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, AI Safety Institute, Medical Procedure Masking, Peter Navarro, Hunting Republicans, Sunny Hostin, X Platform Phone, Loneliness Epidemic, Antisemites, Tucker Interviews Putin, President Putin, Tucker Carlson, Hur Biden Decision, Biden’s Willfulness, MSNBC Spin, President Biden, 2024 Michelle Obama, SCOTUS, President Trump, Netanyahu Total Victory, 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 High Line of Human Civilization.
Wow, do we have a show today.
I feel sorry for everybody who has a show later today, after I've covered all the interesting things.
There'll be nothing else to say.
But if you'd like this experience to go up to levels that we can't even understand with our tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice of 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 of the dopamine here, the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
So good.
Well, I'm going to start with some palate cleansers, but of course I will be talking about The Supreme Court case about Colorado and Trump, and of course the Putin interview with Tucker, and we'll talk about Biden's brain, and at the end I'm going to talk about some persuasion that Israel is using, quite successfully.
So wait for that, that'll be toward the end.
All right, well, I saw an AI researcher, James Zhao, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.
He thinks AI models are getting substantially worse over time, and potentially it's because of the result of interacting with humans.
Now, I would like to remind you that I think I might be the only person who is predicting that AI will hit a wall.
It's going to hit a top.
And that it probably already did.
Now that's not to say that AI won't keep getting better at image generation and playing chess and doing math and writing code and translating languages.
It's going to do a whole bunch of things really well.
But I don't think it's going to get smarter in the way that people think of smart.
You know, like I said, it'll do tasks that are, you know, automated kinds of things like math.
It'll do a lot of things faster.
But here's what I think.
I think humans will find ways to cripple it and keep it from getting smarter than us.
Because if AI gets smarter than us, we will lose all our power.
Do you know what I mean?
All of the rest of the news that I'm going to talk to you about today are things that we can't agree on.
What if AI got smart enough that it could tell us what was true?
We wouldn't put up with that.
We would immediately say it's broken.
We'd turn it off.
We'd reprogram it.
Because the people who are wrong are often in charge.
So they're not going to put up with AI telling them they're all wrong and everything is stupid and it's a bad idea.
Imagine just taking everything that Joe Biden has done this year, put it in front of AI, that everybody agreed was smarter than people.
And then the AI says, you know, these are a bunch of bad ideas, and it's pretty obvious you should get rid of him under the 25th Amendment.
What are you going to do with that?
Are you going to say, well, I'm glad we've got a smart AI who just told us what to do, and we'll go do that?
Nope.
You're going to say the AI is broken, you're going to say the AI is biased, you're going to say the other side programmed it, and you're going to do what you think is right.
And by the way, that AI must be getting dumber.
Yeah.
So listen to this.
The U.S.
Department of Commerce announced the launch of the AI Safety Institute Consortium.
It already has 200 stakeholders, including OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and Meta, and they're all there to come up with safe development procedures for AI.
Is there anything else I need to tell you to convince you that AI will be ruined by human activity?
It's a committee.
It's a committee to decide how to keep it safe.
What do you think that's going to include?
I'm just going to take a guess.
Let me take a wild guess.
The Committee to Keep AI Safe is going to build DEI into it, because there's nothing safer than diversity.
It's going to build CRT and ESG into it, because We all like equity.
It's going to make sure that it doesn't say anything that offends anybody.
So that gets rid of everything useful.
And it's going to make sure it doesn't disagree with anybody who's got power in the United States, because that would be very unsettling.
So it can't do anything useful, provocative, or outside the domain that we think is safe.
What's that sound like?
It sounds exactly like censorship on the internet.
Why would AI be different?
We've eliminated human free speech by saying we're trying to keep ourselves safe.
That happened right in front of you.
We all watched it.
We're going to keep you safe.
And to do that, you better get rid of your free speech about whatever you think about these vaccinations and whatever you think about masks.
You better get rid of that free speech.
It's going to happen to AI.
You think AI is going to be the only entity that can have free speech?
Because imagine this.
Imagine I say, you know, There's some things I would certainly never say, but here's my AI to tell you its opinion.
It's not my opinion.
It's the AI talking.
There's no way that will be allowed.
We don't have a system that would allow AI to get smarter than us.
And that's not a very high bar.
Except, as I say, coding and math and playing chess and stuff.
It'll be great at that.
All right, here's some fake science update.
Jay Bhattacharya, you know him from being right about everything about the pandemic.
He tweets that the CDC commissioned scientists to see if N95 masks work better than surgical masks for healthcare workers.
Now, we're not talking about the pandemic.
We're talking about ordinary medical procedures.
Now, I don't know why they needed to study this.
Am I right?
Because I've just spent the last three years being told over and over and over again that N95s work.
You know, I'm not talking about COVID, but they work in the medical context.
But those regular little ones that we wore, you know, they're not going to perform as well.
What do you think the science said?
Science said, no difference.
Let me say that again.
After three fucking years of listening to every expert in the world tell us that, you know, the one thing we know for sure Like, we might be guessing and speculating on a lot of things, but there is one thing we know for sure.
Outside of the context of COVID, you know, with regular medical stuff, the N95s work, and those other ones, well, you know, kind of not so well.
