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, Presidential Super Bowl Interview, National Science Foundation, Government Political Censorship, US Economy, Inflation, Trump Charges IQ Test, J6, Nikki Haley, President Trump, Mayorkas Impeachment, Rob Reiner, Bipartisan Border Bill, 2024 Election, Election Integrity, Kellyanne Conway, Trump VP, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson, Ukraine War, Canadian Covid Shutdowns, Red Sea Solution, 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.
Oh we're gonna have some fun today and it's not because the show is better than usual but it really will be.
It'll be better than usual.
It's because the news is so delightful today.
A lot of funny stories.
Crazy stuff.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that people can't even imagine with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalicestine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
Quite perfect.
Better than normal.
Above average.
Well, let me catch you up on the news.
There's a leaked video.
of musical star Drake, who, if you were to believe that the video is real, appears to be pleasuring his gigantuan male member while somebody surreptitiously films it.
Now, by coincidence, his own phone is in front of his face, so there is no part of Drake which I recognize.
I'd like to go on record In saying that if I see a video of allegedly Drake, and the only part of it I can see are his feet, and his penis, I'm gonna say I can't tell that's Drake.
Now, for me, I would have to see a little bit of his face.
But apparently for just about everybody in the media, seeing his exposed penis was enough to identify him.
Which raises many questions.
How many people have seen Drake's dick?
But now that I've seen it, I think I'd recognize him next time I see one.
So I'm glad we all caught up on that.
Now, you probably heard a story about Biden, and the story was told wrong.
I'll try to correct that.
The story was that he mixed up the names of the leader of France, and that instead of saying Macron, he accidentally referred to Mitterrand, who's been dead since 1996.
Now, the way it's being reported is, Biden is old and he mixed up a name and that's not so different than things that Trump's done.
Trump mixed up Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris or no and Nikki Haley.
Look at me mixing up names.
It's like I'm a hundred years old.
Anyway, I don't think this is a story about mixing up names.
I have a different theory.
I believe that Biden is now so close to death, and he's gone so far toward the light, you know, down the tunnel.
That's what they say.
You go down the tunnel toward the light.
I feel like he's about three quarters down the tunnel, and he can actually see the dead people.
So he didn't mention De Gaulle, but I think he can see him.
So maybe not forgetting names so much as now about three quarters down the tunnel and just past the light, you can see some of his old friends back there.
That's what I think.
I mean, I'm just speculating, but that's what it feels like.
Well, ex-president Trump has offered to replace Biden for the Super Bowl interview, which traditionally is the sitting president.
But we have a sitting president who heard the opportunity that he could speak wherever he wanted to and could say it in front of the biggest audience in all of America, the Super Bowl audience.
And the sitting president said, no, thanks.
And it's totally because he doesn't need to, right?
No.
We have a sitting president who literally can't do a TV interview.
It's too dangerous, politically.
That's a real thing that's happening right in front of us.
Now, there's no other explanation for it.
Am I right?
Has anybody offered a second reason Why he might not want to do the interview, which would be the biggest audience in America, who's already, you know, at least half of them are in a good mood.
I don't know.
I feel like they stopped trying to explain it.
You know, it used to be, well, he's got COVID, so he's gonna stay in his basement.
You know, there was always a cover story.
But there's no cover story on this one, is there?
This is just absolutely transparent.
He cannot do this interview.
He just doesn't have the ability.
So Trump cleverly says that he'll do the interview, and he says, it's quote, ratings gold.
Now, wouldn't you be disappointed if you found out that Biden wasn't going to do this traditional interview?
Because I guess there's a long history of this.
And that you'd be so disappointed if Trump didn't offer to do it and say it was ratings gold.
If he had only just offered to do it, I'd be like, and?
And?
It'd be like there's something's missing.
It's like, I think I'll do the interview and It's ratings gold!
There it is.
There it is.
That's the Trump we're waiting for.
It's ratings gold.
All right, so there's a new censorship scandal.
I mean, there's so many of these government censorship scandals.
They're all starting to run together in my mind.
The stories that I hate are there's a new twist in one of the lawfare trials against Trump.
Oh God, am I going to have to understand which one it is and which corrupt DA it is and which bullshit charges?
I don't want to have to figure this out again because none of this seems real.
It just all seems like bullshit.
So like, you know, it's like I literally, I'm sifting through bullshit to find the better bullshit.
It's just, it's hard to talk about some of these stories.
But there's another big one.
Representative Jim Jordan's posting about it.
And I think Mike Benz is taking a victory lap for being, you know, the one who brought this to our attention.
And this is what happened.
Apparently the National Science Foundation NSF.
They had massive funding from the government to develop all these AI automated tools for censoring online speech as scale.
So the U.S.
government was massively funding an organization to suppress political speech on the other side.
Now, they don't call it that.
They call it suppressing misinformation.
But the things that we know they were suppressing were, at least half of it was true.
You know, they may have actually suppressed things that were not true as well, probably.
But probably at least half of the important things were actually true when they suppressed them, or tried to.
So there is total information that our government has tried to do the very thing our Constitution says not to.
And the way they did it was by funding entities that we couldn't tell were doing it or were outside the government.
So they did everything they could to thwart the Constitution of the United States.
Not for a good reason either.
It looks like it's completely political.
It doesn't look like there was any even intended national benefit at all.
All right.
Let's talk about Kamala Harris and gaslighting on the economy.
So I'll give you a very brief economics lesson here.
Just how to understand when the government's talking about how the economy is doing.
Now I've told you, even before the pandemic, I think I told you, that if there's one thing you get right, you'll be okay.
And that's employment.
As long as the employment numbers are good, it's really hard to fall into a recession, you know, get into a depression or anything like that.
So you could have a lot of things going wrong, but as long as the jobs are looking good, you're going to be in better shape.
However, That rule just changed.
And the Biden administration is, I think, taking advantage of the fact that people don't know that rule changed.
Every other time, if you said employment is good, it was 85% of the whole story.
Everything else would also just be good.
But in the face of massive unaffordability, which will be the key word, unaffordability or affordability problem, people are taking two jobs.
So if people are taking two jobs because they can't afford things, that's not a win.
But it would show up as jobs opening and jobs being filled and stuff like that.
The other thing you need to know is if your government does not tie what the government does to the outcome, they're just bragging about somebody else's accomplishment.
So yes, lots of jobs were created.
That will get revised down, maybe.
But lots of jobs were created.
So what was the policy that Biden did to create those jobs?
