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, Neuralink, Elon Musk, AWFLs, Michael Malice, Texas Trucker Convoy, Techno-Optimists, Internet Dads, VP Harris, Migrant Terrorists, Border Negotiations, Physical Security Negotiations, TikTok Sensitive Data, FDA Rule Change, Uninformed Risk, Gender Pay Gap, President Biden, Democrat Policy Preferences, FAA Code Words, J6 SCOTUS Ruling, John Cusack, TikTok Government Influence, Anti-Depressant Liberals, Observation vs. Gaslighting, Iran Tensions, Biden Gaslighting, Taylor Swift Conspiracy Theory, Travis Kelce Pfizer, Abby Phillip, Mark Cuban DEI, E. Jean Carroll, IranScott 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 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because there's gonna be a little of that.
But if you'd like to take your Your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand.
Well, all you need for that is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, 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, the dopamine hit 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.
Possibly one of the best ever.
Well, I got lots of stories today, so I'm going to breeze right through them.
Today we got a theme.
Show's always better when there's a theme.
You're going to like it.
But first, the weather.
So yesterday was 72 degrees in Northern California, where I live.
Today, I think it's going to be about 68 or so, the high.
And you know, when I was a kid, we used to call this Indian Summer.
Some people complain and say, no, it's only Indian summer if it's in the autumn.
But I'm telling you what we called it.
I'm not saying what you called it.
Where I grew up, if it was winter and it was unseasonably warm, especially in January, we'd call it Indian summer.
But of course, that was racist.
Super racist.
It's not Indian summer.
If anything, it's Native American summer.
We apparently were racist back then and didn't know it.
But we're also scientifically illiterate.
Because what I thought was just a normal thing, whereas sometimes it gets warmer in the summer, or the winter, I mean.
It's no longer called Indian summer.
It's called, checking notes, climate change.
Climate change.
Yeah.
So if you have a warm day, like every other winter in your entire life, now it's called climate change.
So remember that.
Here's a little update on AI.
I am going to be your guinea pig who represents a citizen who is not a technical expert trying to use AI as a normal person.
So far, Not quite as easy as you dope.
So I spend much of the day using an app called Descript.
So it's like Description, but without the I-O-N at the end.
And it's really powerful.
It does a whole bunch of things to your videos.
So it can replace words that you got wrong with your own voice, which is amazing.
It can get rid of your ahs and ums.
It can compress it.
It just does like, I don't know, maybe ten different things.
That you would very much want your video to be able to do.
So I spent a few hours yesterday trying to learn it, and my first take is, I think the AI apps have rushed interfaces.
Meaning that I think a lot of people were trying to get the technology to market pretty fast.
Which makes sense, because it's sort of a gold rush.
And I think the interface quality, the user interface, maybe needs a little work.
So, for example, using Descript, it does all those things.
It really does have a lot of power.
But if you were trying to do what I was trying to do, which is take a live video that I create in the morning like this, and then within a few hours add timestamps and get rid of the imperfections and improve the quality and do all the things I can do, It would kind of take you all day.
Now, if the app worked really fast and did everything you thought it would do and it was easy to use and all that, you know, it would probably take half an hour.
Something like that.
But getting through the interface and getting through the bugs, it's really hard to crawl through it.
So I don't think it's quite there for an average user.
I'm probably an above average user for my age.
Age adjusted.
And it's too hard to use.
It's actually too hard to use.
For, I would say, 70-80% of the public.
Now, I will use it, and I can use it, and I'll spend a few more days to know how to use it properly, but I don't know that it will ever work fast enough that I can turn my live video into something while it's still relevant the same day.
We'll see.
I'll keep you informed.
But I can tell you just playing with it that the few things it does are just mind-boggling.
I just have to learn how to get through the interface.
It's kind of tough.
Neuralink, you know Elon Musk's product that puts a little chip in your skull?
The first human brain implant has happened.
And it's too early to know if it worked.
But the idea, I think, is for people who are paralyzed, if I'm correct.
I think the first use is paralyzed people trying to get control of their bodies.
And there was some early indication it might be the early stage of beginning to work.
But that was not why I mentioned it.
I feel like Elon Musk is a one-man Overton window.
He has so many different businesses, and they're all relevant to something that's happening in the news, that no matter what he's doing in one business, if he wants to change the topic, he can just make some news in his other business.
Oh, you don't like something about his electric cars?
Well, I just put a chip in somebody's head!
Oh, you don't like something he's doing in space?
He just puts satellites up to put internet to everywhere, including war zones.
He's like a one-man Overton window.
He can actually control the news by his own news.
He can divert you from anything he doesn't want you to think about just by what he's doing today.
It's the damnedest power.
Anyway.
So, Elon Omar.
who came from Somalia, is trying to correct people.
And in a post, she says, FYI, Somali people are called Somalis, not Somalians.
If you're going to talk about us, at least try to get the ethnicity right.
Thank you.
All right, so they're Somalis, not Somalians.
But then I have a question.
What is a Somalier?
Now, I don't know the answer to that, but somebody suggested it's some kind of a wine pirate, or it's somebody who helps you pick the alcohol that will make you forget Somalia.
I think it's one of those things.
We don't know.
But while we're trying to figure out the world and Michael Malice is helping us, With a new acronym, you've heard of DINKS, right?
Dual Income No Kids.
They call that a DINK.
And there are other little funny things like that.
But Michael Malice has a new one for Affluent White Female Liberals.
A-W-F-L.
He calls them Awfuls.
A-W-F-Ls.
So the Awfuls are the suburban moms who have this collective mental illness, and Michael Malice was on Trigonometry recently, and he said about the Awfuls, he said, for them, having a trans kid is like winning the lottery.
I've been laughing about that for two days.
For the awfuls, having a trans kid is like winning the lottery because it's all about their attention and their awesomeness and some kind of thing.
Anyway.
The Awfuls.
Now, how important is it that this group of people gets a nickname like the Karens or the Awfuls?
It's the sort of thing that if it caught on could really actually change society.
Yeah, you wouldn't want to be an Awful.
It's actually a really powerful frame.
So, Michael Malice knows how to do this stuff, so pay attention to him.
Well, apparently the so-called Trucker Convoy is on its way to help Texas reinforce the border.
Now, one estimate by an organizer, Craig Hudgens, is that they might have 40,000 truckers.
40,000.
And so I quickly did some math, and I said to myself, how long is a truck, a tractor and trailer?
The answer is about 53 feet.
So if you took 40,000 trucks and you put them end-to-end, it would be over 2 million miles of trucks.
No, not miles.
2 million feet.
It'd be over 2 million feet of trucks.
Which would be approximately 400 miles of trucks.
How long is the border itself?
Like 2,200 miles?
They're bringing 400 miles of trucks.
Just leave them there.
You're about 20% done with the job.
Just leave the trucks.
Just put a little barbed wire on top, maybe underneath a little bit, and you're done.
So we'll see what happens there.
I worry about the truckers being, you know, doxed and being debanked.
And by the way, to the writers at Saturday Night Live, debanked, it's a real word in the real world.
All right, getting to my theme of the day.