Turns out nothing like that was the case.
And so what did the CDC do when it commissioned a high-quality study and it came back saying there was no difference?
The CDC decided to ignore the evidence Because they didn't like the answer.
And so they told the scientists that they were wrong.
So, how about AI?
We just did a high quality study, and then the people who didn't like the answer said the study must be wrong, because it was opposite of what they expected.
Do you think AI is going to get treated differently?
The moment AI tells us something we don't want to hear, we're going to reprogram it.
We're not going to say, wow, that AI sure got smarter than us.
Nope.
Nope.
We don't work that way.
That's just not a human activity.
All right.
Sam Altman's raising money for super AI chips.
He thinks he might need $7 trillion.
What?
What were you doing today?
I think I'm all important because I got a little podcast going on here.
Look at me.
I got a couple thousand people looking at me.
I'm really killing it today.
What's Sam Altman doing?
He's raising seven trillion dollars for the most transformative technology in the history of humankind, and that's okay too.
So, I mean, I'm sure what you did today was good too.
Oh, it's all about the same.
Equity, I say.
Well, Peter Navarro is not getting bail while he's appealing his conviction for not submitting to Congress to testify.
Do you see something terribly wrong with this?
As in, maybe if he'd beaten up some police officers, he would get out faster?
Like literally?
He should have assaulted a police officer?
Because I hear if you do that you get out right away.
But he refused to participate in a corrupt process as he saw it.
And he doesn't get bail to appeal it?
Really?
It's not like he doesn't have an appeal.
I'm pretty sure he does.
I don't know what the basis would be.
I'm sure he has an appeal.
How do you interpret this other than Republicans being put in jail and being haunted?
It's exactly what it looks like.
The justice system is completely corrupt.
Do you know the host of The View named Sunny Hostin?
Yes, she's a host named Hostin.
And the funny thing is that she's always negative.
And her name is Sunny Hostin.
So she's literally Hostin Negativity, but her name is Sunny Hostin.
But she's also very much in favor of reparations.
She really likes the slavery reparations.
Even now, after doing a DNA test to find out that she's descended from Spanish slave traders.
Awkward.
Awkward.
But even though she's descended from Spanish slave traders, she's still in favor of reparations, but I believe she feels she should be exempt.
She didn't say that, but I feel like that's the essence of it.
It's like, I'm descended from Spanish slave traders.
That's completely different.
You know, who am I going to give reparations to anyway?
Somebody over in Spain?
So anyway, consistency is not real big.
I saw a Jennifer Cabani tweet.
There's a UCLA professor who was suspended.
Do you remember this story?
He was suspended for refusing to grade black students leniently after George Floyd.
Apparently, there was a movement that black students should get inflated grades because of what happened to George Floyd, and maybe it caused them distress.
He refused to do it, and it ruined his career, including his lucrative expert witness business on the side, and so he's suing UCLA for $19 million.
$19 million.
Will he win?
I don't know.
It depends if the courts are completely corrupt.
But I think he might.
I think he might.
It's 2024, anything can happen.
Okay, there's a high school debate.
James Fishback is writing about this on X. The National Speech and Debate Association, they eliminated a high school debate topic The topic was about civil disobedience.
And the reason that they didn't want to have the high school debate on civil disobedience was because it would put some students in a position of listening to arguments that they didn't align with.
That actually happened.
A high school debate was canceled because they didn't want to put the students in a position of hearing an opinion that was opposite of their own.
OK.
Sure.
Well, apparently the X platform is going to have its own phone for audio and video and texting.
And Elon Musk says he's going to get rid of his regular phone and use only the X platform for text in a month or so.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
How does that work?
Does it work through the regular phone network?
Because you'd have to have some connections just to have all the coverage.
I always wondered how other phone companies get access to the proprietary networks of existing people.
So I don't know how that would work, waiting for details, but what if it worked for everybody?
I mean, is it possible that for $20 a month I'll be able to make unlimited phone calls?
Is that going to happen?
Because I think it might.
What would that do to the entire cell phone business?
And do you think it's obvious that Elon Musk is going to make a phone?
Doesn't seem obvious.
Like the most obvious thing is you should make a phone.
And it should be based on an AI model, where it's not a bunch of apps.
It's just something you talk to.
I don't know.
I think that's coming.
So there's new news that the loneliness epidemic is worse than we think, and young people 15 to 24 reported a 70% drop in time spent with friends after the pandemic.
A 70% drop in spending time with friends.
Young people.
And with the elderly, it's even, you know, it's like critical.
But the new information is that loneliness increases the risk of premature death by nearly 30%.
Loneliness increases the risk of premature death, that you call excess mortality, by nearly 30%.
Now, it's science, so I don't believe any science, so I'm not sure any of that's true.
But, do you believe that loneliness does have an impact on life expectancy?
Yes or no?
As someone who has experienced it, I would say it's obvious.
You can feel the impact on your health.
It's just like being under a weighted blanket.
I mean, you can't not miss it.
I mean, you can't miss it.
So, let me propose this.
Excess mortality is fully explained by the excess loneliness.
The extreme amount of extra loneliness, if it does have the substantial impact on premature death, is the only thing I can think of that would affect every person in the same way.