Go.
Name the thing that Biden did that you can connect to creating a job.
I'm not aware of anything.
Infrastructure bill?
The one thing that they talk about?
What was it?
I mean, seriously, what was it?
I'm not aware of anything that they did that would have some direct effect on jobs.
So why is he claiming Victory on something he actually literally didn't even work on it.
Yeah.
So if anything, he's made it harder to get a job for white people for the DEI stuff.
Anyway.
So, when you hear that jobs are good, it's true.
It would have also been true under Trump.
It will always be true that if you're coming off a pandemic, you know, there's going to be some depression from the pandemic that takes a few years to dig out of.
You should expect, you know, better, you know, sort of a little bump in employment and stuff like that, just because you're coming out of a situation like the pandemic.
So, first of all, the numbers are weird because of the pandemic.
Number two, it probably would have been exactly the same if he'd replaced him with any president.
And there's no particular policy.
Nor does she claim it.
There's no claim being made that because we did this, we got this outcome.
They're trying to make you think that he did things.
And they call it Bidenomics.
What was it?
What was the thing?
Just name it, and then connect it to the things you say are going right, and then tell me why that wouldn't have happened if any other president had been there.
All right.
The other thing is the stock market and the GDP are up.
Do you know why the stock market is up and the GDP is up?
Probably because of inflation.
Inflation.
Yeah, the stock market is just adjusting to inflation, and the GDP is just adjusting to inflation.
So if you have inflation, those two things go up, but it's not good news.
But how much of the public knows that?
If you were to do a survey of the public How many of them could tell you that they do understand that the stock market and the gross domestic product go up just because the price of stuff goes up?
It's not because you're doing better.
I mean, we might be doing better, but it would go up because, you know, any price increases.
She also says we have the strongest economy of any nation now.
It might be true, but does that tell you what you want to know?
Wouldn't you want to know what direction it's moving?
Suppose we started with the strongest economy, which we had, and suppose it got weaker, but everybody else was not doing so well, so that weakness didn't put us below anybody else.
Would you brag about that?
No.
So literally, this could be bad news, but it would be expressed in the same words.
We're doing better than other countries.
We were doing better than other countries before.
We've always been better than other countries, you know, economy-wise.
So, and it depends how you measure it, you know, I'm sure there's small, there's probably some small country that is doing better.
But that's a, that's a spin there.
She says we have historically low black unemployment.
Do we?
Is the black unemployment better now than it was under Trump?
What do you think?
I thought that Trump had the record.
And then she also said that historically low unemployment.
That's just untrue, isn't it?
I thought Trump's numbers were better.
But to be fair, it was before the pandemic.
And so if I'm using the, you know, the same fair rules I'm using for Biden, I would say that, you know, Trump's numbers before the pandemic, you know, can't be compared to really anything else.
But my understanding is.
That's the situation.
So let me let me summarize.
So she's got here are reasons.
Strongest economy of any nation.
She's leaving out what's important, which is, did the gap between how strong we were and how others were shrink or grow?
So that's just misdirection.
We have historically low unemployment and historically low black unemployment rate.
I believe those are just lies.
Because I think Trump had better numbers there.
Wages have outpaced inflation.
I believe that's just not true.
Am I wrong?
I think it's just not true.
Consumer confidence is up.
Is that true?
Do you think consumer confidence is up?
Yeah, I think so.
No, I think it is.
I think it is.
Not everybody.
But you know why consumer confidence is up?
The news and the politicians have been telling you for months that they think that the news has not done a good enough job saying how great the economy is.
So the news, that works for the Democrats, decided to tell you how great the economy was over and over again until the public said, oh, well I didn't realize that, but it must be good for other people.
Because it doesn't look good for me.
But if the news says it's good for other people, yeah.
So she's got, let's see, one misdirection, three lies, and one consumer confidence claim that's based on brainwashing that they did.
That's her claim for the economy.
Misdirection, three lies, and something that they gain through propaganda that's not based on any reality.
And inflation helped the GDP and the stock market.
And there's no connection to any policies.
So here's a question.
Tell me if you've ever seen this asked.
As Steve Doocy or anybody else said, the economy does have some good points to it, as you've mentioned.
Which policies are the ones that caused those to happen?
Is it the open borders that helped the employment numbers do so well?
Was it the open borders that caused black unemployment to be low?
I feel like his policies Should be working against all of these things.
It's just that they haven't worked against them long enough and hard enough.
So.
All right.
So Matt Gaetz is doing something very clever that I approve of.
He's introducing a resolution to get people on record saying that Trump did not engage in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
So the idea is to get members of Congress, especially Republicans, to go on record, officially, to say, do you think that was an insurrection?
God, I love that.
I just love it.
Because here's the thing.
You're probably thinking to yourself, you know, it's some kind of a Trump loyalty test.
That's how the people say it.
It's a loyalty test.
Because if you're not willing to say that your orange Cheeto Jesus is innocent of all charges, then you can't be a Republican, right?
That's the way it'll be spun.
Here's the other way to look at it.
This is my way to look at it.
This is an IQ test.
It's an IQ test.
If you think that January 6th was an insurrection today, today, you're a fucking idiot.
That's the end of the story.
And I would love to get a list of all the idiots.
This is really useful, because if you can get this, you know, into practice, you know, I don't know what it takes to make a resolution happen.
But if you could get everybody to sign up, whether they are so fucking dumb that today they actually think that was an insurrection or rebellion, I do want to know them.
I want to know their names.
Don't you want to know the names of somebody who would be this dumb?
Because that's too dumb to be an elected official.
That should be the end of your career.
If you believe it at this point, that should be the end of your career.
And if you vote for the border bill, that should be the end of your career.
But that's separate.
We'll get to that.
So yeah, I love Matt Gaetz giving an IQ test to Republicans.
So Nikki Haley has applied to get to Secret Service Protection, CNN reports.
Now, you might say to yourself, does she really need Secret Service Protection?
She might.
Because, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of political, you know, a lot of political action that could turn physical.
And so I'd like to see her get to Secret Service Protection, but not unless JFK or RFK does.
If RFK Jr.
doesn't get any Secret Service protection, then I gotta say no.
I gotta say no.
You gotta do them both.
Both or none.
Because if you're gonna be this obvious about who you want to live and who you want to get shot, That's no good.
You're gonna have to at least hide it a little bit by giving them both protection.
Or neither of them protection.
But no way can you give her protection and not him.
I mean that would be crazy.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
They'll probably just ignore it.