Axios, which is allegedly a news organization, marginally, put together sort of a, I guess it'd be an article, about people they call the techno-optimists, because they couldn't figure out what to call them.
And they are the so-called high-tech, often rich people, and I guess their universe.
People who are changing politics.
And here are the names that they put on the list.
Barry Weiss and Nellie Bowles, who apparently are married, but they're sort of in this alternative news universe that they're trying to call the techno-optimists.
Now the names that they mention in this universe, just listen to these names and see what they have in common.
Joe Rogan, Bill Ackerman, hedge fund guy, Elon Musk, David Sachs, Mark Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Lex Friedman, and the other people on the All In podcast.
What do they have in common?
Well, according to Axios, they're the techno-optimists, and they're gaining political power Because more and more people are sort of watching them.
But here's some other interesting things they have in common.
Many of them seem to have started as Democrats.
So Joe Rogan was actually just recently saying he used to be deep blue, but California went crazy, so he couldn't stick with it anymore.
And so Joe Rogan was out Bill Ackman was a Democrat until, well, he's still a Democrat, but when Harvard went all DEI crazy, he kind of got woke.
Or he woke up, I guess.
Elon Musk was always a Democrat, but now he's more about what works.
I don't know about David Sachs, but I don't see him as a lifetime Republican.
I don't know what he is.
Probably independent.
Then you got Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, big hedge fund guys.
Then you got Matt Taibbi, Democrat.
Glenn Greenwald, lifetime Democrat.
Now, don't you think that they should have mentioned somewhere in the article how many of these came from Democrat worlds that they escaped?
I feel like You guys, some of you are such assholes, honestly.
You couldn't get through this without yelling Jews.
A lot of Jews in that list, people are telling me in the comments.
Suspicious bunch of Jews.
Is there anything you can't see that way?
Because, you know, almost all the news is about successful people.
Almost all of the news has at least one rich, political, successful person.
Right?
There's going to be a lot of Jews in there.
Do you think you can handle that?
It doesn't always have to be about your worldwide global Jewish conspiracy.
Not every single fucking story.
Sometimes you can let it rest.
This would be one of those times.
Just let it rest.
Jesus.
Anyway, so here's what I think they got wrong in the story, but they're close.
They're sniffing in the right place.
These techno-optimists are not, that's not what unites them.
Here's what unites the techno-optimists, as they call them.
They're all dads, I think.
I don't know that for sure, but I think every one of them is literally a father.
And I think that's what actually binds them together, is that they're seeing that there's a tremendous failure on the part of the elected people, the people in charge.
And I think it's not, the reason it doesn't look political, like you can't sort out who's a Democrat, who's a Republican in this group of people.
The reason you can't sort it out is that that's not the organizing principle, right?
The organizing principle is that they're mostly dads.
Now, there are two married women who are married to each other on the list, and I don't know if they plan to have any children, but they're fairly... I don't think they've been married that long.
Anyway, the point is, people with kids.
Seems like people with kids.
They also left out, and I think this is important, a whole bunch of independent journalists who I'm quite sure are the ones influencing this group.
So what Axios is getting a little bit right, but they're missing at least half of the story, is that these are a group of people who are being influenced also by something.
They're not just the people who are influencing others, they're also being influenced.
And the people that they're being influenced by are lesser famous.
You know, a lot of the independent, you know, journalists that I tweet all the time.
So I think that part of the story is missing.
The growth of the independent journalists.
All right, so here's my theme of the day.
What would cause the rise of all these internet dads?
What is it that all these These people, these so-called techno-optimists, what got them interested in speaking out on politics more than they ever have?
What's different?
Well, part of it, as Axios points out, the podcasting world is bigger, and that gives a whole new power network.
So that's part of it.
But let's look at some other things that are happening in the world that might have activated the Internet dads.
Let's see if there's anything happening in the world that you might look at and say, uh-oh, it looks like that's not going to take care of itself.
It looks like maybe I need to get involved here.
I didn't really want to be.
I'd rather just do my techno stuff.
But maybe I need to get involved.
Let's look at a few things.
Gavin Newsom reminds us that the economy is booming, inflation is cooling, and oh my god, is the economy looking good.
If you were a member of the economy, and you talk to anybody who's, you know, younger than 65 and doesn't have a fortune already, they're gonna tell you that they don't feel like the economy is good.
I do understand that some of the numbers are looking positive, but that doesn't seem to be working out in people's actual life experience.
If you're young, buying a house looks largely impossible.
So, could it be That people are realizing they've been gaslit on this economy situation.
Do they believe that President Biden delivered them the good economy?
Or are they saying, hey, I feel like our government is lying to us.
So what exactly did Biden do to improve the economy?
Go!
Tell me in the comments all the things you're aware of that Biden did That specifically helped the economy.
Go!
I can't think of anything.
I know the Fed lowered interest rates, but the Fed operates independently, somewhat.
Right?
So they can't take credit for the Fed.
Was it the... Oh, the infrastructure bill that has barely been spent.
What?
Did he lower taxes?
No.
Did he lower, let's say, regulations?
No, he didn't decrease regulations.
He may have increased them.
Did he improve, let's say, the operation of the free market?
No.
He pushed DEI.
And ESG, which are really a drag on the market, you know, sort of an unproductive thing that the business has to do.
So maybe the reason that the techno-optimists are involved is because they see that the news is lying to people.
And they're just trying to explain what's really happening in the world because it's useful to know what's real.
Is there any other reason that people would think the government couldn't handle it on its own?
Well, let's see.
We've got an exclusive story here.
Apparently the federal governments have caught this Al-Shabaab terrorist who was caught at the border and then released to Rome freely for a year before he was arrested in Minnesota a few days ago.
So our government is allowing known terrorists into the country.
I wonder what would cause the internet dads to think they needed to get involved.
Could it be that their government is allowing massive numbers of military-age people into the country and some of them are known terrorists and they're letting them free?
I mean, that's the sort of thing that would make you say, hey, maybe I should get involved.
Kamala Harris reminds us what is at stake in the 2024 election.
Freedom.
Freedom is on the ballot.
Yeah.
Do you know why Kamala Harris says that freedom is on the ballot?
Because they don't have any policy issues to run on.
They don't have any success to run on that's real, that isn't just gaslighting because we're coming off a pandemic and everything gets better after a pandemic.
Yeah, when one party has to say stuff like, freedom is on the ballot, and they can't say stuff like, close the border, right?
What does Trump say?
Close the border.
That's a real thing.
That's a thing you could do.
You could do it or not do it, but it's a real thing.
But no, Kamala Harris wants you to think that freedom's on the ballot.
Well, but at least the government is spending our money well, you know, when they're not gaslighting us.
Let's see how well they're spending our money.
Oh, well, five Ukrainian officials have been arrested over theft of $40 million in war funds as Ukrainian corruption continues.
So, I don't want to make a big deal of this, but Russia has never stolen my money.
That I know of.
That I know of.
Russia has never taken a dime from me.
Not really.
But the Ukrainians have taken $40 million of tax money, some of which was mine.
I paid some of those taxes.
So Ukraine is stealing money from me while I'm funding their defense.
That's the sort of thing that would make an Internet dad want to get involved.
Because you look at the government and you say, are we really not accounting for the billions of dollars we're giving to other countries while we're falling apart?