In other words, every demographic, from young to old, every race, every gender, because that's what excess mortality is doing.
The excess mortality is hitting everybody.
Or every group.
Not everybody.
But every group.
And I couldn't think of... I was actually speculating it might be something with the food supply.
Because if the excess mortality were simply vaccinations, that would be the easiest thing in the world to check.
You just say, did you get vaccinated?
Yes or no?
And then you sum up their excess mortality of that group.
So, has anybody seen a study that says that the vaccinations cause the excess mortality?
Where they actually studied as a control group?
If you've seen that, send it to me.
Because I've only seen the ones that say that the entire population has excess mortality.
I've never seen anybody look at vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
So... For excess mortality.
So if you've seen that, let me know.
But I think this would explain all of it.
You know, unless it was... It could be the study was funded by the makers of the shots.
If that's true, then I don't believe any of it.
But consider that we have an obvious... An obvious candidate for excess mortality.
That would be more to public policy, wouldn't it?
So I think that the decision for the lockdowns may be the entire excess mortality.
If we hadn't locked down, we wouldn't be socially so, you know, pushed back.
All right.
I have a challenge to the anti-Semites watching this show.
I know there are always some.
And it goes like this.
I need you to be more credible than the people who believe that aliens are visiting the Earth and that they're crashing their ships on a regular basis.
Now the reason I don't believe any aliens have come to Earth is because nobody seems to produce a piece of wreckage, nobody who's seen it directly seems credible, and the whistleblowers tend to be people who talk to people who say they saw it, and there's no good photograph.
Now, I'd like you to take the same standard and apply it to your belief that there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
And here are the questions that you need to answer for me before I want to hear from you again.
Okay?
Now, if you can answer these questions, then your hypothesis would have some weight.
But if you can't answer these questions, ask yourself why.
Question number one.
How could it be that the elites in Davos and the WEF are really the ones in charge if it's also really the gigantic Jewish worldwide conspiracy?
Or are you saying that one is a subset of the other?
So just be clear.
I'm not saying what is or isn't.
Just be clear.
What do you believe?
And then explain to me how things would Explain to me why there are no whistleblowers.
If there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and we know that Jews don't seem to agree on anything, like even the Jews living in Israel right now don't agree that there should be ongoing war over in Gaza.
That's a pretty big thing to disagree on.
That's a pretty big disagreement.
They've got, what, 12 political parties?
Because they don't agree on much.
In the United States, you've got the conservative Jews, you've got the liberal Jews, you've got the ones who are very pro-Israel needs to be a country, the others who say, why is it a country?
So with all of those different kinds of Jews, If you believe there's a worldwide conspiracy where they've really buttoned it up, and for hundreds of years, we seem to not be able to get a whistleblower, explain why there's no whistleblower.
Because you know they're not all on the same team.
You know that.
So, not one of them?
Not a single person is willing to say, yeah, I was in a meeting, and I gotta tell you, worldwide conspiracy, that's all we talk about.
How about an internal document?
We have internal documents for every damn thing.
For everything.
Show me the internal document where they plan their worldwide takeover.
How about this?
If you want to convince me there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, I want you to explain to me which culture you're aware of, anywhere in the world, in which the people with the best educations don't run things.
If there's one of those, then that's a pretty good argument.
If you can find me a country where the most educated demographic Doesn't have all the power?
Then I would say, huh, there's something weird going on in America because the most educated part of our public seems to have all the good jobs.
That would be very suspicious to me.
If the other countries found out that getting a good education really retards your ability to get a good job.
So explain to me how America would look different if you accepted that the people with the best educations almost always have the power.
And you would want them to.
You would want them to.
We literally go out of our way to elect people and promote people who are better educated.
So why would this be the exception?
Why would this be the one time That the most educated people in America are not in charge?
They should be.
If everything is working in a perfectly normal way, that's exactly what you would see.
So if you send me a big picture of how many Jewish people are in charge of corporations, especially the media, I say that's what I would expect it to look like.
What would you expect it to look like?
If the only explanation was educated people get better jobs, how would that look?
So, that's my challenge to you.
Let's talk about Tucker and Putin.
How many of you watched the Tucker interview, Tucker Carlson with Vladimir Putin?
Quite a few of you.
Let me give you my summary of it, and a few other thoughts.
Number one, the question was, is Putin like really, really smart and he's all there?
And that's mostly what I'm seeing today.
I'm seeing a lot of smart observers saying, that Putin guy, he is really together.
And one of the evidences that people are using is that he gave a long history lesson
As an answer to you know one of Tucker's first questions he gave an extended history lesson with dates and names and it was like a Thousand-year history of Ukraine and Russia and how everything came to be And many of you use that as an example of how on the ball Putin is that he could do that To which I say I didn't see that at all
You know, it's obviously subjective, but what I saw is somebody who couldn't read a room, because wasn't the whole point of Putin talking to Tucker to convince non-Russians?
He wasn't talking to Russia, because Russia seems to be on his side.
He was talking to everybody not in Russia.
And if he believed that that thousand-year history lesson was persuasive to Americans, That's just sort of dumb.
That seems a little clueless to me.
It seems like not reading the room at all.