They always accuse you of what they are doing contest.
So the AP has a story about how Trump is super sexist about Nikki Haley.
And here are the evidence that Trump is the sexist against Nikki Haley.
He called her bird brain.
He said that her dress was not so fancy.
And that once, unrelated to any of the Nikki Haley stuff, in 2016 he was on a recorded video saying that he can just grab them by the you-know-what.
That's it.
That's their evidence that Trump is a sexist.
Now, let's compare that to what Nikki Haley has said out loud, in public, multiple times.
If you need to get something done, call a woman.
She said that directly.
Which one is sexist?
A normal insult that Trump uses for every single person in the world, like birdbrain or whatever he calls everybody else.
The most normal thing he does.
So by insulting Nikki Haley, he is treating her exactly the way he treats men.
And the AP said if you treat her exactly the way you treat men, that's sexist.
And they're actually trying to sell that.
That treating her the same way he treats everybody is sexist.
While she, in front of everybody, says that you should vote for her in part because she has a vagina, and that gives her an advantage over men who people have penises.
You know, not counting trans.
Yeah.
So this is such a perfect example of they always accuse you of what they're doing.
Trump, correct me if I'm wrong, Trump has never once said that a woman would be less good at a job.
Go.
In any domain, you know, maybe You know, playing in the NBA or something.
But, ever?
Has Trump ever said that in his employment at Trump, you know, the company Trump, has he ever said that he didn't think that the women could do the job?
Nope.
He's actually quite famous for promoting women even way before it was fashionable.
Is that fair to say?
That he was aggressively promoting women in his organization way before it was fashionable.
True or false?
I think that's just true.
And never once has he uttered a single word that you could interpret as thinking that women would have some lesser ability for politics or running a big organization like his own.
Never.
Not once.
But Nikki Haley says it in public more than once.
So this is the perfect example of they always accuse you of what they're doing.
I don't think this one could be any more clear.
Now, does Trump say offensive-sounding things when he thinks nobody's listening?
Yeah, like every other person I've ever met in my life.
Like every person I've ever met in my entire life.
That's just how people talk when they think nobody's listening.
All right, so the Mayorkas impeachment is going on now, or impeachment attempt.
Well, we don't think that he will get impeached because it seems to be closer to something like an interpretation of policy than it does look like breaking the laws or something that would be impeachable.
But the aggressiveness with which he's Let's say misinterpreting the policies or interpreting them in a way that is most negative to the United States is very concerning.
I don't understand why he would, given that you could interpret various laws differently, why would he always pick the worst way?
Is that a coincidence?
Why would he pick the way that's worse for the United States when his job is to protect us?
And I think that alone should be impeachable.
If you can't explain why all the things you do are bad for the United States, it ought to be impeachable.
I mean, I get that it's not technically, but I do like the fact that he's going through the process so we can all talk about him being impeachable.
That's something.
At least it clarifies the situation for the public.
Yeah, it might not be a law, but it's so bad that we think we need to run him through an impeachment process.
That's how bad it is.
No, it doesn't look like incompetence.
No, if you think this is incompetence, I think that's the last possibility.
Well, Rob Reiner continues to entertain.
He had two posts at different times.
One of them was about Trump, and he said, I don't know when, but it must have been a while ago, he posted, the only reassuring thing about a pathological liar is when he says something, you know it's not true.
And then he says, there is no crisis at the border.
Now, obviously, Trump was saying there was a crisis at the border sometime in the past.
And so Rob Reiner wants you to know there is no crisis at the border.
Also, Rob Reiner, later, it's simple.
Donald Trump and the House Republicans don't give a flying fuck about fixing our border problems.
He said both of those things.
Now, do you remember when you thought he was just a serious citizen who was involved in politics and you just disagreed with him?
Now you know that's not what's happening, right?
You can see it now, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, you should not take him seriously as even a person with an opinion.
He posts like it's his job, Like he just works for the CIA.
I think your working assumption is that he's just an intelligence asset.
It doesn't mean it's true, but your working assumption probably should be something reasonable.
If you think that these are reasonable opinions by just like a normal citizen, it's clearly not.
Because there's such a disconnect between what we know must be his intelligence, because he's very successful, with the way he talks.
It's such a disconnect that there's no way he's just being dumb.
There's something else going on, but my assumption is it's just exactly what it looks like.
It looks like somebody's working for the Democrats or the CIA or something.
Don't know that for sure.
It's just my working assumption.
Now let's talk about this border bill that appears to be the worst thing anybody ever did.
Kyle Bass and lots of other people are weighing in on it.
I'll just tell you what Kyle said, but you can see, I don't know, just dozens of other people say, my God, did you read what's in this bill?
It's the opposite of what it's trying to do, which is generally the case.
Usually our bills are labeled the opposite of what they do.
All right.
Musk has been talking about that a lot, that we label them the opposite.
So apparently part of this bill, believe it or not, would grant Mayorkas the ability to grant asylum and even American citizenship at the border without review by anybody.
Including the intelligence agencies.
So somebody could come in and literally be a terrorist, and Mayorkas can say, you're a citizen.
And that would be the end of it.
There would be no review.
That's actually in this bill.
Yeah.
Like, try to wrap your head around that.
Why would that be there?
Give me a reason why that would be there.
There is no reason.
This bill is clearly not designed to help the United States All right, and and it's not a Democrat or Republican thing.
This is clearly something else is going on This is in the category of Something else is going on.
Don't know what But this is not a policy disagreement.
I If you think there's, oh, we're being a little inefficient, or it's an election year, so people are being a little more political, that's not really what's going on.
I don't know what's going on.
But this is one of those situations where we need to stop everything until we figure out what's going on.
Remember when Trump said, quite provocatively, let's stop immigration from certain countries until we figure out what's going on?
His instinct was completely right.
Because if you don't know what's going on, the first thing you need to do is find out.
How's that not obvious?
Whatever's happening with this weird border bill, it's not based on policy differences.
It's not based on politics.
And I can't even follow the money.
Yeah, I guess if they tie it to Ukraine and Israel, I can follow it.
But if you just look at the border part by itself, it doesn't make any sense at all.
It doesn't make sense for Democrats or Republicans.
I can't imagine there would be one Democrat voter, not politician, voter, who would be in favor of this bill if they knew what was in it.
Is that your take on it?
That not even a Democrat would, if they knew what was in it.
Because apparently the Democrats are just lying to everybody about what's in it.
And they're treating it like it's a solution to the border crisis.