Yeah, that'll get your internet dads involved.
How about this?
House Republicans and the House Democrats are still trying to negotiate some kind of a border deal.
A border deal?
Apparently Mike Johnson, The Speaker of the House, Republican, thinks they can get some kind of a border deal done if they, you know, maybe if the Ukraine funding is part of the deal.
Let me give you some advice from an Internet dad, because apparently the government needs it.
You don't negotiate your personal security.
There are things you do negotiate.
For example, money.
Money.
Power.
Who does what.
What policies we'll put into play.
That stuff.
Do you know what you don't negotiate on?
How many terrorists you let into the country.
How many people we don't know what their intentions are or what they would do into the country?
That is physical security.
You don't negotiate physical security.
Do you know who knows that?
A guy who wrote a book on negotiating.
Trump.
He doesn't negotiate physical security.
In what world do adults negotiate physical security?
That's not an adult action.
Absolutely not adult.
Do you know what you need?
You need some techno-optimists to tell you this is not a negotiation topic.
You don't say, oh, if you give us some Ukraine funding, we'll reduce the number of murderers coming into your country by a little bit.
No.
Zero is the right fucking number.
Until we get a handle on it.
And then, of course, I'd like a healthy flow of immigrants in the future, if we can vet them and know who they are and get rid of the terrorists.
But no.
If you've got Republicans and Democrats, both parties, who think that physical security of the country is something they can negotiate on, You need somebody, an adult, to tell you what you negotiate on and what you don't.
Let me give you another example.
Fentanyl coming into the country.
Both Trump and Biden got that wrong.
I'm going to shit on Trump for a minute.
Neither of them stopped it.
Do you know why they didn't stop it?
They acted like it's negotiable.
You know, China, you know, you should do this and maybe we could be better friends and stuff.
No!
You should close their embassies, send them home, send every fucking Chinese citizen home until there's no more fentanyl coming in the country.
Why are we negotiating that?
Stop negotiating things that are not negotiations.
That's crazy.
All right.
So maybe you do need some internet dads.
How about, uh, How about Gaza?
It's the same thing.
Why is there anybody in our government suggesting to Israel that they shouldn't negotiate with what would be a nation of terrorists living on their border who would certainly try to regroup and do it again?
Who in the world is telling Israel that they shouldn't negotiate?
Again, this is physical security.
These are not negotiations.
And Israel's smart enough to know that.
So they're not.
And don't expect them to.
Do not expect them to negotiate.
That would be insane.
And they're not gonna.
I don't think they will.
Let's see, TikTok apparently said it walled off the U.S.
data so that China wouldn't have access to any of the Chinese company's data.
Well, it turns out that some employees say the data is still sometimes shared with its China-based parent.
How about that's a big surprise?
How about that's a really big surprise?
Do you know how you can tell if TikTok has access to sensitive data and it's giving it to China?
Do you know how you can tell?
Because it's China and it's sensitive data.
Do you know who needs to explain that to you?
An internet dad.
Because apparently the government doesn't understand that you don't give sensitive data to your enemy, certainly who has access to it.
How in the world were you planning to audit this process?
When TikTok told you, oh, we promise we'll keep this walled off, did you think there was some physically possible way that you could check that?
How are you going to check that?
So you do a surprise visit to the office, you say, show us your code.
That's not going to show you anything.
All they have to do is open up a channel, grab everything they want and be done with it.
Hide the records.
How hard would it be?
How hard would it be for China to get access to that without the U.S.
knowing that they'd violated some agreement with TikTok?
You don't negotiate things like this.
Again, maybe some adults need to get involved because you don't negotiate stuff like this.
Yes, you can send your spies over.
We'll let them be on staff in the White House.
But here's what we'll do.
We'll make them promise that they won't tell you anything.
What?
Yeah, it's okay.
Yeah, we have some Chinese spies working in the White House.
They're on staff and they have access to all our secrets.
But the good news is we made them promise they wouldn't tell China.
Would you ever do that?
We just did that.
That's what we're doing with TikTok.
You're going to promise you're not going to tell China, right?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Tell China.
That's crazy.
Why would you even do that?
Okay, again, this is not Democrat and it's not Republican.
This is crazy.
To allow this to continue.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr.
and some others are pointing out that the FDA has changed their rule change here that allows them to do clinical trials that have minimal risk, that's in quotes, minimal risk, without informed consent of the humans who are testing the therapies or the meds.
So, in other words, if the medical people think That whatever it is they want to test on you, medically, if they think it doesn't look like a risk, then they can go ahead and not tell you what the risks are, because it doesn't look like a risk.
Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, that's just common sense.
If the risk is, you know, minimal, why do you really need to inform people about the risk?
But here's the problem, as RFK Jr.
and anybody who has any experience with any big entity knows, as soon as you open that door, then there will be bad actors saying, you know, it looks like minimal risk to me.
Now, as RFK Jr.
says, can you think of any therapy that all the experts agreed was perfectly safe, but turned out not to be?
Well, you know, he's obviously talking about the COVID shots.
I think he's exaggerating a little here.
In the sense that I don't think all the experts said the shots were perfectly safe.
I think all the experts said these shots will kill some people, because stuff like this always kills some people.
So I don't think anybody said they were perfectly safe.
I think they were arguing the risk-benefit, and they may have gotten the risk-benefit wrong.
But yeah, I think he's stretching the point a little bit.
But his base point, that as soon as you say minimal risk is okay, it's going to get abused.
But let me give you an example of what I hope it means.
There are a number of things that the FDA is only mildly interested in because it's an external device.
So here's an example.
Let's say you had a device that vibrated your arm when you snored.
And it's only purpose was to wake you up so that you didn't have a sleep apnea.
I'm just making this one up.
I think there might be something like that, but I'm just making it up.
If you went to the FDA, under the old rules, they'd say, you better do a, you know, a trial, you know, a $10 million multi-person trial with the control.
And then the company would say, are you kidding?
It's literally just a thing that vibrates on your arm 10 times a night.
You actually think somebody's going to die because they have a little thing on their arm that vibrates at 10 times a night.
All right, so that's what minimal risk is.
So minimal risk looks like things like that, where even a reasonable person, you know, who's not a medical doctor would say, yeah, okay, you can let that one go.
So there is a utility to it.
There is a utility to lowering that standard, and it would make a lot of things available faster.
But, RFK Jr.
is right.
There probably needs to be something The police is, who gets to say it's minimal risk?
Or maybe just transparency is enough.
If you saw that example that I just gave you, of a hypothetical device that just vibrates your arm to stop you from snoring, if you heard that was one of the things they said was minimal risk, you'd say to yourself, okay, that one's okay.
So maybe they just need a little extra?
It should be transparent to the world why they say it's minimal risk.
That would be fair to me.
I would be okay with that.
As long as they say why they're saying it, then that's a form of informed consent.
We're saying it's not dangerous because all it does is vibrate your arm, but you decide.
If they're going to give you a pill that has active ingredients, and they're going to tell me that that's minimum, minimal risk, Hmm, maybe not.
But suppose, suppose they said we're going to test ivermectin to see if it works with COVID.