It feels like an old man that nobody knows how to say no to, so he's just going to ramble because he can.
It looked like he was showing off that he had a grasp of history, and that showing off seemed to be his dominant Motivation, it did not seem like he was trying to convince anybody of anything, which was stupid and absurd, and to me it looked like age-related.
Now, I'm completely aware that you all disagree with me.
I think maybe 5% saw it the way I saw it.
And here's my take, and you will also disagree with this, but I'm going to be, I'm not going to back off it.
We've been looking at our president for a long time, Biden.
If you have in your mind that Biden is what a president looks like, and then you saw Putin, it is quite natural that you would say, my God, Putin is well put together.
But, you know, compared to what we're seeing, it's terrible.
If RFK Jr.
had been president for three years, and every time he talked, whether you agreed with him or not—agreeing with him is different—but every time he talked, it was smart, do you think that Putin would look so clever then?
No.
It's a comparison thing.
Now you're going to reject my frame.
You're going to say, no, Scott, I'm not comparing him to Putin because I'm mentally not doing that.
I'm telling myself not to.
And I'm examining my own thoughts and I know I'm not.
I'm definitely not doing that.
Well, you're wrong because you can't not do it.
You can't turn it off.
You are only a comparison pattern recognizing machine.
You cannot make your brain be something it's not.
You compare things to other things, period.
You don't know how to turn that off.
And if you were comparing Putin to anybody, it was definitely Biden.
And you can't turn that feature off.
And so, It will guarantee that you see Putin as better than he is, because your comparison is so bad.
So I think that's the reason I saw Putin looking old, and looking like a rattling on, like an old man who didn't know that Basically, he couldn't read the room.
He didn't seem to have the facility to know what would come across more effectively.
Now, toward the end, I'm going to talk about Israel and some persuasion that they're doing, and you're going to see the difference.
You're going to see the difference between good persuasion and bad persuasion.
And that was bad persuasion.
I think Putin failed.
I think he looked nervous.
I thought he looked... Somebody said this, so I'm stealing this.
He looked like somebody who's not used to answering hard questions, because he doesn't get them.
So, I don't know that we learned anything.
Do you think we learned anything?
Was there any new stuff?
We heard Putin believes that the CIA blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
If you were paying attention, you already believe that to be true.
He believes that there's some historical precedent that gives Russia some control over Ukraine.
He believes that NATO was the aggressor and, you know, they've been warned many times.
We kind of knew that.
So I don't know that we learned anything new.
It wasn't news making.
Putin says he tried to basically be on the same side as the United States and Europe a few times, once with Bill Clinton, in which he said, do you think Russia would ever be able to join NATO?
Which is funny.
And Bill Clinton actually thought maybe so, but his people told him no.
Who do you think his people are?
Who do you think told Bill Clinton, no, you cannot make peace with Russia so productively that they're actually part of our own military protection?
Well, I assume, I assume it was the military-industrial complex, and I assume it's because there are too many people who went to school to learn how to be spies against Russia.
I think it was just the deep state said, you can't do that.
So I think that Putin is telling us that even Clinton was not in charge.
And I think he's telling us that Biden is not in charge.
And there seems to be a suggestion that maybe the CIA or some shadowy group is really running the country.
But then the weirdest part is Putin kept claiming that He was acting sort of petulant that his offers to negotiate and things like that were not taken seriously, and at one point there was a Minsk agreement, so he thought there was an agreement, but then Boris Johnson shot it down.
Now, if only I had some way to do a Boris Johnson impression.
Boris Johnson shot it down.
So why do you think Boris Johnson shot down something that looked like a reasonable agreement?
Probably because whoever got to Bill Clinton also got to Boris Johnson.
You know, not the exact same people, but something like it.
So now we've seen several instances where the leaders, or the people we thought were the leaders, were all about the peace, but they couldn't have the power to do it.
Well, why don't the leaders have power to make peace?
Probably because it's exactly what you think it is.
They're not in charge, at least of the war decisions.
All right, let's see, what else?
And Putin, you know, pointed out that the CIA did a coup in Ukraine, you know, right in the basically the front steps of Russia.
And what else?
Let's see.
How many people thought Tucker was scared he was going to be murdered at any minute?
So to his credit, let me say this unambiguously.
Tucker sat across from Putin and probably asked him the hardest questions he's ever been asked, and was making Putin pretty uncomfortable.
And I gotta say, I saw a cartoon meme of Tucker leaving the interview with a wheelbarrow to carry his own balls, because they were so big.
So I thought Tucker did a good job, however, Well, let's talk more about that, and then I'll give you the other side of the coin.
So one of the things that Tucker asked them is, you know, why don't you give us back that captive, is it Wall Street Journal?
There's a reporter over there that Russia says was a spy, and Wall Street Journal reported, yeah.
Young guy, so they're holding him, but Putin was saying that that needs to be negotiated by the spies.
So he says his spies and America's spies need to work it out and it's probably going to be some kind of a deal where they get something and we get something to get him back.
Now his claim, Putin's claim, is that the guy is actually a spy and that whether he worked for anybody or not he was involved with getting secrets and passing them on.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think it's true?
That he got some secrets to pass them on?
Or do you think that Putin just made up something so they could capture another American so they'd have more to negotiate?