It's not even in that realm.
It's literally making it worse.
It's like legitimizing keeping it as bad as it is.
It couldn't be worse.
I think we should stop talking about it like a policy difference.
As citizens, if we allow them to tell us that this is some kind of policy difference, then we've been completely brainwashed.
This is not a policy difference, but I don't know what it is.
We need to stop everything until we figure out what's going on.
And I mean we should not consider even voting on it one way or the other.
We have to figure out how this happened in the first place.
Who put this on paper?
I want to know what's behind this.
Because this is... I mean, it looks like it's closer to treason than it is to a policy difference.
A policy difference would have people disagreeing on the details.
That's not what's going on.
They're not disagreeing on the details.
They literally are being bamboozled about what's in it, and it's clearly designed to make things worse.
That's not politics.
I don't even know where to follow the money for that.
There's something else going on.
They need to shut the whole system down until they figure what that is.
They shouldn't vote on anything.
They shouldn't pass a budget for anything.
They should shut the government down.
I don't want more of this.
You need to stop and figure out what's wrong.
And then maybe figure out a way to fix it.
But no.
Right now, the current system would be what?
The current system would either be blackmail and threaten and bribe people to vote for this piece of garbage.
Right?
That'd be the normal process.
Or, go back and create a Frankenstein 2, which will be every bit as bad as this, and then come back and tell us it was fixed, and hope enough people are now desperate, you know, they gotta get that Ukraine funding, they gotta get that Israel funding, that they'll just give up and vote for it.
That's what's gonna happen.
There will either be some kind of force making people vote for it, because they want the other things, or they'll go back and rewrite it worse.
You know that, right?
It's not going to come back making sense.
It's not even going to come back looking like a Democrat plan.
At least that I'd understand.
You might like it, you might not like it.
But at least, shouldn't it be at least consistent with what Democrat voters would want?
I don't see the Democrat voters wanting Open borders.
At least by a majority.
And the ones who think they want it are just not the people who should be in this conversation.
They're people who don't understand it, or, I mean, they're just, honestly, they're limited capacity people.
Let me say it as directly as possible.
The only people who could be in favor of the current situation on the border are people who have limited capacity.
Now, that's a lot of people.
Limited capacity, by that I mean the inability To see the short-term and long-term of a fairly complicated issue.
Immigration is simpler than some, but still a little bit complicated.
I think that the only people who could be in favor of this are low-capacity people.
This has nothing to do with politics.
So, and I would go further.
I know this sounds like hyperbole, but I would cancel the elections, the presidential elections.
Let me say that again, because I'm serious, and I know you won't take me seriously.
We should cancel the elections, because we don't have a secure system, and no matter who wins, we're not going to believe it.
You know that.
No matter who wins, the country won't believe it.
Under that one situation, you need to cancel the election.
I'm going to say this as many times as it takes so you know I'm serious.
Under the specific situation that you know for sure, and we do, that neither side will accept the result because they won't believe the election was fair, under that specific situation, and on top of that, a system which was designed For for corruption, it's not designed to remove it All right, if we designed it to remove corruption The elections would be the same day.
No prior voting.
It'd be on paper There'd be no computers and everybody would look at what's happening and we'd have the result the same day.
We'd know how to do it so if the Democrats don't believe the system if it goes the other way and And the Republicans won't believe the result if it goes not their way.
And we have a system which very clearly and objectively is designed for fraud.
Obviously.
I mean, it's really obvious.
We should cancel the election until we fix it.
Now you're saying to me, but Scott, that would mean Biden or Kamala Harris are running the country.
Yup.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Because you're watching them disintegrate right in front of you, and you might need that to understand how bad this is.
You might need to watch Biden try to be president while he's just literally just drooling on himself.
Right?
Because you know they're going to push, they're going to tell you he's still okay.
I want to tell them, I want to see the Democrats tell you he's okay when he's just drooling on the fucking microphone.
Right?
That's what I want.
I do want that.
Because I believe the deep state will keep the country running just fine.
And if the worst thing is that we don't give them money for foreign wars because we're too incompetent and everything's shut down, fine.
Fine.
Yeah.
Let them work it out.
Let them just work it out.
But we're not in the domain of politics anymore.
We're in the domain of, there's something wrong.
And we gotta figure out what it is.
It looks like foreign influence.
It's either foreign influence or somebody is in charge of our country, domestically, that we just don't know who it is.
And we don't know why they're doing it.
If we can't explain why Soros is funding every fucking thing that's bad for the country, and that the Democrats are just going, give us more of that!
There's something going on.
And I say just shut it all down.
We might need a constitutional convention in which we just rewrite this shit because we designed a system that doesn't work in modern times.
I think the founders were brilliant and they designed a system that worked for a few hundred years.
But it doesn't work now.
And here's why.
I think the media brainwashing machine got too good.
The brainwashing function got too good.
And that's not something that the early settlers could have understood.
They would never have seen the mainstream media coming, the Internet.
They would have never seen, you know, the massive censorship machine.
They would have seen that.
So I think we need to stop, cancel the election, cancel this Frankenstein bill immediately, no matter what happens.
I don't care what happens in Israel.
I don't care what happens in Ukraine.
I literally don't.
Because whatever happens is going to be horrible.
It's just going to be some different version of horrible.
And somebody else is going to pay for it.
So if you're just making me choose among the horribles, great.
You pay for it.
You pay for it.
If it's going to be horrible no matter what, you fucking pay for it.
Why am I funding your fucking horrible choices?
You go fund your own horrible choices.
So cancel the election.
Literally.
Literally.
Do a constitutional convention and figure out if we can come up with a system where we can still have free speech without government censorship working through the NGOs and all their fake fact-checkers and the fake ADL and the fake, you know, fake everything.
And just see if we can rewrite it.
Maybe not change everything.
You know, you don't want to throw everything away.
You want to keep the good stuff.
But we need something that deals with whatever's happening.
Because whatever's happening is new, and not something the founders contemplated.
And if we keep pretending that the problem is a policy difference, we're not even in the right frame.
It's the wrong frame.
Look at this bill.
You tell me in all seriousness you think that the border bill was a case of policy disagreement?
That's not even close to what we're seeing.
It's not even in the neighborhood of even a little bit smelling like it could be true.
We're in some other different domain here, and I don't know what it is.
We're gonna have to stop everything and figure it out.
And if that means that Trump doesn't get elected in November, I'm for that.
Because just, there's no way he's gonna get elected under our current system.