Do you want them to do a total clinical trial, 10 million dollars, five years later?
Or do you want them to say, you know what, It's minimal risk because we've had it around forever and maybe we should just, you know, repurpose it.
Which you could have done anyway.
The doctors could do that on their own.
But it would give them a little cover if they repurposed it and said it's been tested.
So there are cases where that minimal standard is useful to you as well.
Anyway.
Elon Musk had to go public.
He felt it was necessary to back Matt Walsh.
Who's saying that the moon landing is real.
So both Elon Musk and Matt Walsh are concerned.
So many people believe the moon landing was faked.
And indeed, I think something like 40 percent of the country is suspicious of it.
But at the same time, Elon Musk needed to go public separately to say that he's not aware of any aliens.
You know, he's not seen any evidence of aliens.
Now, why do you think that this is necessary?
Why do these guys have to do this?
Well, first of all, I would note that they're both internet dads, right?
So they're, even though Matt Walsh was not mentioned as one of these, you know, techno optimists, because he's not a techno guy, he's in that family.
He's in that world of dads who are just doing things that are not stupid.
Stop doing stupid things.
I'm a dad.
I'm going to try to stop you from doing stupid things.
So he lives in that world.
But here's the bigger picture I saw.
If you need a Matt Walsh and an Elon Musk to say in public that moon landing was real, The reason for that is that the public has been gaslit so much, and we've seen so many hoaxes that were literally government ops, that it is no longer crazy to imagine that something like a moon landing was faked.
Now, I don't think it was.
My personal belief is that it was real and that way too many people were involved with it, which is what Matt Walsh says.
Way too many people were involved with it for that secret to last this long.
But I don't think we would even, I don't think we would be as likely to believe it if we didn't live through an era in which we know for sure the government lied to us about even the biggest things in the world.
The biggest things in the world they lied to us about.
Yeah.
So, that's a use for the internet dads.
Again, their rising power is because of rising utility.
That's the thing you need to know.
The reason that there's a rise in this power of the sort of non-political party power is because it has utility.
It was a big gigantic hole in the universe that needed to be filled with just rational people.
Hey, I'm just a rational person.
Let me tell you what I see.
That's the hole they're filling.
Let's talk about Pakistan.
Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets.
Well, thank God the United States is not like Pakistan.
Am I right?
Pakistan is backwards, practically third world country.
Can you imagine if somebody came into power in the United States and then they tried to prosecute a previous leader, prior leader, for leaking some state secrets?
Let's see, where were the state secrets?
Apparently Imran Khan was keeping his state secrets in boxes at Mar-a-Lago.
Oh.
Well, okay.
Now I get it.
They were in boxes.
No, they weren't.
I'm just making that up.
But if you haven't connected the dots yet, the United States has become more like Pakistan in that Joe Biden is trying to prosecute the prior president for state secrets that he kept in boxes in Mar-a-Lago.
So, yeah, maybe that's why the country thinks they need some adult leadership.
So Biden posted that he's trying to solve the gender pay gap, which, as you know, is if you watch the show, you probably know it's imaginary.
There's nobody here who thinks the gender pay gap is real, is there?
Make yourself known in the comments.
Do any of you think the so-called gender pay gap is real?
I already know the answer.
Yeah, none of you do.
And the reason you know it's not real is what?
Why is it you know and Biden seems to act like he doesn't know?
Because you get real news.
Do you know where you saw that real news?
Probably.
On the internet.
How many of you saw that real news in a mainstream TV show?
You might have.
You might have seen John Stossel say it.
You might have seen some opinion person on Fox say it.
But Biden can say this to his base because they don't get real news.
So here are some of the things that Biden believes are true.
And I wondered, are any of the Democrat policies based on anything but hoaxes?
Listen to this list of things that the Democrats want you to believe.
There's a gender pay gap.
No, there isn't.
That the climate is going to kill you.
All of the recent evidence suggests exactly the opposite.
We're getting greener.
That's some new news.
Steve Malloy is talking about that.
So the world has gotten greener.
The glacier is about the same, or growing, or at least the ice caps, I guess.
And nothing seems to be underwater yet.
And the storms are not getting worse.
But yeah, climate alarm.
And then, of course, there was the Find People hoax that Biden actually did his last campaign around, something that literally didn't happen, the Find People hoax.
Then they're worried about Trump's chaos, which, again, is a narrative.
It's not something that happens.
You know, it's not like there's more chaos than there is under Biden, but they're going to run on chaos.
Then they're going to run on the lack of freedom.
They're going to take your freedom away.
That's not real.
It's the opposite.
Then there was the Russia collusion hoax.
Then there's the hoax that Biden can't shut the border unless he gets a bill.
Even though every single person in America knows that Trump shut the border sufficiently without a bill, they're telling you that they need a bill to do it.
even though all the things that biden did to reverse trump is what the problem was all right and we What else?
Then there's the equity is a good system argument.
So the Democrats are selling the idea that equity, as opposed to merit, is a good system.
That is completely imaginary.
There's no system in the history of humankind that has ever worked on equity.
Can't work, doesn't work on paper, never worked in reality, and they're trying to sell it.
It's a hoax.
How about the teachers' unions are good?
That's probably the most harmful hoax in the country, is that the teachers' unions are a force for good and they're helping your kids get educated.
Of course it's exactly the opposite.
So, I don't think there's anything that Democrats are running on that is actually even real.
So that's the reason they have to say stuff like, you have to solve for Trump's chaos, and he must be a spy for somebody, whatever they'll make up next, and he must be stealing some money somehow, and he must have done all these things.
The reason is because all of their policy preferences are based on imaginary things.
Now, why am I telling you that, but your news is not?
Why has CNN not once said, you know, honestly, we look at this list of Democrat stuff.
It's all imaginary.
It's because they're part of it.
The news is part of the imaginary gas land.
So they can't tell you.
All right.
See, do you think that the Internet dads were activated by the fact that the Democrats are not even dealing with anything related to facts or reality?
Of course.
That's pretty alarming.
Here's another story from somebody named Austin, who's the founder and CEO of Bloom Tech.
Apparently this has been verified, I think it's true, that the FAA gave secret code words to students in the Black Caucus of Federal Aviation Employees to put on their resumes so they would go to the front of the line.
That's right.
The FAA told the Black Caucus of Federal Aviation Employees how to use their race to get ahead of white people by putting a secret code on their resumes.
But in another instance, they were told that if they say their worst class in school was science, that they received their lowest grades in science, That that would be another way to indicate that they were a minority candidate.
Yeah, let me say that again.
The way that you would go to the front of the line to become a pilot, I guess?
No, just to be in the federal aviation, I guess.
I don't know if it's pilot per se.
But you go to the front of the line for hiring if you said your worst grade was science, because according to them, that would identify you as a minority.
So, I don't think I have to point out that that's the most racist thing I've ever seen in my life.
Not only the assumption that if you're a minority, you're certainly going to be doing bad at math.
This is coming from the FAA?
What?
So, I'm not... I would do a fact check on this story.
I don't trust myself on this story.
I feel like there might be some context missing, I hope.
Like, I hope it's not exactly true.
But here's the important thing.