Who knows?
Yeah.
You should not make any assumption about whether that's true.
My take on the entire thing is that Putin seemed to be lying at least half of the time.
That was my take.
It looked like he was lying at least half of the time.
Now, by lying, I mean that he's leaving out context and not telling you the full story and spinning it, you know, that sort of thing.
So, let me give you this warning.
I've told you about what I call the documentary effect.
If you watch an hour-long documentary and it's just taking one point of view, you will think you've been convinced.
You will always be convinced by a documentary because it doesn't show the other side.
Well, likewise, if you saw Putin talking for two hours and you thought you learned something, consider that it's the opposite.
Consider that it made you dumber.
You got that?
Because what Putin said was things you already knew, but then there were a bunch of, you know, spinny things where there were things that it was the Russian view.
If you believe you got smarter because you heard Putin talk, it's the opposite.
Yeah, very the opposite.
He made you dumber because you might have believed some of the things he said, and they should not be believed.
Because it's a documentary effect problem, where there's nobody there to say, yeah, but what about this context?
And aren't you leaving this out?
And those things.
So every one of you who thought, wow, after seeing that, I have a different view of Putin, that's a mistake.
That's a mistake.
You should have exactly the same view of Putin before the interview as after.
Maybe give or take whether you thought he was showing signs of age, but that's different.
All right.
I love the fact that Tucker put him on the spot on camera to ask him why he wouldn't free the journalist.
That was both ballsy and exactly the right thing to do, because that guy can't be forgotten.
But you also have to take into account our own government lies to us routinely, and we wouldn't know if he was a spy or not.
You wouldn't know.
Do you think that guy's not a spy because your government told you?
Really?
Yeah, our government said he's not a spy.
So, oh, he's not a spy.
Now, by the way, I'm not saying he is.
That would be messed up.
I don't know.
I'm saying there's no way to know.
And if you believe Putin, you're stupid.
And if you believed the U.S.
version, you're stupid.
One of those is right, or more right than the other.
But you have no way of knowing.
No way of knowing.
Absolutely no way of knowing.
So I just look at that as like, OK, somebody said this, somebody said that.
It's bad for this guy.
I wish he'd be released.
But I think he's going to be part of some negotiations, it looks like.
So I would say that Tucker did a great job.
of news, but if you're treating it like news, you probably shouldn't.
You should treat it more like entertainment.
Entertainment wise, I liked it.
But my take is that whole history lesson was a little unhinged and he didn't read the room and it showed he's a little out of touch.
And his thought that somebody needs to talk to him, you know, he's offered too many peace plans already, so somebody's going to have to come to him, that just seems small.
So I don't think Putin came off well.
I thought Tucker did, and he's going to get a ton of pushback on this.
So, is there anything else to say about that?
It was entertaining, I don't think it made much news.
Oh, let me, one other thing.
I saw some numbers about how many people watched it.
And, so, all right, here's some numbers.
So just for comparison, so you see how well Tucker's doing.
Fox News primetime viewers average about two million viewers.
When Tucker was on Fox, his show brought in over $3 million.
So Tucker was the big traffic guy on Fox.
At the moment, MSNBC averages $1.2 million.
CNN averages under $600,000 for any moment they're watching.
And then this tweet I was looking at said that Tucker's got already 93 million views.
Now, is that a good comparison?
93 million views versus, you know, 2 or 3 million for the... Did we do the math right?
No!
No, everything's wrong with that math!
Everything's wrong with it.
Number one, I turned that on and then turned it off five times yesterday.
Because I would watch a little bit, I'd get interrupted, and I'd go back to it.
How many views do I have?
Is that one view?
Or am I five views?
Do you know?
I don't know.
So if you don't know that, you could be off by a factor of three or five.
Number two, when you say that CNN has 600,000 viewers, that means for one moment.
But that 600,000 isn't the same 600,000 watching it all day.
The next hour will be a new 600,000, mostly, etc.
So you should look at a full day or two of CNN to compare to a full day or two of people watching this live stream.
Am I right?
Next, the business model of Fox and MSNBC and CNN is not about the time that you spend online.
My view of these networks is that the show, the live show on the news, is really just a clip show.
All they're doing is creating content that then gets pushed around social media and gets pushed to their websites.
And it makes them credible enough that cables need to include them in their network so they get paid by the cable companies.
They don't really get paid by the advertising.
Did you ever wonder why the advertising on Fox News was so lame?
It's like, hey, I'm selling a pocket knife.
You're like, really?
That's like a major advertiser.
How about my pillow?
It's because the advertising is not where they make their money.
They make their money by saying to the cable operators, you can't have our show unless you pay us a bunch of money.
So the money comes from the cable operators, and the carriers, the dishes, and stuff like that.
So if you were to include CNN's full reach Which includes their entire show all day, all the clips that go on social media and get passed around, and then who goes to their website, and then you take maybe the 93 million is really one-fifth of that because people just signing in and signing out.
Those numbers are a lot closer than you think.
Now, I still think it's true that Tucker's numbers are much bigger, but it's not that much bigger.
It's not a hundred times bigger.
It's more like, it might be double.
Could be double, could be triple.
But I don't trust these numbers.
