the same side as far-right people who want to resettle Gaza and make it basically an Israeli settlement.
Just never give it back to the Palestinians.
Are you surprised?
Are you surprised?
Yeah.
I don't see how this wouldn't happen.
It seems like terrible timing.
If I were these right-wing people, I'm not sure I would be doing this in public during the middle of a hot war.
That feels like a bad idea.
So I'm a little suspicious how much of this is true news, given the source.
But I wouldn't be surprised if people are pushing to keep Gaza an Israeli outpost or settlement, I guess.
In the long run, I think that's what's going to happen.
All right, here's a Civil War update on Texas versus the rest of the country.
I predicted That I told you that men are always fighting wars in their head.
So even if nobody's punching or shooting, we're always at war.
Sort of a continuous state of, what if this?
Could I beat this person?
You know, what if somebody comes in here with a gun?
What do I do?
We're always thinking, you know, how to defend ourselves.
It's just natural.
So, I predicted That the men who are going to protect the Texas border would prevail over Biden, and that Biden couldn't overrule them, it would just be too politically dangerous.
And that the Texans have decided that they're going to close the border, which is different from wanting it closed, and different from complaining, and different from proposing a way to close it.
Those are all wants.
Texas apparently has decided And once you've decided, then you will do whatever it takes.
And if the Biden administration wants to stop Texas, they're going to have to use violence at this point.
And I don't see any way that that makes sense in an election year, especially.
So to me, it was obvious that Texas would win this battle in the limited sense that the government is not going to take down their wire fence, at least during the election year.
So it looks like that's where it's headed.
Can't be sure yet, but I think the wire is going to stay up.
However, Rasmussen reports that 69% of likely U.S.
voters support Texas erecting their own barriers.
Now slightly less, 55% agree with the quote that Clay Iggins said, the feds are staging a civil war and Texas should stand their ground.
55% of the likely voters say Texas should stand its ground basically even if it's violent.
Imagine being the president, trying to solve this problem, and 55% of the electorate says, if it comes to violence, they don't say that directly, but that's how I interpret it, that if it comes to violence, they're going to back the state over the federal government.
And if I haven't said it directly, I'll say it right now.
If it comes to violence, I'm going to back Texas over the federal government.
I don't want to be any ambiguity about that.
Texas over the federal government on the border issue.
Now, I'm not looking for Texas to secede from the Union.
That's not my first choice.
But if the bullets start flying, I'm on Texas's side.
Period.
Because they're in the right.
That's just the way it has to be.
And with that understanding, I believe that at least the men in the administration are going to assess the situation exactly as I just did.
And they're going to say, we could use our bullets, and we could start locking people up like the governor.
But if we do, it's going to get really wet, and it's not going to be good for us.
So I think Texas is heading for something like a temporary victory on the border.
Now, of course, that will just push people to other border openings, so it won't do much for the overall immigration, except it will create a model where other states could emulate it.
Obviously, California won't.
So as long as California is open, you know, everybody can get in if they want to.
All right, so the other thing is there's this, I haven't heard too much about it, but the trucker protest.
Apparently there's going to be an American version of the Canadian truckers, but maybe some of the Canadian truckers are helping.
And I don't know how big it is or how organized it is or who organized it, but I'm a little bit suspicious about it because it feels a little bit like a trap.
I'm worried that the truckers are just putting a target on their backs like the January 6th people did.
And that what the Democrats really want is some violence from some right-leaning people.
That would be their orgasmic perfect situation.
Oh, can we get some violence going from people who like Trump?
So I would worry that the Trucker thing is not as organic and grassroots as it looks.
There might be something behind it.
That's a malign influence, so I'd be concerned about that.
And under today's environment, I don't think I would protest anything unless you were down to win at all costs.
And usually protests are not a win at all costs, because all costs includes, you know, all costs.
Generally, our protests are about talking, and we want a political solution.
So, in our current environment, protesting for a political solution is just painting a target on your back, because we don't have free speech the way we used to.
Now you've got a jail.
We've got jails that got quite a few political protesters in it, called the January 6th people.
Now, of course, if you're a Democrat, and you're a fucking idiot, and you wandered into this livestream, you're saying, but, but, Scott, but, but, they committed some crimes!
I'm sorry they did this to you.
I really am.
I'm genuinely, I look at the Democrats as victims, to be so brainwashed into thinking that, you know, either all the people in jail committed an actual crime, How could you think that?
Of course there were some crimes, and those people will deal with the justice system as they should.
But no, the January 6 jailings are not legitimate.
They're political.
Purely political.
Yeah.
And we do have a potential solution to it.
And I've said this before, but I'll say it again.
I would support Trump if every one of his policies were wrong, but he supported pardons for the jailed people, including Peter Navarro.
If he just said that, I'd say, OK, the first thing we have to fix is free speech.
So fix that.
Get the free speech protesters out of jail.
And I'd say Navarro, too.
I don't think he's legitimately charged.
Now, when I say legitimate, I don't mean that there isn't some technical violation.
I just mean it wouldn't be addressed the same way.
Yeah, they're more like hostages, you're right.
So I probably would have supported whoever was a Republican candidate, LeVake or Trump or whoever it was, who would just pardon him.
Because you've got to fix free speech first.
That's first.
If you don't get that, everything else is unfixable.
So, yeah, policies are a bonus if you like Trump's policies.
I'm not even sure I'll ever argue them.
I mean, immigration's obvious, so I'll argue that one.
But I don't know what to do in Ukraine.
Not really.
I don't know what to do anywhere else.
Not really.
I'm not sure anybody does.
But if we could get to that one thing, just the one thing, we have to reverse the January 6th hoax.
Because the January 6th hoax is maybe the worst thing that I've ever seen happen to the country.
You know, violence, of course, always looks worse.
But in terms of the Republic, I think even McCarthyism maybe wasn't as bad as January 6.
Not the attack, the hoax of it.
The attack was, you know, had some violence and that's bad.
But what was worse was that it was treated as an insurrection when it clearly was a protest to protect the country, not overthrow it.
Somebody says you looked at Al Jazeera and the first article was about climate change and Sierra Leone.
Alright.
Razor wire can be easily mended with baling wire.
Is that true?
Maybe it is.
You can fix it with razor wire too.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best short livestream you're going to see today.
Hope you learned something about persuasion.
That's always my goal, to make you smarter than watching regular news.
And I'm going to say bye now to the three platforms.
I'm going to say bye to YouTube, Rumble, and the X Platform.