If you're wondering about the Black Caucus of Federal Aviation Employees, you probably said, I've never even heard of that.
That's because it's one of your smaller caucuses.
Yeah, the Black Caucus of Federal Aviation Employees.
It's a very small caucus.
Don't confuse that with the big black caucus.
So it's not a big black caucus.
It's a smaller one.
Um, you probably didn't know what FAA stands for.
Uh, it stands for Flying African Americans.
FAA.
Flying African.
It could mean, um, Flying Alcoholics Anonymous.
Um, and it, maybe it only seems that way, but, you know, who knows.
Anyway, um, here's some good news.
Uh, turns out, I didn't know about this, but Did you know that one of the January 6th detainees, one of the ones who had held on the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, his last name is Adams?
Did anybody know that?
I just found that out today.
That's right.
The January 6th committee fucked with an Adams.
Let me tell you how that's working out for him.
Adams was just released, pending, the Supreme Court looking at whether obstruction of justice is even a real charge.
That could even be something they could be charged with.
Yeah, don't fuck with an Adams.
He not only got himself out of jail, he brought it to the Supreme Court, and he's gonna get probably another 300 people out of jail.
So, if there's one thing my family does, We don't just escape from the jail.
No.
First we escape from the jail, then we release the other prisoners, and then we burn down the jail and kill the warden.
Right?
You don't fuck with my family.
No, I say my family.
I'm not related to them closely, but I figure all Adamses are, you know, somewhere far back in Great Britain somewhere.
They probably are all connected.
So every time I see an Adams break something that needed to be broken, John Adams, for example, breaking the whole fricking country.
Yeah.
Every time I see it, I go, there you go.
That needed to be broken.
I'm glad, glad one of my people did it.
So yeah.
So the Supreme Court's going to look at at least 300 of the 1,000 people because the only charge they're in jail for is this obstructing a government proceeding.
So we'll see how that goes.
Good luck.
John Cusack is learning that Well, let me tie this last story back to the theme.
So there might be 300 people out of 1,000 who are in jail for a made-up charge.
If the Supreme Court says, this isn't even valid, that's what it will look like.
So is there some reason that you think the internet dads would feel that they needed to get involved because the system wasn't working right?
Mm-hmm.
Yep, here's one.
And John Cusack, famous Democrat supporter, is learning that his own team hates him and that you joined the wrong team.
So apparently John Cusack is coming under fire completely unfairly.
Now let me say as clearly as possible I'm not a fan of John Cusack for his political opinions.
However, he does seem to be unfairly targeted for anti-Semitism that doesn't appear to be justified at all.
And if you're going to go after a Hollywood actor for anti-Semitism, you know that ends his career, even if it's not true.
So don't put me in a situation where I have to go all internet dad and be supporting John Cusack, but I am.
Leave this fucking guy alone.
All he asks for is a ceasefire in Gaza.
Now, I disagree with a ceasefire in Gaza.
I think Israel needs to finish the job, and they will, so it doesn't matter what I think.
But that is not a crazy opinion.
It's not crazy to say, stop fighting.
It's not a good plan, because I don't know what you would do instead.
But it's not crazy.
This is not the thing you destroy people over.
If you didn't have somebody on the other side saying, stop fighting, all the time, you would miss them.
Let me say that again.
You can disagree with the people who say, cease fire.
And I do, in this case.
But man, do you need them.
You so need the ceasefire people every single time, no matter what the situation is.
You got to have people on the other side because otherwise things just go out of control.
So I don't love John Cusack's political opinions, but damn, you need some.
You need to use some Cusack in the mix.
Otherwise you don't have a control on your, your aggression and you need it.
So, do you think John Cusack is learning that maybe this whole political left versus right thing isn't working out for him?
And what he really needed was an internet dad.
So, because this was a gigantic hole that was not being filled, which is somebody who's not crazy and not one of his fans saying this is wrong, I filled it.
That's what the internet dads are doing.
And that's why people are giving them some credibility.
That's why somebody who is a lifelong Democrat is being completely credible to Republicans today, because they're not being crazy.
That's all they needed to do.
You can be a Democrat.
Just don't be fucking crazy.
And you're fine.
You get along fine.
So what did John Cusack said?
He said something I disagree with.
But it's not crazy.
So I'm going to defend him.
Because that's what the Internet dad should do.
All right.
TikTok, according to Zero Hedge, TikTok spent 1.5 billion dollars Building up an operation intended to convince U.S.
lawmakers that TikTok is safe.
Actually, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that.
Zero Hedge was just tweeting it.
Or posting it.
Now, how much does $1.5 billion buy you?
Do you think they spent that all on ads?
Was that even just a direct bribe?
As in, you know, if you support me, there might be a big donation coming to that thing you support that isn't connected to TikTok or you, but, you know, it's just gonna get a lot more money all of a sudden.
Stuff like that?
So, how's that working out?
Do you need any adults to sort this out for you?
Here, let me sort it out for you.
TikTok is owned by China.
China wants to influence us.
TikTok is basically turning your sons into daughters and your daughters into sons, and probably killing reproductive impulses in this country for a generation.
And who knows what else?
And they spent $1.5 billion in what was probably pretty shady expenses to bribe and influence this country.
But you think they should stay?
You think TikTok should stay and that that's okay?
No, you need dad to say, get the fuck out of here with your TikTok.
Cause there's no way you can make it safe.
No way you can make it safe.
Stop pretending.
Don't gaslight us.
Um, actually St.
Clair was, uh, uh, she's been posting and talking about the, The so-called connection between antidepressants and suicide rates.
And she said today on a post that antidepressants double the risk of suicide for people under 25, yet they're handed out like candy.
Well, let me give a fact check on this if I can.
I don't know if that's true, that antidepressants increase risk, but what I do know is if you're at risk of killing yourself, you're far more likely to get drugged with antidepressants.
So which way does the causation go?
Do you think that the people who are suicidal are more likely to get drugs, and then if the drugs don't work, they end themselves?
Or is it more likely that That taking the antidepressant doubles your odds of killing you, or increases it by, yeah, doubles.
Which do you think it is?
If you had to guess which direction do you think the causation goes?
I think it probably goes both ways.
But But I don't know which way is dominant, or if they're equivalent.
So I'm not going to tell you that an antidepressant is a bad idea for every person in every situation, because I don't think that's true.
But is it a good idea for every person in every situation?
No, probably not.
So I don't know what the mix is.
I think that Ashley's raising the question is a service.
And I would put Ashley St.
Clair in the internet dad category.
Without the gender part, and without... I don't know if she has a kid, I don't think so.
But... What is she doing here?
She's doing the thing you need an internet dad for.
Which is, hmm, the news is owned by the pharmaceutical companies, and the news is not telling us there's anything wrong with these drugs, but we observe that, you know, there's this connection.
Shouldn't we be digging into this a little bit harder?
Yes!
Yes!
So, again, Being right or wrong is a slightly different question from whether this is a productive path, and the answer is yes!
This is very productive to push hard on this question of any connection between antidepressants and especially, you know, serial killers and all the rest.
I do not assert that it is a causal connection.
But you need to know, we need to know what's going on there.
So yes, Ashley St.
Clair doing a good service for the country.