So the only thing here is a lesson on numbers, basically.
All right, here's the best.
Let's talk about the report from the special prosecutor.
Herr is his name.
I think it's funny that The Biden Biden was being investigated by a pronoun The guy's last name is her HUR, but you got investigated by a pronoun and Here's the Here's here's the I guess the summary of it So the summary is he absolutely did
With willfulness, he willingly and knowingly took confidential materials that he wasn't supposed to take.
Now that's what you get prosecuted for, right?
He knew he was doing it, and he knew that it was confidential, and he wasn't supposed to do it.
So, why aren't they prosecuting him?
Well, it appears that he did not remember a lot of things, such as when his son Bo died, and he was an elderly man with a poor memory, he has significant limitations, and a jury would be sympathetic, and that he didn't possess the mental state of willfulness necessary to prosecute.
Wait, if he didn't, he didn't have the, he didn't have the mental state of willfulness.
That means he's just not capable.
He's not competent.
Now, what did MSNBC say about this news that's the worst news that they could ever have?
Well, you have to watch MSNBC today.
You're missing a good show.
Because they're trying to find a way to downplay the fact that the special prosecutor said he's not going to prosecute, not entirely because of But largely because of the person he wants to prosecute isn't mentally capable of standing trial and looking like somebody who would know he committed a crime.
So, here's what MSNBC is saying.
Well, there's a little editorializing in that, isn't there?
Editorializing.
So they want you to think that her should have only been talking about the law.
And it was inappropriate for him to speculate on the mental state of Joe Biden.
He's no medical doctor.
And how weird is it that you would even consider what the defense would be when putting together your decision to prosecute?
To which I say, how dumb do you think the MSNBC viewers are?
The only decision you make when you're going to prosecute is what the defense would look like.
That's not the thing you forget, it's the main thing.
The main thing is, what's the defense?
Oh, he has an alibi on video with 100... Okay, then we won't charge him.
Oh, he's mentally incapable?
Oh, well, he wouldn't get convicted.
It's the main thing you think about, is what the defense would look like.
And they're selling it to their viewers as an irrelevant part of the decision.
And their viewers are so dumb, they're buying that.
I assume some of them.
Let's see.
And then one of them is saying that it's standard legal advice to tell your client to say you don't remember something when you're being questioned.
Now, is that true?
Is it standard advice?
Yes, it is.
Standard advice.
If you're not totally sure or it's not gonna help you in some way, see, I don't know, I don't remember.
And you see that all the people who do have all their faculties do that, right?
Now, given that that's normal, and anybody who's been in that business knows it's sort of normal for the person you're talking to to say, well, I don't remember that, I don't remember that.
But don't you think her and his team are completely aware of that?
Don't you think they know the difference between somebody saying, yeah, I don't remember, and somebody saying they don't remember when their son died or when they were vice president?
You don't think he could tell the difference between just somebody using legal advice and somebody who doesn't know what room he's in?
Yeah, I think he could tell the difference.
Lawrence O'Donnell said that the prosecutor doesn't understand the human mind, and that's why he failed to understand that under a pressure situation, such as the president being, you know, grilled, that the pressure makes you forget stuff.
So Lawrence O'Donnell says, yeah, for some reason the prosecutor doesn't understand, even though it's his very business, his expertise, and it's what he's done for years, that he doesn't understand the human mind and how it's harder to answer questions in that situation.
But it didn't seem to bother everybody else.
Seems like everybody else who gets asked questions does a pretty good job.
And they're of course focusing on the fact that he's cleared of all charges without mentioning why.
He's cleared of all charges!
Totally different than the Trump situation.
Now the one difference is that Trump allegedly obstructed and Joe Biden allegedly did not.
Who knows?
All right.
So Biden wanted to defend his brain, so he had to go in public and act like he's not crazy.
And Bill Belushian posted this.
He said that Biden expressed visible anger with the reporters while defending his memory and mental acuity.
He then said the president of Mexico refused to open up humanitarian corridors into the Gaza Strip.
That's a high-quality post, right there.
This is such a good post, I'm going to read it again, from Bill Malugin at Fox.
Biden expressed visible anger with reporters while defending his memory and mental acuity.
He then said the President of Mexico refused to open up humanitarian corridors into the Gaza Strip.
As Rand Paul humorously pointed out, About that same exchange.
Going to build a wall with Gaza and make Mexico pay for it.
And boy, are they going to be confused.
Now that's a good post, too.
Now, I've never had so much fun with the news.
Watching the Democrats try to protect Biden as he's disintegrating is kind of fun.
And I don't want it to end right away.
I want him to go all the way.
Yeah, we'll talk about the alternatives, but I really, at this point, I do want him to go all the way.
Because now it's just funny.
And I'm not going to stop laughing, no matter how long this goes.
Now, should I feel more empathy?
Because he's degraded.
Normally, yes.
But he's made himself literally my enemy.
If my enemy is mentally degraded, I'm going to laugh at that.
I'm going to mock him.
Because he's my enemy.
Why don't you let Peter Navarro out of jail?
And then we'll talk about me not mocking your fucking brain-dead asshole president.
How about that?
But I'm gonna mock the fuck out of him.
Certainly as long as Peter Navarro is in jail.