You know that, right?
They're either gonna kill him or rig the election.
I mean, it doesn't look like he has a chance, honestly.
So when I say we should cancel the election, if you're thinking, oh my God, maybe Trump won't get elected if they can't, no.
It probably didn't change that at all.
Probably didn't make any difference.
You might see today a report about election integrity that could be really interesting.
So there's something coming, if you haven't seen it yet, so I can't mention it because you might not have seen it.
I don't know if it's out.
But there's something coming today on election integrity in 2020 that you're going to find really interesting.
Really, really interesting.
And let's just say it's exactly what you thought.
It's exactly what you thought.
Appeals Court ruled against Trump.
Is that new?
What appeals court?
Which of the many things?
Rejects his immunity bid?
Oh, yeah, I expected that though.
Didn't we all expect that the immunity bid wouldn't work?
I know.
That's not a big surprise.
But I think a lot of the challenges are just to delay things until after the election.
Oh, actually, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?
If you cancel the election, they have more time to get Trump.
Well, that would be an argument against it.
That would definitely be an argument against it.
All right.
So Kellyanne Conway.
Did a opinion piece.
I think it was in the... I forget where.
Maybe New York Times or something.
Doesn't matter.
And Kellyanne Conway said that she thinks that Trump should pick a person of color.
Not because of weird diversity reasons, but just because it would help the election.
You know, just a practical thing.
And she says she would narrow it down.
So these are the names that she's got on her list.
Rubio.
How many of you think of Marco Rubio as a person of color?
Marco Rubio?
Do you think Marco Rubio would gain Trump even one vote because he's a person of color?
You wouldn't get one vote for his ethnicity, would you?
Am I wrong about that?
I don't think so.
Anyway.
Marco Rubio, I guess, would be the perfect example of the way I think we should do things.
I love the fact that, I guess, technically he'd be a person of color, but I can't think of any time that Marco Rubio has ever talked about it.
Has he?
Maybe he has.
But he hasn't talked that up like, You know, vote for me.
I'm a person of color.
I mean, I think he treats it like it doesn't exist, which allows me to treat it like it doesn't exist, which is how I want to treat it.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm going to give him credit for that.
All right.
So she mentions Rubio.
She says Tim Scott, Byron Donalds and Ben Carson, Representative Wesley Hunt.
Never heard of him.
Who's Wesley Hunt?
Has anybody ever heard of Representative Wesley Hunt from Texas?
Yeah.
Mike's brother.
You're funny.
All right.
And then she mentions Vivek Ramaswamy.
Now, let's look at her list.
So here's what I believe Kellyanne Conway is doing.
When somebody randomly who's involved in politics writes a opinion piece, you might say to yourself, oh, there's somebody writing an opinion piece, and I'll bet it will agree with their side and all that.
But Kellyanne Conway is not your average pundit.
I believe, and I would look for an opinion on this from you as well, I believe that when she writes a piece like this, that this has a function to it.
I believe that she's testing these names on behalf of Trump to see what kind of reaction it gets.
Does it look like that to you?
That all she's doing is doing a focus group by putting it out there and letting people talk about it.
So, in my view, she would not have done this unless Trump had already nerded down to these exact names.
So I think she's signaling Then it's going to be one of these.
And then she's seeing how you feel about it.
Now let's look at the list.
Let's go further.
Marco Rubio.
Do you think that that would help Trump to have another Florida guy?
I think Marco Rubio is obviously a strong politician, but I think he's a hard no.
It kind of doesn't make sense.
Yeah, I just don't think he's not going to get enough.
He's going to get somebody who agrees with him and doesn't get any extra votes.
I'd say no on Rubio, even though he's a solid guy.
Tim Scott, another solid guy.
And he checks the box, so everybody would at least know he's a person of color.
I think he's too weak.
I just think he's too weak.
I think if you've got somebody like Trump, who's a certain age, you're gonna look at the vice president as a... They've got to have the same power level, right?
This isn't like, you know, vice presidents of old, where you didn't really need them to be as good as the top of the ticket.
This isn't that.
This is the one case where you need the vice president to be as good as the top of the ticket.
Sort of like a Gore-Clinton situation, which was rare.
So how about Byron Donalds or Tim Scott?
I would say that Byron Donalds is not quite seasoned enough.
I don't know what he's accomplished exactly.
Although he's strong.
I mean, his future looks bright.
Tim Scott, I just don't think he's got the gravitas.
Like, I just don't think he's like the hammer that you might need.
How about Ben Carson?
I think Ben's too sleepy.
I just don't think Ben has the fire to be a vice president, and certainly not, you know, he's a certain age, etc.
Not Ben Carson.
Wesley Hunt?
I don't know anything about him, so that would be...
That would be a pick if you didn't want your vice president to make any difference.
It feels like that would be just the... Larry Elder is a certain age.
He's over 70.
I don't think you want your vice president to be over 70.
That would be a bad choice.
Then you get to Vivek.
Here's what I think.
To me, it seems obvious that Kellyanne Conway is testing Vivek.
What do you think?
I don't think she's even really testing the other names.
I think this is literally just a test of Vivek.
If you put him in a group of other... Oh, is that Wesley Hunt?
I feel like I may have seen him before.
So does it feel like, and I think specifically she's testing Vivek against the black choices.
What do you think?
Because the real question would be, if Trump picked a black running mate, I think that would, everybody would say, okay, that's, you know, to get some extra votes.
And it might actually be a strong play.
I could definitely see that that would be a strong play.
But you need somebody who's credible.
I think Byron Donalds just needs a little more seasoning.
We just need to see him accomplish a few more things.
He could be great in the future.
He might be terrific.
And the others are a little light, but when I see the boldness with which Vivek talks about what he would do, when I see that he went from nowhere to make such a big dent in the election, I mean, for somebody who is an unknown.
And when you look at his success, you know, business success, you look at his renaissance man ability to understand lots of topics.
I feel like this is an easy choice.
What do you think?
Does it seem to you like it just jumps out as the obvious choice?
Or am I just too... I mean, I am very pro-Vivek, so I can't pretend I'm unbiased.
But it looks like an obvious choice.
Because the others are just going to give Trump either a nothing or a little bit.
I think Vivek would have the potential To give him more than any vice president ever gave a candidate.
I think it would be a legendary combination.
And it would be the most confident thing that Trump could ever do.
You know, some of you said that Trump wouldn't handle the fact that Vivek, you know, is a strong personality and he's so smart.
I say opposite.