"Internet Dad" style.
Why is it that the liberals are so much more likely to be on antidepressants?
We've talked about this, but it fits in my theme.
of, you know, imaginary problems.
You know, this whole depression thing and the value of antidepressants is sort of close to the imaginary world, you know, because some of these might be getting imaginary cures.
So, you know, why is it the conservatives do better mentally?
And I have a hypothesis, with no backing whatsoever, but just an observation.
To me it seems that conservatives accept one thing on faith, God, and then once they've accepted that one thing, the path to a happy life is clear.
Right?
The conservative religious path to success and happiness is completely clear.
You never wonder what to do.
You wake up in the morning every day knowing exactly what to do.
I'm going to pray, I'm going to take care of my body because God wants me to, so I'm going to eat right and exercise if I can.
Not that everybody does that, but it's clear what you're supposed to do.
I'm going to work hard, take care of my family, probably get married, have some kids, put my focus there.
How is that not good for mental health?
And it only requires one act of faith, just one, and then you can observe that the people who take that one act of faith have good outcomes.
That's the important part.
We have one act of faith, everything flows from that, you know, with a conservative package, I guess, and then we know what to do, and then we do it, and then we observe later it worked.
The people who had their religious process, they actually do well and they're happy.
Now suppose you took a different view.
You don't take the God assumption, and you try to figure everything out from scratch.
How are you going to do that?
How do you figure it out without that help of the system that says, hey, just follow this path?
Well, you look at everything individually.
And so you'd look at the news to tell you what's true.
How does that work out?
If you're a Democrat and you look at the news to figure out what's true, well, that doesn't work, because the news isn't even in that business.
They're in the business of selling hoaxes to get Democrats elected.
So you're going to look at the news, and then you're going to look at the outcomes, and they're not going to match up.
In other words, your observation is never going to match what you believe to be true.
But with Republicans, Their observation and their beliefs match perfectly.
So there's no, there's no trigger for insanity.
Because if you say, I believe that doing these things that God wants me to do on average, but not every time, but on average will give me a good outcome.
There's my belief.
There's my observation.
Yup.
Yup.
Every time it seems to work.
Not every time.
Cause people could have bad luck and everything.
Now, suppose you said to yourself that it would be good to have an open border because the news or your political party said that's the way to go.
But then you observe, huh, but my city is destroyed.
Well, how about if you said that equity is a better process and DEI is good?
Because your team said that and the news told you that.
And then you go to apply for a job and you find out that you're a white man and you can't get one in corporate America.
Then you go, huh.
I was really sold on this equity stuff, but I'm unemployed.
Or how about if the Democrats tell you the economy is great, but you're unemployed.
And when you try to get a job, you can get one, but not one that pays rent.
Huh.
My belief that the economy is good, because Biden says so, is not matching what my life is looking like.
How about if they told you that if you get these shots, you won't get COVID?
Huh.
Here's what they're telling me, but here's what I'm observing.
How about if they tell you that the president said that some Nazis were fine people, but when you look at the transcript, huh, doesn't say that at all.
And on, and on, and on, and on.
It's all the same.
If you were a Democrat, you can't even be sure that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl.
By the way, I do believe that there's, you know, gender dysmorphia, and there's some group of people who have, you know, legitimate biological, physical issues, and I wish them the best.
But mostly, mostly the trans thing is a mental health problem.
And mostly it's because they can't tell what's true and real.
Just can't tell what's true.
So you have a massive problem of Democrats not having a mechanism or any system whatsoever to tell them what is true.
But do Republicans have the same problem?
Well, a little bit.
I mean, Republicans could have some crazy conspiracy theories, too.
But as we've learned, a lot of them are true.
But I would say that the conservative worldview matches belief and outcome pretty well.
And the other does not.
So one would drive you crazy, and one would not.
If you're conservative, I can tell you exactly how to be successful.
If you're a Democrat, I have no idea.
I don't know how to tell a Democrat to be successful, unless they got rid of all their current beliefs.
The Democrats literally cancelled me for giving them good advice.
Just hold that thought for a moment.
The Democrats, not a single Republican by the way, not a single Republican ever told me they had a problem with anything I ever said or canceled me.
It was all Democrats.
The Democrats couldn't even recognize good advice about how to stay out of trouble and stay safe and get jobs.
They were so mad they canceled me when they heard it because it didn't match what they'd been told.
But good luck.
Good luck, white, straight Democrats getting a job.
You'll be over to my side soon.
Anyway, so you got Biden up there getting ready to start World War III with Iran.
What did Biden say about war with Iran?
Well, one of the reasons he ran for office is that he didn't want Trump to start a war with Iran.
Yeah.
Do you think that the Republicans have any confusion with what they believed and then what they observe?
Nope.
Because Republicans said, we think that Trump would actually be safer when it comes to war with Iran, not more dangerous.
I feel like Joe Biden's policies of giving the money back and trying to play nice, we feel like that would cause the war.
So what happened?
Biden does his policies and we're getting ready to have a shooting war with Iran.
Probably not on their homeland, but it's going to be a shooting war with Iran and there's nothing that's going to stop it.
Now, so that's, again, Republicans had a completely consistent worldview.
What they predicted is exactly what's happening.
The Democrats said, oh, if we get rid of Trump, we get rid of these wars.
They got six fucking wars at the same time.
You cannot be more wrong than that, that Biden's the key percent of war candidate.
You can't be more wrong than six wars, if you count the border as an invasion.
I'm adding a few wars there.
I think it's closer to five.
Anyway, so what else did Biden say?
Oh, Biden also said that the president, meaning Trump at the time, does not have the political authorization to start a war on his own.
He needs Congress for that.
So then Joe Biden becomes president and he just does the same thing that Trump is doing.
Like he never said it was a bad idea.
Like Biden had never said that closing the border was the highest priority.
Which he used to say.
Right.
So if you're a Republican.
You've got a president who said, I'm going to act tough on Iran, we're going to be better off this way, and it looked like it worked.
You've got a president who said, don't do this, and then he does it.
And a president who said, this doesn't work, and he used his plan, and it didn't work.
How do you hold that in your head and then go vote for Biden?
Because that's what a lot of Democrats are going to do.
That would make you crazy.
That would drive you insane, because you can't hold all these things in your head at the same time.
That Biden is the good one, yet everything he does seems to create a bad outcome, except the economy.
And he had nothing to do with that, really.
It was the Fed.
All right.
Now my favorite story, the Taylor Swift Conspiracy Theory.
So it goes like this.
So Taylor Swift has this boyfriend, what's his name, Travis Kelsey, with the most American-sounding name ever.
And the theory is that their sudden romance may be driven by some CIA or
Democrat plan to get you know the football lovers to love Taylor Swift and football and and Travis and and then Taylor Swift will tell them all to vote Democrat to vote Biden and they'll get a big you know electoral push and that the the whole thing's a fake but more importantly that the Super Bowl itself is rigged some some say I'm not saying that
And the idea is that, surprise, surprise, of all surprises, Taylor Swift's boyfriend gets into the Super Bowl, which just happened.
So the Super Bowl is upcoming, but he'll be there.
Now, how big of a coincidence is that?