You know, I think that's fair game.
Let's see what else...
And then Joe Biden said, uh, he defended his, uh, his ability to bring everybody together.
He said, I said, I'm going to be president for everybody, whether you live in a red state or a green state, a red state or a green state.
He's doing great.
This all happened yesterday.
This one day of gaffes.
All right.
But luckily, the media is being totally objective and covering it the way they should.
For example, the L.A.
Times has an article, the headline says, Age Matters.
I'm thinking, there we go.
The L.A.
Times.
Age Matters.
This is about Biden.
I'm thinking, finally, a little bit of sanity.
Age Matters.
Which is why Biden's age is his superpower.
That's the rest of the title.
Age matters.
That's why that's why Biden's age is a superpower.
They really did that.
The L.A.
Times.
Now, I will remind you that they canceled me, but I was happy to be canceled by the L.A.
Times because they have the least credible news on this coast.
All right.
You need to talk about Michelle Obama.
Because Vivek Ramaswamy thinks Michelle Obama is going to swoop in and take the job of candidate, and apparently Glenn Beck has predicted it as well.
Now you might say to me, Scott, you're a big Vivek Ramaswamy supporter, and if he is so darn sure that Michelle Obama is coming in, doesn't that persuade you that she's coming in?
No.
Not even a little bit.
Not even the slightest amount.
I'm with Karl Rove all the way.
And I don't always agree with Karl Rove.
But Karl Rove says she hates politics.
There's just no way it's going to happen.
And I say you would have seen a lot of foreshadowing if this were even a possibility.
A lot of foreshadowing.
You would have seen something like a listening tour.
Right?
You know, it would be Michelle Obama saying, you know, our country is very divided.
I'm going to go on a listening tour just to see what people think, you know?
Maybe that'll help.
And then I would say, yeah, maybe she's preparing.
Or you would hear somebody say, uh, yeah, we saw a meeting of all these advisors and they met with her.
Then I would say, well, we don't know what she will say, but they're, they're pushing for it.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Michelle Obama is going to be a candidate.
So I'm going to go hard no.
Hard no.
Let's see your opinions.
Give me your opinions.
How many of you are yes or no on Michelle Obama running for president on this election cycle?
Yeah, she has no reason to.
Right.
Yep.
Yep.
All right.
So we can disagree on that, but, um, you know, I guess I, I really do have the Karl Rove opinion that it seems so preposterous that I can't even talk about it.
Like, I feel it's like a waste of energy to even like talk about it because it's so imaginary.
However, now that I've put myself all in the line and if I'm wrong about this, I'd be amazed.
I would say my level of certainty about her not running is the highest for any prediction I've ever made.
It's the highest level of certainty.
For what that's worth.
Yeah.
This is not a coin flip for me.
For me, this is 99.9% likely she's not running.
All right, meanwhile, after the border bill got shot down because it was a complete garbage and our government seems to not be working at all, there's a new Senate bill that got voted 67 to 32 in favor of advancing it.
So it's not passed, they're just advancing it.
A $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Taiwan.
Seriously.
We're gonna give money to four countries that are not the United States in the middle of a invasion.
How does that make sense?
How does that make sense?
And apparently Republicans also voted for it, not in big numbers, but quite a few.
I don't trust any, I don't trust any Republican who voted for this.
I would have to assume something else is going on with them.
So I looked at the list.
As a citizen, I feel like I needed to know the names on the list that voted for it.
I don't do that.
I do not do that.
Usually you'll hear like, you know, one dissident or something.
Oh, Romney didn't vote for it.
But this time I actually spent time trying to memorize all the names on the list, the Republicans.
Because I feel like I need to know that.
Whoever voted for this is not on my team.
I don't know what team they're on, but you need to know their names.
So learn their names for good reason.
And Taiwan.
What the hell are we doing for Taiwan?
Are you telling me Taiwan doesn't have enough money?
I thought Taiwan was doing okay.
They're running out of money.
They need our money.
That makes no sense.
All right, how many of you listened to the audio, it was fascinating, of the Supreme Court slapping around the state of Colorado who wants to take Trump off the ballot because they say he was involved in an insurrection which would disqualify him according to the 14th Amendment, they say.
But the Supreme Court seemed to have the opinion that he is not participating in the insurrection Which didn't actually happen in reality.
might not be enough to get him in trouble here.
So I feel like, let's see, oh.
If you listen to the judges asking the questions of the Colorado people, I finally got some of my faith back in the United States.
And especially when I was hearing the liberal justices just hammering on these Colorado lawyers.
And they were just purely on the Constitution.
So here's what I thought I might hear.
Because I haven't listened to a lot of Supreme Court conversations.
But we know that the rulings often come down pretty close to party lines.
You know, the liberals go one way and the others go another way.
So I thought I was going to hear a bunch of bias.
I thought that when the liberal justices were talking, they would ask questions that would suggest they wanted to go one way if they could make it happen.
Nothing like that happened.
So Judge, you're going to have to help me with the name, Katania Jackson?
Or I'll just say Justice Jackson?
I tuned in when she was talking, and I didn't know much about her.
But boy, do I have more respect for her after listening to her talking to the lawyers.