I think you're reading Trump completely wrong.
I say that Trump loves brilliance.
Like, he runs toward it all the time.
He wants to work with it.
He wants to compliment it.
He wants to be around it.
He loves brilliance.
There's no way he doesn't like Vivek.
And Vivek likes him, so that's the other requirement, right?
So, to me it's like...
A perfect combination, really.
I doubt it could be better, in my view.
And it wouldn't have worked the first election, because Trump wasn't already an experienced president.
But now that Trump is an experienced president, it makes perfect.
It just fits in every way.
Senator Massey was talking about Mayorkas destroying some records.
So apparently this whole pipe bomb situation, you know the pipe bomb situation, it was a fake, it turns out a fake, fake pipe bomb near where Kamala Harris was at the DNC headquarters on January 6th.
And there's lots of mystery about Why we didn't know things, and there's text messages that were magically destroyed that would have told us more.
And Massey's making the case that Mayorkas was the, you know, the top boss when all this happened, and it's a records retention violation, and that maybe it should be researched.
Now, I'm not one who thinks that records retention is the biggest crime and that we need to get really tough on that.
Whichever side it is, it just doesn't excite me.
But I have this question.
How many times have Democrats destroyed records and got away with it?
Is anybody keeping a record?
Like, yeah, we know Hillary's emails and Hillary's phones.
She bleached bits and destroyed the phones.
But correct me if I'm wrong, aren't there now several stories like that?
And they're all Democrats?
It was all people who were caught red-handed and then they deleted the only thing that would get them in trouble?
Yeah.
All of the January 6th testimony, deleted.
The pipe bomb text messages, deleted.
Yeah.
The FBI deleting stuff.
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's sort of telling me that as a legal strategy, you should destroy any records no matter how legally they've been requested.
I feel like destroying records is just a smart play at this point because it keeps working.
Anyway, Tucker Carlson's in Moscow.
The word is that he's already talked to Putin.
Now, of course, the Hill is quoting the Guardian, saying that Tucker said, why can't I root for Russia?
I am rooting for them.
Do you think Tucker said that?
Do you think that the Hill that quotes the Guardian, that quotes Tucker, He said, why can't I root for Russia?
I doubt it.
But here's how you should analyze this.
So the Hill makes the claim, but they don't support the claim.
They point to the Guardian.
So I followed the link, and the Guardian makes the claim.
And then I look for the source so I can, you know, see it for myself.
Because obviously if you make a claim like Tucker Carlson said he supports Russia, there's a video, right?
It wasn't there.
So the source that makes the claim doesn't have a video to show you where it came from.
It's the news.
It's the news.
That's a pretty big claim to not have a little bit of evidence for.
Now I'm not saying that he didn't say those words, I just don't know the context.
Now I think at one point he said he was joking or something, I don't know.
But it also raises an interesting question.
Why can't he root for Russia?
It's actually a pretty good question.
Now that part he may have, why can't he?
I asked that of myself.
I said, all right, think of all the things that Russia has done to hurt me.
Think of all the things that Ukraine has done to hurt me.
I feel like they're very expensive.
And I feel like they're the reason that Russia might be a risk to me.
Because of Ukraine.
So, do I think that the Ukrainian population would be worse off under Russian rule?
I don't know.
How would I even know that?
Now, obviously, if Russia took over Ukraine, they'd kill all the leaders on day one.
But have those leaders done a good job?
And would the people in Ukraine find that their economy started improving right away?
Because I don't see the Russians complaining about their economy.
Am I wrong?
Is there a big uprising in Russia of people who say our economy is bad?
I don't think there is.
I think Putin has like weirdly high approval.
So if the guy with high approval that nobody is complaining internally about his economy wants to do the same for Ukraine, which was a corrupt basket case, what is worse for Ukraine?
Letting Russia win?
I actually don't know.
I actually can't tell if Ukraine is better off letting their corrupt government steal all their money and drive them into poverty and create wars for no reason, or would they be better off if they just had peace?
They had a new leader who may also be corrupt, but it couldn't be any worse than it is, who doesn't start a war because it's Russia.
I mean, he wouldn't start a war with Ukraine because they would already own it in that Vivek believed the original January 6th hoax.
That's true.
He's already talked about that.
Yeah, what people saw and believed during the fog of war has no, it's no use for analysis.
Yes, people were, had wrong opinions when we didn't know anything.
Same with the pandemic.
Yeah.
You don't complain in Russia.
Oh, we would know.
We would know.
Yeah, you don't complain in the newspaper in Russia, but we would know.
So it's going to be fascinating.
So what I would recommend is that Tucker actually negotiate a peace deal with Putin in Ukraine.
Does that sound crazy?
Well, let me ask you this.
Who's going to do it?
Everybody knows it has to be done, am I right?
100% of the public knows that Russia and Ukraine has to talk, and they have to negotiate.
Who else is going to do it?
Biden?
Biden's not going to do it.
Zelensky?
No?
No?
I'm completely serious.
I realize it would be illegal, but we don't have a real government, so something's got to be done.
Now, it would be very illegal for a private citizen to negotiate on behalf of America.
But would it be wrong to suggest what a solution would look like?
Would it be wrong for Tucker to invite Zelensky and Putin to be in the same room and work it out?
It'd probably be illegal.
Probably.
But if it was all transparent, I wouldn't care.
Yeah.
Now, I'm being a little bit, you know, just provocative.
I don't think that Tucker should negotiate a peace deal.
But honestly, no one else is going to do it.
Until and if, you know, a Trump or a Republican gets in office.
No one's going to do it.
So if you want this thing to end, you should be rooting for Tucker to end it.
And by the way, I think he could.
Because it's not that hard to do, just somebody has to be working on it.
Just somebody has to be working on it.
That's it.
That's all.
That's the entire thing.
Somebody has to be doing it.
Because we already know what it looks like.
Russia's going to keep the stuff that they already got, because they're never going to give it back.
So why would you even have much question about it?
You know, there might be something about NATO, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, I think Tucker could literally negotiate peace, because nobody else is doing it.
And everybody wants it.
Like, if everybody didn't want it, then it would be crazy to say, you know, some news pundit guy could negotiate world peace.
That would be the dumbest thing in the world.
But in this very unique case, where not only do both sides want it, they want it desperately, and they also know exactly what it would look like.
Ukraine knows they're not going to get those territories back.
Imagine this.
Imagine Tucker goes in, he goes, how about this?