Is there anything about Travis Kelsey that we should know that will be relevant to this story?
Hmm.
Checking notes.
Um, some say he was paid an enormous amount of money.
They say 20 million, but I don't think the dollar amount is known to be, uh, do advertisements for Pfizer for the shot, the combined COVID and flu shot.
Yeah.
Travis Kelsey.
Is a public proponent of the shots for Pfizer specifically.
Not just he's not somebody who just said shots are good because a lot of Democrats did that.
He's someone who actually took money from Pfizer to say it in public a bunch of times on commercials.
And now he's coincidentally going to marry, I think they're getting married, Taylor Swift, and he's in the Super Bowl.
And now Vivek Ramaswamy pointed out, you know, the conspiratorial coincidences that are piling up.
As many others have.
This caused CNN to do a show to mock Vivek for how crazy that is.
That's so crazy.
So who did CNN invite on for Abby Phillips, the host of the show, to talk about how crazy it was?
It's crazy!
Vivek, oh my god, he's just crazy.
Well, they got a contributing writer from Checking Notes, a contributing writer from, well, of course they're going to want to bring on somebody who's super credible, right?
You don't want to bring on somebody from some, you know, known propaganda entity or something, because they want to be credible.
So they brought on Jamel Hill, who's a contributing writer to The Atlantic.
Oh.
Okay.
Well, The Atlantic is considered by people on the right to be the biggest signal for an op.
Right?
The number one signal for an op would be that The Atlantic is writing about it.
Now, I don't know if Jamel Hill wrote about it, but she's part of The Atlantic.
Right.
There's nobody who works for the Atlantic, I don't think.
This is just speculation.
I can't read minds.
But I doubt there's anybody who works for the Atlantic who isn't completely aware that they're a propaganda machine.
They must know that they're not attempting to show both sides of any important issues.
And then there's the interesting connection, I need a fact check on this, but that George Soros, or the Soros family I guess, owned Taylor's music catalog, but also was the Carlyle Group involved in owning that?
Is that true?
Can somebody give me a fact check that the Carlyle Group was involved in owning some of Taylor Swift's music?
Now again, people on the right will tell you, The people on the right will tell you that the Carlyle Group is another signal of the intelligence people in the United States.
Basically it's sort of too connected to intelligence people.
So then you got Soros, the Carlyle Group, Pfizer, And then we know that Biden has said he wants Taylor Swift to, you know, he wants to talk to her and maybe get the endorsement.
That seems obvious.
So, since all of these connections are real, it doesn't mean that the narrative that connects them all is real, but the base facts seem to be real.
That there was a writer from the Atlantic, the Soros family did all the things, she is a Democrat, there is a Pfizer connection, those are all real things.
But then packaging up all those real things and making the larger real thing true is unproven.
I would say that's an unproven belief.
But how did Abby Phillips treat it?
What was her counter-argument?
Let me do my impression of Abby Phillips on CNN and Jemele Hill giving their very academic debunking.
See, CNN doesn't always use words for debunking.
Sometimes they use what I call the Tapper Tilt.
The Tapper Tilt is when you're listening to somebody who you want to debunk, you don't have to say any words, you can scowl a little bit and turn your head to one side like this.
So that's how you listen to somebody you don't like, the Tapper Tilt.
Really?
But if it's somebody you want to agree with, you look at them like you just fell in love.
If you get a chance to look at the clip of Abby Phillips talking to Jemele Hill, she actually looks like she's in love.
It's the damnedest thing.
She's just, oh, yeah.
Oh.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, God.
Oh, keep talking.
It's the funniest thing.
Now, when I tell you that I watch CNN for comedy, this is what I mean.
I watch that thing with just, like, fascination.
It's like, really?
Are you really trying to pull this off?
Now remember I tell you that if the only thing you know is what's happening, you don't know anything about the news.
The only thing you need to know is who is connected to whom.
The Taylor Swift story made no sense at all, or didn't have any importance, if you only knew what.
Here's what.
Taylor Swift likes Democrats, and she's got a boyfriend in football, and he made it to the Super Bowl.
That's what.
Now let's add the who.
Let's see, the Atlantic is trying to debunk it, Pfizer's paying the boyfriend or dad to promote shots, the Carlyle Group and the Soros Group owned her catalog, and CNN's saying it's BS.
That's the who.
So do you see in this story that the who, the who's involved, tells a completely different story, whether it's true or not, I don't know if it's true, but it tells a completely different story than the what.
So CNN wants you to pay attention to the what, but don't pay attention to the who, and don't understand who the who is.
Is there somebody here who wants to yell the Jews?
This is usually the place where one of you says, oh, you mean the who is the Jews?
No, that's not what I'm talking about.
But since I know this is where you chime in, oh, it's they.
It's probably they.
No, I don't think that Kelsey or Taylor Swift are part of the they.
All right, let's talk about Mark Cuban, the funniest story in the news.
Mark Cuban has been defending DEI and diversity, let's say, criteria in hiring.
But he's trying to find this narrow ground where it's not overt discrimination.
It's simply something an employer does to, let's say, acknowledge that diverse employees would have diverse perspectives, and that diverse perspectives are an asset.
And as an employer, if you wanted to get the asset of diverse opinions, which I do agree is an asset, the more diverse opinions, the more vision you have on your audience and everything else.
So that makes sense.
But he's trying to sell that there's a narrow place where you can take race into consideration when hiring in gender.
But then it would not be illegal, and it would be something that you would agree with if you just understood it.
So if he explains it better, then you'll probably agree with him.
So let's see how that worked out.
So here he is explaining on the... He did a number of takes on it.
And by the way, part of the story is who he was talking to.
So he was having the debate with a number of people online.
I was one of them for a while.
So I was one of the ones who he challenged with an example.
Is this an example of racism?
He asked.
If you had 30 white male employees and you decided, hey, maybe I should get a black female employee to add some perspective to the group, would that be racist?
So that was sort of the thought experiment he gave.
Now, I responded, yes, unambiguously.
Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about you don't want to do.
That's called discrimination.
Yes, that would be racist.
But he took another run at it, and he said this.
He said, quote, let's say for example, he's talking about himself, he says, I only hire the person that will put my business in the best position to succeed.
And he says, race and gender can be part of the equation.
Because he says, I view diversity as a competitive advantage.
So, that's fair, right?
Is that okay?
He views it as a competitive advantage, and he's an entrepreneur, businessperson, and a businessperson should be able to take into account the competitive advantage.
Right?
Let me check on the, let's see, what were the justifications for slavery in the United States?
Could justify it because it's really good for the business.
Well, it does have a racial component.
I mean, that's actually true.
I'll admit it has a racial component, but as long as it's good for the business, No, I'm just making a bad analogy.
Don't make analogies.
Don't make arguments based on analogies, because they're all stupid like that one.
Because obviously slavery in the United States is not the same as diversity hiring.
But it was funny when I said it.
But it's not an argument, right?
Before you tell me don't make analogy arguments, it was just funny.
It's not a real argument.
So anyway, after Mark said that if it's good for the business to increase diversity, for example, to have a better perspective on things, which you do get with more diversity, that you can use that as part of the equation.
But remember, he's not telling you that he's hiring lesser qualified people.