I thought she was really sharp on target, completely compatible with the Constitution, seemed to be right where I wanted her to be.
So, I'll tell you again, I've said this a number of times, the only thing protecting the United States from collapse is that the Supreme Court still has some credibility.
And I thought that it was improved yesterday.
I thought the Supreme Court looked a little bit better yesterday.
And that made me feel good.
Now, we don't have the ruling yet, right?
When is the ruling coming?
Ruling will come soon.
So we think it'll allow Trump to stay on the ballot.
All right.
And then Trump says in his statement about it, he says, every one of these cases you see comes out of the White House.
It comes out of Biden.
It's election interference.
It's really sad.
You know, normally I would say, you know, don't call everything election interference, you know, because you could spread that to everything.
But I think he's right.
It does seem to me that there is a White House-coordinated lawfare approach, which doesn't seem related to actual laws.
It does seem like the intention is purely to keep Trump off the ballot, which I would consider election interference at this level.
So if it was a little bit, let's say it was one lawsuit.
Or let's say it was one court case.
And let's say it was pretty solid.
I wouldn't call that election interference.
But if you have this full court press, every possible legal thing you can do, and you can be pretty confident that it's coordinated by the White House, to me that looks full Rico.
I mean, it's not just election interference, it's organized election interference.
So this is the very crime that they're accusing Trump of, insurrection.
To me, this looks like an insurrection.
Looks like election interference.
Yeah.
And I would suggest that no matter what happens, just claim that you don't remember.
That seems to work.
Now, the big question about the court case is who decides when an insurrection has occurred?
Who gets to decide an insurrection occurred?
Because there's no ruling that an insurrection occurred, which is why it's smart that the Republican members are, like Matt Gaetz is leading some members of the House, to do a resolution saying it wasn't a insurrection.
And I think that's good, because if you have no court ruling that says it is one, but you have members of Congress doing a resolution that says it's not one, That's a pretty strong frame.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I told you I was going to talk about Israel's persuasion.
Apparently they have a new slogan over there.
Total victory.
So total victories, and they're putting it on hats.
And apparently the hats are just being really popular.
And President Netanyahu, no president.
What is Netanyahu?
Prime Minister?
Netanyahu is using it.
And uses a lot, so he's repeating it every time he goes.
Now, what do you think of that as a persuasive slogan or branding of their efforts in Gaza?
Do you think that's strong or weak?
Total victory.
Sounds sort of ordinary, right?
When you first hear it, it's like, well, everybody says that, right?
Doesn't everybody Want to win?
Total victory?
But it's more than that.
It's more than that.
And here's why.
The biggest challenge that Netanyahu has is everybody who's not Israel saying, hey, hey, why don't you negotiate a little bit?
Why don't you do a little ceasefire?
You know, maybe trade some prisoners?
Stuff like that.
And there's a lot to say no to.
If you're Netanyahu, and you want to really, really completely defeat Hamas, which is what he wants to do, you don't want to be arguing every little point.
You want to just say, no, total victory.
Because you know what?
We all know what that looks like.
Let me give you a test.
Do you think that it will end with Hamas back in power in some limited way?
No.
That would not be total victory.
Do you think it'll end with some armed Hamas people still in the tunnels who could then emerge and maybe reform their movement?
No.
As long as there's even one of them left in the tunnel, they don't have total victory.
So the beauty of the frame is that it's so clarifying.
What does it look like?
Does it look like, you know, Hamas wins anything?
Did they get anything after this?
No.
No, the answer is nothing.
Total victory.
Total victory.
What about, would Hamas control the education system?
Or let's say people who changed their name from Hamas and said, oh, I'm not Hamas anymore.
Now I'm just something else.
But I'll be in charge of your school system, and we'll train the kids to have the same attitude we had.
Nope.
That would not be total victory.
That would look like losing to me.
So I think total victory has not only some callbacks to Winston Churchill, so it might remind you of that.
That would be a good comparison.
But I think it clarifies that they're not going to talk about the details.
Israel is going to have total victory, as they define it.
And if you have any questions whatsoever, if it's a gray area, no, they want that too.
There's no gray area.
If it's not total victory, you know exactly what that looks like.
And you know what total victory looks like.
So you could argue, you know, should they go for it or not?
But in terms of persuasion, I think the framing is perfect.
So that's exactly what I would have done in that situation.
Now, suppose you say, but Scott, is it really a negotiating position?
It could end up that way, but it would be the best negotiating position you could ever have.
No.
Total victory.
That's my position.
Nope.
Total victory.
So I think it's pretty strong, and I think you're going to see more of it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my show for the day.
I think you're all smarter and happier.
I literally recommend watching MSNBC today for the humor.
It is absolutely hilarious watching them spin around with all the latest news about Biden.
I actually want Biden to last now.
I think I said that earlier.
It makes sense to replace him.
If I were a Democrat, I'd replace him as soon as possible, if they can.
But I really hope they don't.
I would like him to actually be the person that Trump faces.
And then if they try to rig the election, hypothetically, it's going to be really obvious.
It's going to be really obvious.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
Thanks for joining on the X-Platform and Rumble and YouTube.
Go forth and have a great day today and a great weekend and I will see the locals people on the Man Cave tonight.