You know, I can't negotiate a peace deal, but let me just ask you why you wouldn't do this.
Why wouldn't you offer, Putin, why wouldn't you offer to do a referendum for the disputed areas, and then decide everything based on the referendum?
You know, make sure it's run by some third party like Switzerland or something, so it's real.
But if the citizens want to be Russian, How about they go where, you know, by majority?
How about they get that?
And if there are areas that are still disputed where the population does not want to be Russian, by a majority, we just go with that.
And then you don't, you don't make the rest of Ukraine NATO because it's too provocative.
Now, did I just, did I just solve the war?
Yes.
Yes.
I just solved it.
Now, all it would take Is for somebody like Tucker to just put that idea in Putin's head.
How about this?
Why don't you offer that an independent, let's say the UN, runs a referendum for who should be in charge where, and no matter what, you don't do any more NATO stuff because that's just going to cause a fight.
Now you say Victoria Nuland would not allow that, and you're right.
But don't you want it on the table?
Don't you want it on the table?
Because if you start polling America, you're going to get a 90% yes on that.
American voter, do you think that Russia and Ukraine should end the war by polling the citizens in the disputed territories and going with what the will of the people requires?
We might have the world's simplest war to end, except For the money launderers and the criminals who have some other motivation.
But you would probably need something like an 85% public preference before you could overcome whatever corruption is keeping things the way they are now.
It would just be too embarrassing to go against 85% of the public.
As well as, you know, the publics of the disputed territory.
I mean, that'd be hard to go against.
Scott, Ming Stu, understand your history, please.
This has been tried.
That's a terrible comment.
Terrible comment.
Yeah.
History does not tell you what's going to happen in the future.
History does not repeat itself.
That is a myth, and as soon as you believe that, you can't do anything.
That eliminates your ability to think.
Oh, history repeats itself, so there you go.
Yeah.
No, everything's different.
Everything that was true before you had a major war that exhausted both sides just doesn't apply.
Everything that was true before Russia had total military control of those places, it's a completely different situation.
We didn't have a failed government where our government couldn't really be productively involved in anything.
Everything's different.
So to imagine that what would happen when everything was different is your model for today, it doesn't make any sense at all.
No, I don't need to know that history.
I know a little bit of it.
I mean, I know enough to know it doesn't matter.
All right.
The Post-Millennium is reporting that Canada ordered lockdowns based on fraudulent studies.
And by fraudulent, I think it means that somebody did a study and said that during the Omicron wave, and this is important, during the Omicron wave, when it was already past the most dangerous part, Canada said they needed to keep the lockdown because of the unvaccinated people were causing the spread of the Omicron.
The unvaccinated.
Now the claim, and I'm not saying this is true or false, because I don't believe any of the science around the pandemic.
The claim is that the statistics actually showed that it was the vaccinated people who were spreading the Omicron the most.
And therefore the policy should have been exactly the opposite, and it wasn't justified to lock everything down.
Now, the claim that the vaccinated people were spreading it the most, Do you believe that?
You do?
Okay.
All right.
So here's what I'm not claiming.
I'm not claiming that the shots worked.
I want you to hear me very clearly.
I'm not claiming that they worked.
No, no, no.
I'm claiming that you're believing data that came out of the pandemic.
And it's pretty stupid looking.
If you believe this, you're really gullible.
And by the way, you might be right.
Right?
You might be right.
But if you believed it, because you heard it in the news, you really got to check yourself.
This is not something you should have believed.
It might be true.
But don't believe it because the data said it.
Here's why.
Almost everywhere where we collect data, when it matters, we can choose ways to collect it that sell a story.
And we can choose ways to collect it that give you the wrong answer.
To me, this looks obviously like they collected it and got the wrong answer.
Now, if you told me that there was no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated, I'd say, oh, well, that actually sounds reasonable.
Yeah, that actually sounds reasonable.
But if you tell me that the people vaccinated had more spreading, I'm not going to believe that.
What are the odds that it made it more likely you were going to spread it?
Do you think that maybe the people who are likely to get it and get sick with it and know they had it are the people who are weak to begin with and are more likely to be vaccinated?
You don't think there's any correlation Between there's something about the people who got vaccinated, such as, I'm gonna spend a lot of time with other people, so I better get vaccinated.
What do the people who didn't get vaccinated have in common?
They spend a little less time around other people.
And if you say that's not true, I say to you, how do you know?
How do you know?
If you don't know that that's true or false, then how can you think that this vaccinated people are more likely to spread it?
This is the most ridiculous bullshit I've ever seen in my life.
Now I'll agree with you that the so-called vaccinations didn't stop the spread.
Certainly during Omicron it made no difference at all.
So I'm not supporting the science.
Hear me clearly.
I'm not backing the science.
I'm saying that you believe the science.
So I'm saying that you believe the science.
Why?
Like, why would you believe it either way?
If it told you that the vaccinated were more likely, or if it told you the opposite, why would you believe it?
There is no, there's no data from that era that's believable.
And this is opposite of what makes common sense.
And it's also fairly opposite why this number would be wrong.
Because there's something about the vaccinated population that is substantially different from the unvaccinated.
They have a very different character.
I mean, if the only thing you did is say, city people are more likely to be vaccinated than country people.
Is that true?
You tell me.
True or false?
City people more likely to be vaccinated than rural people.
Yes or no?
While Republicans are more rural, city people are more Democrat.
If that's the only thing you knew, wouldn't you assume that more Democrat city people are vaccinated?
Right.
Now, where are you more likely to catch a virus?
In the country?
On your ranch?
Or in the city where you're surrounded by infected people all day long?
Do you think that this study adjusted for the fact that the unvaccinated have a more less dense lifestyle because they're more rural people, if they're Republicans?
Now, are you hearing this for the first time?
That this number couldn't be trusted because there's something deeply different about the unvaccinated population?
Yeah.
So, don't believe anything about numbers that come out of the pandemic.
They're all motivated numbers, even if they agree with you, and even if they're right.
Even if they're right.
So, keep in mind, I'm not eliminating the possibility that it's true.
But you shouldn't think it's true because there was some study.
If you think it's true because there was a study, Or that somebody corrected the study from wrong to right.
It's like you learn nothing during the pandemic.
None of the data is useful.
At least believable.
None of it.
All right.
Ian Bremmer and some others are talking about all of Biden's foreign policy wins.
Here's a list of things which Biden could brag about.
He kept NATO strong.
Apparently Japan and South Korea were having a tough time with each other.