All right, now you could, separately, you could argue whether it's possible to find enough, you know, people who have the qualifications so that everybody, every employer could hire enough diversity.
So that's a separate question.
But he says, you know, separate from that, you can find the quality people.
So let's say they're all the same quality.
But then he would, once they're the same quality, he might take Diversification into consideration.
Well, that was met with a little pushback from somebody named Andrea Lucas who says EEOC Commissioner here, that would be the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
So the person in the country who is in charge of knowing what is racist and hiring and what is not informs Mark Cuban the following, in public, which is funny.
Unfortunately, you're dead wrong on black letter title seven law.
No, title, what is it?
Five, six, seven, I guess.
As a general rule, race and sex can't even be a motivating factor, nor a plus factor, tiebreaker, Or tipping point.
It's important employers understand the ground rules.
So, what we have here is Mark Cuban not only promoting that he personally wants to pursue something that the government he supports says is dead wrong and illegal, not even a gray area, not a gray area, Dead wrong and totally illegal.
But I will admit, if you took race into consideration, an employer could figure a way to game that.
That's true.
It's just dead wrong and totally illegal.
But he seems to have just set himself up for the biggest lawsuits in the world, because I'm gonna guess there are some white men who work for Merck Cuban.
And if you're a white man who worked for Merck Cuban, and you ever suspected that somebody got a promotion over you, I don't know how you don't take that to court.
When you have the backing of the EEOC commissioner, How do you lose that case?
Well, I suppose you still have to prove your specific case.
But would Mark Cuban, would he defend himself by saying, I did promote somebody over you because of diversity, but they were equally qualified, so that should be fine?
Because I think the law would say, that's not a reason.
You know, equally qualified is good, but the tiebreaker you used was diversity, and that's against the law.
So I wish Mark Cuban well, because I do believe his intentions for the country are the right intentions.
I don't think he has any bad intentions.
I do think that if you're an employer and you have a lot of diversity in your business, Probably supporting DEI is a good look.
But there was a little trap here that he walked into.
Because I think he had every intention of simply supporting diversity without breaking any laws.
I mean, I'm sure he did not intend to break any laws.
And, of course, there's no evidence he broke the law.
He's using hypothetical situations.
So, just to be clear, there's no indication he's ever broken the law.
These are thought experiments, purely.
All right, I've told you before I also watch MSNBC because it's fascinating to watch an entire channel devoted to people with mental illness.
Now, I'm no doctor, and I cannot diagnose mental illness.
I'm telling you what it looks like to me, how I receive it.
As an audience member, what's it feel like?
And when I saw Rachel Maddow, or I called her Rachel Maddow, interview E. Jean Carroll, and they were just giddy and happy and laughing, And about how they got 83 million out of Trump.
And when asked what E.G.
and Carol would do with the money to promote the causes of women, E.G.
and Carol said that, with a big smile and a laugh, that she was going to go shopping.
And if Rachel wanted to go with her, she'd go shopping.
They'd get completely new wardrobes, new shoes.
Rachel, do you want a penthouse?
She'd be willing to buy Rachel a penthouse.
And then after all that giddy happiness about all the money she's going to spend from Trump, because, you know, that's how rape victims act.
When you're a rape victim and you finally win after a long court battle, you talk about the shopping.
Right.
Yeah, you like to put the focus on the shopping that you're going to do with all this Trump money.
Meanwhile, Eugene Carroll's lawyer sat next to her and listened to that and said nervously, that's a joke.
That's a joke.
So, When I watched it, what I saw was Rachel Maddow apparently insane.
I mean, she looks like she's in complete mental distress, honestly.
Now, again, I'm not saying that that's a fact.
I'm no doctor.
I can't diagnose her.
I can't read her mind.
I'm saying how it appears to me.
It just feels like it's a mental illness festal.
No, I disagree.
I'm seeing your comment here.
Somebody's saying that Mark Cuban is in that category.
Definitely not.
Mark Cuban is not crazy or insane.
And he's not dumb.
I think he's a CEO with a diverse workforce and he's doing the best he can to support them.
That's not a bad impulse.
There might be a bad outcome from it, I believe his intentions were all directed in what he thinks is the best direction.
Meanwhile, Joy Reid got caught on a hot mic.
I think this is real, but I don't trust any hot mic stories from this day forward.
And that would be a good tip for you.
Don't trust any hot mic stories for the rest of time, because that can now be done with AI too easily.
And this particular one, the hot mic, she wasn't on camera, so it was just an audio.
How hard would it be to make a deepfake audio of Joy Reid and then insert it in a clip?
Real easy.
So I'm not positive this story is real.
I'm going to need a fact check on this.
I don't know if she's admitted it or anything, but it feels fake-ish.
I'm going to say, I don't know, this was a coin flip.
I'm going to say coin flip on this one.
I can't tell if this is real, but I'll tell you what happened.
What happened was they went to a B-roll or something with Biden.
And this is in the context of, you know, Iran.
We might start a shooting war with Iran.
And allegedly it was about the story about the three troops that were killed and all three were black.
Two of them were female.
I don't know if I don't know if there's ever been a military action in American history where two females died in the same military action.
Maybe.
Oh, she apologized.
Somebody says she apologized for behind the scenes.
Did she really?
Oh, well, okay.
If it was real, I'll tell you what she said.
She said, starting another fucking war.
So she was talking about Biden, quote, starting another fucking war.
That was her quote.
So, now you're a viewer of MSNBC, and MSNBC has been telling you Biden's their man.
He's a good guy, but the first thing you've ever heard on a hot mic from Joey Reid is that he's starting another fucking war, which could be the biggest insult you could give to any politician.
Because she's not saying we have to be in a war, she's saying he's starting one that didn't need to be started.
There is no greater criticism of a politician than started a war that didn't need to start.
You can't top that.
And then people are watching her show, and they're like, wait, what did you just say?
Why is it that my worldview of what MSNBC feels about this administration is not matching what I observe her say?
Crazy.
How about the Republicans?
When the Republicans heard this, did it alter their worldview?
No.
Because the Republicans know there's probably not a single Democrat who really wants a little extra war from their president.
We knew that.
If you ask me what did I think the Democrats say behind closed doors, it's this.
This is exactly what I assumed Democrats say behind closed doors.
Yeah, we don't want another war.
And if he gets us into one, that would be very bad.
Just what I expected.
All right, so we haven't attacked Iran yet, right?
I'm going to make the same prediction everybody's making, all the smart people.
We'll probably take military action against some assets that are not in Iran, and we'll see what happens there.
RFK Jr.
did confirm that Trump's team asked him about being VP.
People are interpreting that as it was an offer.
I don't know that that's exactly what he said.
What he said was his team asked him if he wanted to be VP.
That doesn't mean you get to be VP.
That means they're asking him if he'd be interested.
And secondly, there's no evidence that the team was talking for Trump.
It could be that there were lots of people associated with the campaign, and they knew that talking to all the people who were potential candidates was just the smarter thing to do.
I don't even know if Trump knew about it until it was over, so there's no reporting on that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I ran long.
I'm gonna end now.
Thanks for joining on Rumble and X and YouTube.
I hope you like my theme, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