And it was getting tense, but the Biden administration got them to talk and it seems like tensions have gone down.
So that's good.
Then also the China tariffs are still in place.
The other Trump tariffs.
So not much change there.
And that's considered good.
And then Biden negotiated to get China to stop sending fentanyl precursors to the United States.
So that's all good, right?
Right?
You're not going to disagree with me, are you?
So look at all these wins.
Then he also stopped China from harassing our American aircraft.
Big win there.
So that's pretty strong.
Look at this list.
I'll read it again.
He kept NATO strong.
He got Japan and South Korea to get together.
I think Ian Bremner said, you know, that was as substantial, or somebody did, that was as substantial as the Abraham Accords.
You know, it wasn't much in the news, but real big deal.
So big win there for Biden.
And the fentanyl, you know, stopping the fentanyl, that's a pretty big deal.
And then stopping the Chinese Rasputin.
So that's all of his big wins.
It's pretty good, huh?
Let's take a look at this.
Keeping NATO strong.
Am I wrong or did Trump get NATO its biggest funding of all time?
The argument here is that Trump kept saying, is NATO useful?
He should keep saying that.
He should say that about literally everything we give money to.
Do we still need these bases in other countries?
Maybe.
But he should ask that question.
Do we still need to give money to this or that?
I don't even care what this or that is.
Maybe you should ask that question.
Maybe you should put them on their heels and say, I'm not so sure I should give you any money.
You tell me why I should give you some money.
To me, that's a better way to handle things.
So if somebody is interpreting that Biden's got the better handle on things by telling NATO they can have anything they want and we'll back them, that feels like stupid.
So are we calling his accomplishment something that, in my opinion, looks just sort of stupid?
It's bad negotiating to say, NATO, all good.
Take our money.
NATO, all good.
No.
You've got to make them prove it.
You better make sure that they're doing something we want to spend our money on, and you should have them on their heels all the time.
That's just basic leadership.
How about that Japan and South Korea thing?
See, that's something that no other administration would be able to handle, right?
How the hell hard was it to get Japan and South Korea to not start a war?
I don't think that was the highest level of difficulty.
If you're going to compare this to the Abraham Accords, seriously?
Seriously?
Now, I know that Japan and South Korea have a long, long history.
I don't feel like the level of difficulty there was too high.
Just sort of had to get them in the same room.
All right.
Big deal.
Then what about the China tariffs?
Well, literally, that's something Trump did, and just Biden didn't break it.
But then the part about he got China to agree to stop sending fentanyl?
You know that didn't happen.
Nothing like that happened.
It's the same thing that Trump did.
And Trump said, stop sending, and they said, oh yeah, sure.
Yeah, we're trying as hard as we can.
And no, nothing is happening on fentanyl.
So to imagine that you could just throw this in the story, like it's his biggest accomplishment.
None of it's happening.
It's not even real.
And what about stopping the Chinese harassing American aircraft?
Is that an accomplishment?
No, because they wouldn't have even done it if Trump had been president.
Am I wrong?
Trump would have just said, once is too many.
Just stop that.
And I think they would have stopped.
So this is the weakest list of international, you know, and then it forgets that he's involved in several wars.
Wow.
Anyway.
I've got a solution for the Red Sea.
It's kind of obvious.
So, you know, the Houthis are out there shooting missiles and stuff.
And we think Iran is behind all of it, of course.
And Iran has some ship called the Bashad that's in that area.
That we think is part of their, you know, their spy bad operation, and that it's giving some kind of intelligence to the Hooties to know what to shoot, maybe, or doing some other bad things.
Some have called it a floating armory.
So it's basically a military, a serious military ship in the Red Sea.
But Iran has said that the purpose of that ship, here's good news, is to, it's an anti-piracy ship.
So the point of the ship is to stop all that piracy, meaning the Houthis.
So it's an anti-piracy thing.
So good news, right?
Iran's on our side.
Yeah, here we thought they'd been funding the Houthis and they were all happy about the missiles coming and bothering us.
But no, it turns out Iran says that they don't like the piracy either, so they got their own ship there to deal with it.
Do you see the solution yet?
Or do I have to connect the dots?
Let me tell you a little story that might allow you to connect the dots.
Do you remember once there was a Russian pipeline to Europe?
Sort of a gas pipeline.
And then, sadly, it blew up.
It blew up.
And then we blamed, I believe we blamed Putin for blowing up his own pipeline.
Well, later we found out that might not have been exactly true.
But it makes me wonder.
Assuming that we take Iran at its word, and why wouldn't they?
They've never lied to us before.
And they say that it's an anti-piracy thing.
You know who would not like that?
You know who would really not like an anti-piracy ship right in that Red Sea area?
The Hooties.
And imagine if the Hooties decided to fire a missile and destroy that ship.
I mean, imagine.
Because that's exactly what the Hooties do.
Yeah.
They'd want to get back at anybody who's trying to stop their piracy and their bad intentions there.
So, I think, you know, just in the same way that Putin destroyed his own pipeline, we might find the Houthis attacking those Iranian ships, and that would be terrible.
I mean, that would be a tragedy.
So, you know, maybe the Houthis can take out those Iranian ships, and maybe that will Solve the problem.
We've done it before.
No, I don't think that's a good idea, but it's funny because we've done it before.
It would be totally in character for us to sink their ship and say, I don't know, it's the hoodies.
We're doing what we can, but we can't stop every missile.
And if you believe, if you think that's going to happen, watch for the cat on the roof.
Look for a story, that would be a fake story, that says, it looks like those Hooties fired a missile at the Iranian ship, but luckily an American ship intercepted the missile and shot it down.
Because we don't want a war, you know?
Yeah, we don't want a war.
So we're going to protect that Iranian ship from those damn Hootie missiles.
That's the way I'd play it.
So if you see that it sounds like we're going to protect the Iranian ship from a Houdini missile, we're going to sink that ship.
That would be the hint that it's coming.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, again, the finest live stream you've ever seen in your life.
Thanks for joining there on the X and YouTube and Rumble Studios.
I'm using the Rumble Studio free software to broadcast all at the same time.
And of course, if you are on the locals platform, you get lots of extra.
You get my Robots Read News comic.
Which is a sensation.
And by the way, this has been brought to you by my book, Reframe Your Brain.
If you haven't seen the reviews for it, they're crazy.
The number of people whose lives have been completely changed.
It's Reframe Your Brain, right up there.
And it is changing lives like crazy.
You just read the reviews, you can see for yourself.
